Committal hearings for the extradition of Guyanese Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, will resume in early September, following months of legal delay. Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman has set aside six days for the proceedings, running from 3 to 10 September at the Georgetown Magistrates' Court.

The resumption follows a ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice, which lifted a legal stay that had halted the process since March. That stay had been granted while the region's highest court considered a challenge brought by the Mohameds against the legality of the extradition request itself.

The defence had argued that the Authority to Proceed, a statutory document required before extradition proceedings can advance, was invalid. Their case rested on claims that the Home Affairs Minister who signed the document had done so under improper influence or bias, rendering it unlawful.

The CCJ rejected this argument. In its ruling, the court found that the defence had not produced evidence to support the claim of bias, nor shown that the Minister had disregarded legal requirements or taken irrelevant considerations into account when signing the authority. With the appeal dismissed, the matter now returns to the Magistrates' Court, which is tasked with determining whether the evidence put forward by the prosecution meets the threshold required for extradition under Guyanese law.

The extradition request stems from an 11-count indictment filed against the two men in a federal court in Florida. The charges include conspiracy, money laundering, and wire and mail fraud. American prosecutors allege that the Mohameds ran a gold smuggling operation over several years, using undervalued invoices, false customs declarations and reused government seals to move gold out of Guyana while evading detection.

According to the indictment, the scheme allowed the men to avoid more than US$50 million in taxes owed to the Guyanese state. The allegations first drew international attention in June 2024, when the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Azruddin Mohamed, his father and several associated companies, citing corruption and the smuggling operation. Both men have denied the allegations throughout, maintaining their innocence in statements issued after the sanctions were announced and again following the indictment.

Azruddin Mohamed leads the opposition party WIN, formed after his split from the People's National Congress Reform ahead of Guyana's 2025 general election. His prominence in national politics has added weight to a case that many in Guyana already regarded as consequential, given the scale of the financial allegations and their bearing on the country's gold export sector, one of its most significant sources of foreign revenue.

Locally, both men remain free on bail, though under conditions that restrict their movement. They have been required to surrender their passports and must report to police on a weekly basis. Those conditions have remained in place throughout the suspension of hearings and are expected to continue as proceedings resume.

Before the CCJ stay took effect, the prosecution had called only one witness. A senior official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave evidence concerning how the diplomatic channels for the extradition request were handled. Her testimony was left incomplete, and her cross-examination is expected to resume when hearings restart in September.

The case is being closely watched in Guyana, where it intersects with questions about the governance of the gold sector and the conduct of political figures who hold significant business interests. It also carries diplomatic weight, given the involvement of both the CCJ, the region's apex judicial body, and the American justice system, which is seeking custody of two Guyanese nationals to face trial abroad.

With the legal obstacle to the Authority to Proceed now removed, the Magistrates' Court is expected to move through the remaining evidentiary stages of the committal process over the six scheduled days, though further delays cannot be ruled out given the case's history.

‍