Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman on Wednesday ruled that the constitutional issues raised by attorneys representing U.S.-indicted businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed in their extradition proceedings will not be referred to the High Court, allowing the case to proceed in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
The United States has requested the extradition of the father and son duo to face a series of criminal charges, including alleged money laundering and tax-related offences.
In her ruling, Magistrate Latchman held that the defence’s application under Article 153 of the Constitution, which sought to have the High Court determine the constitutionality of sections of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act of 2009, had no merit.
The court found that the issues raised were neither new nor unsettled and had already been addressed by superior courts in previous rulings, including Stephen Edward King v. Director of Prisons and Troy Thomas (Marvin Williams) v. Attorney General.
“This court sees no basis to activate the referral article,” Magistrate Latchman declared. “The court is guided by the principle of stare decisis and will not act outside of the decisions made in King and Marvin Williams.”
The defence, led by Attorney Roysdale Forde, S.C, had argued that the 2009 amendment unlawfully directs the judiciary to act in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and violates several fundamental rights, including personal liberty, equality before the law, and the right to a fair hearing.
They contended that the extradition treaty between Guyana and the United States lacks key safeguards, specifically those preventing “re-extradition” to a third state without ministerial consent.
However, Magistrate Latchman ruled that the question of “speciality” and re-extradition is a matter of state-to-state relations and not a right that can be personally asserted by the defendants. Citing Justice of Appeal Bishop’s reasoning in King, she noted that “the prisoner has no locus standi to plead before this court a fear of breach of the speciality rule.”
The court further found that a diplomatic note issued by the United States, providing assurances against third-party extradition, did not hold the same legal weight as a treaty obligation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which binds states to perform treaty duties in good faith.
Having dismissed the constitutional application, Magistrate Latchman directed that the extradition proceedings continue before her court. The case was adjourned to January 6 and 7, 2026, for the commencement of the substantive hearing.
