Mohameds granted bail after US seeks extradition
-case to continue November 10th
Leader of WIN, Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed were yesterday granted bail of $150,000 each by Magistrate Judy Latchman after the commencement of extradition proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court based on an October 30th request by the United States following an 11-count indictment by a grand jury.
The father and son were arrested after the US sought their extradition over a matter concerning alleged gold smuggling, fraud, and money laundering. The Mohameds were represented by a legal team comprising attorneys-at-Law Siand Dhurjon, Damien DaSilva, Nigel Hughes, Darren Wade, and Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde. Representing the state were Terrence Williams KC and Herbert McKenzie SC. After hearing submissions from both sides, Magistrate Latchman granted bail with specific conditions.
Both defendants must immediately lodge their Guyana Passports with the Clerk of the Court at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court. Additionally, they are required to report to the officer in charge at the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday, starting November 7th at any time between 13:00hrs and 15:00hrs.
The granting of bail means that Azruddin Mohamed can now attend the first sitting of the new Parliament on Monday where he is expected to be elected as Opposition Leader. The extradition matter has been adjourned until November 10th for the disclosure of evidence.
The state’s attorney Williams had moved to block bail for the defendants, citing the severity of the alleged crimes and what he said was the high risk of flight and interference with justice.
Addressing Court 7, Williams first established the legal grounds for the case. “It’s a question as to the criminal conduct, whether such criminal conduct would be an offence in Guyana as was conducted here,” he argued. He affirmed the court’s jurisdiction, stating that under common law principles, “If persons conspire and commit part of their conspiracy in Guyana, it is an offence which is
justiciable before the Guyanese courts.”
The state’s attorney then focused on the principle of equality before the law, making a pointed reference to Azruddin Mohamed’s potential political status. “It has been very evident, that Mr. Mohamed the younger has or may have a political office,” Williams noted. He stressed that the law must apply equally to all, regardless of position: “It is not that one who is a political officer or holds a political position should be treated better or worse than any other person.”
Williams detailed accusations, describing the Mohameds as being “engaged in an international criminal enterprise” with wide-ranging influence. He claimed the enterprise has “tentacles reaching into Venezuela, into high offices in Venezuela, tentacles reaching across the United States of America, into the Middle East.”
The prosecutor further addressed the scale of the alleged financial wrongdoing, stating that the offences sought for extradition concern sums of money “well in excess of (US)$50 million.”
The prosecution opposed bail for the Mohameds yesterday, warning the court of “serious flight and interference risks.” Prosecutor Williams cited intelligence suggesting the defendants were in contact with Venezuelan authorities, raising concerns they could “flee to Venezuela” to continue their illicit activities or “disrupt the peace and order of Guyana” using both their foreign and local criminal connections. Williams further argued that the defendants at large could “tamper with justice,” noting the presence of local witnesses to the crimes. He also connected the Mohameds to domestic instability, claiming they “supported the local criminal activities” that fueled recent unrest, specifically mentioning the “disruptions surrounding the unfortunate death of Adriana Younge in Essequibo.”
Defence attorney Siand Dhurjon rebutted the state’s arguments yesterday, characterizing the prosecution’s submissions as “new allegations heard for the first time.” Dhurjon emphasized that no charges have been laid in Guyana related to the alleged criminal activities.
Dhurjon suggested the entire proceeding was politically motivated. “Your honour these are new allegations heard for the first time,” he stated, pointing out that his clients, who “live very public lives across the length and breadth of Guyana,” have not even been questioned by local police regarding any of the supposed criminal enterprises.
He highlighted the source of the claims: “The only entity that has ever spoken about the Venezuelan connection with my clients would be the Vice President and their slew of commentators.” This, he argued, “only shows that these are politically motivated actions of our government to rid itself of a political opponent.”
The defence attorney challenged the state to substantiate its claims, particularly regarding alleged foreign assets. In response to a claim about Brazilian property, Dhurjon stated, “The property in Brazil is news to us and I think my learned friend should be put to prove what he is claiming… Not a single iota of evidence has been presented.”
Dhurjon also ridiculed the prosecution’s argument that the defendants had to be secretly arrested to prevent their escape. He cited the widespread public coverage of the case, referencing an October 6th Stabroek News article detailing the U.S. indictment and the public comments by the Attorney General and Vice President. “This is a matter of public notoriety over the last month,” he said, concluding that the notion they would have “gotten away” without a sudden arrest was “laughable.”
The defence continued its counter-argument, with Dhurjon questioning the legal foundation of the extradition request, particularly concerning the foreign charges.
Dhurjon specifically challenged the prosecution to identify local equivalents for the alleged foreign crimes. “He has failed to explain what is one single counterpart in our law… What is the counterpart in our law about mail fraud,” Dhurjon stated, concluding, “there is no law in Guyana that addresses mail fraud and it is not extraditable.”
