A heated legal debate has erupted in Guyana over the granting of bail to individuals awaiting extradition, following the case of Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, who are wanted in the United States for alleged financial crimes. Attorney-at-Law Siand Dhurjon, representing the Mohameds, has challenged the claims made by Attorney-at-Law Sanjeev Datadin, who argued that bail should not be granted to fugitives due to constitutional prohibitions. Mr. Dhurjon countered that the High Court, under the Fugitive Offenders Act, has the authority to grant bail, and cited Section 3(1)(b) of the Bail Act, which explicitly allows bail in extradition cases. The Mohameds were each granted GY$150,000 bail by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman on Friday, pending the hearing of the US extradition request. Mr. Datadin referenced Article 139(i) of Guyana’s Constitution, which permits the loss of liberty in extradition proceedings, but Mr. Dhurjon pointed to precedents where bail was granted in similar cases, including Junior Da Silva’s extradition proceedings earlier this year. He also highlighted Section 15(2) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, which grants magistrates the power to remand or admit to bail in extradition cases. Attorney General Anil Nandlall emphasized that the next step is for the State to disclose the US-provided evidence to the defense lawyers, ensuring a fair hearing. The Mohameds, sanctioned by the US Treasury Department in June 2024 for alleged tax evasion on gold exports, are set to return to court on November 10, 2025. Mr. Nandlall dismissed claims of political motivation behind the case, asserting that the government has engaged Jamaican lawyers to ensure impartiality.
Mohameds’ lawyer provides evidence to rubbish Datadin’s ‘no bail’ for persons awaiting extradition