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde then took the floor, backing the defence’s position and denying any links to criminal enterprises or Venezuelan connections. Forde dismissed the state’s claims as “silly, downright silly.” He also expressed deep concern that the statements appeared to “impute treasonable conduct on the presumptive Leader of the Opposition.”
Forde also addressed the prosecution’s concerns about flight risk, arguing that no legitimate basis for the claim has been presented, given his clients’ past conduct. He noted that the Mohameds “have been under surveillance by the Police Force of Guyana” and cannot “move to go to their neighbour’s house without being watched.”
To assure the court, Forde offered a commitment to strict supervision, stating, “Your Worship our clients are ready to report three times a day to the police, at 9, 12 and 3.” He went further, asserting they are prepared to report every two hours or even agree to “have police outside of their homes” if the court deems it necessary.
Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes, representing the defence, mounted a challenge against the potential rendering of the Mohamed family to the United States. Hughes’s primary contention centred on the process of rendering, a non-extradition transfer, which he acknowledged is legal under US law. However, his concern was less about US legality and more about the need to protect the defendants from an overly broad U.S. inquiry. Responding to an assurance from counsel Williams that the local authorities “wouldn’t act illegally,” Hughes pressed for a narrower scope on any potential transfer. He asserted that the Mohameds should be answerable to the US only for the specific charges already presented and nothing beyond that scope. The defence attorney drew a parallel to a previous high-profile case, explicitly mentioning the rendering of drug trafficker Roger Khan. Citing this precedent, Hughes expressed his determination to prevent a similar process from occurring with the Mohameds. “We are asking that that does not happen to the Mohameds,” the attorney stated.
Speaking with Stabroek News after being released on bail, Azruddin Mohamed recounted the manner of his arrest. He stated that he was travelling to court for another matter when masked officers with guns surrounded his car, threw him into the back of a pickup truck, and offered no explanation.
Adding to the drama, the press were initially barred from entering courtroom 7. An initial physical tussle ensued as some persons holding guns, not officers of the court, attempted to prevent journalists from being present for the initial parts of the proceedings. A Court officer later intervened and allowed members of the press to enter, without their phones.
Meanwhile, in a statement yesterday, Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC addressed the US extradition request.
He said that on the 30th October, 2025, the Government of Guyana received a request from the Government of the United States of America to extradite the two Mohameds pursuant to an extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom which extends to and remains in force in Guyana under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Fugitives Offender Act, Cap. 10:04 as amended by Act No. 10 of 2024.
“The arrest warrant was issued after a team of lawyers led by Terrence Williams, KC, Herbert McKenzie and Celine Deidrick, Attorneys-at-Law presented to the Magistrate an Authority to Proceed from the Government of Guyana accompanied by an Application for an Arrest Warrant as is mandated under the provision of the Act.
“The Mohameds are the subject of an indictment unsealed on October 6, 2025, by a United States Grand Jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida, which charges them with multiple offences including wire fraud, mail fraud, money-laundering, conspiracy, 1 aiding and abetting and customs-related violations connected to an alleged US $50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.
“The indictment alleges that between 2017 and June 2024, the accused conspired to defraud the Government of Guyana by evading export taxes and royalties on over 10,000 kilograms of gold, using falsified customs declarations and re-used export seals to disguise unpaid duties.
“The indictment further references the attempted shipment of US$5.3 million in undeclared gold seized at Miami International Airport, and the alleged under-invoicing of a luxury vehicle valued at over US$680,000”.
Nandlall added that the investigation into the Mohameds by U.S. authorities is understood to have originated in the mid-2010s, with intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation between Guyana and the United States dating back to 2016–2017. According to the indictment, he said that the alleged fraudulent scheme operated “from in or about 2017” through June 2024. In June 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned the Mohameds and their company, Mohamed’s Enterprise, citing allegations of tax evasion, trade-based money-laundering, and gold smuggling. Nandlall did not mentioned that serving Permanent Secretary under the PPP/C government was also sanctioned at the same time. Mae Toussaint Jnr Thomas was later quietly eased out of government.
Nandlall said that the Government of Guyana was first informed of the ongoing U.S. investigation through official diplomatic channels following the June 2024 sanctions. Reports indicate that U.S. agencies involved in the investigation included the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), he added.
“In March 2025, the Government of Guyana received a comprehensive dossier of evidence from U.S. authorities pursuant to mutual legal assistance arrangements. This dossier included documentation relating to gold export irregularities, falsified customs declarations, and undeclared shipments seized in Miami. 2 The two Mohameds will now be processed in accordance with the extradition framework set out in the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, as amended, in due compliance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Guyana and all other relevant laws”, Nandlall stated.
The Mohameds and Toussaint Jnr Thomas were sanctioned under the US Global Magnitsky Act. This Act authorizes the President of the United States to impose economic sanctions and deny entry into the United States to foreign persons identified as engaging in human rights violations or corruption.
