The surprise withdrawal of tax evasion charges against prominent businessmen Nazar “Shell” Mohamed and his son-turned-politician Azruddin Mohamed by the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) has sparked widespread public debate — not only over the decision itself, but also over what may have prompted it.

On Thursday morning, the Mohameds appeared before Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where the GRA’s prosecutor announced that the agency would no longer pursue the case. No explanation was offered for the abrupt withdrawal.

The charges stemmed from what the GRA had described as an extensive audit of Mohamed’s Enterprise’s gold export and financial records. Investigators alleged that the company underreported billions in income, resulting in G$34.07 billion in understated income tax between 2019 and 2023, with total sums due — including penalties and interest — amounting to G$191.17 billion.

According to the GRA, Nazar Mohamed filed an incorrect tax return declaring G$66,768,646 in liabilities on gold exports, understating taxable income by nearly G$4.94 billion, in violation of Section 110(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

His son Azruddin Mohamed, sworn in as a Member of Parliament on Monday, allegedly reported a liability of G$105,483,295, while understating taxes by over G$7.03 billion. Additional charges claimed that Nazar Mohamed also understated taxes by another G$6.96 billion.

Benschop’s Insight: The Extradition Connection

Offering an interpretation of Thursday’s development, social activist and talk-show host Mark Benschop, in a social media post, suggested that the GRA’s decision may have something to do with the December 22, 1931 Extradition Treaty signed between the United States and Great Britain, which could still apply to Guyana, then a British colony.

Benschop cited Articles 4 and 5 of the treaty:

Article 4 – “Prior, etc., offences”

“The extradition shall not take place if the person claimed has already been tried and discharged or punished, or is still under trial in the territories of the High Contracting Party applied to, for the crime or offence for which his extradition is demanded.

If the person claimed should be under examination or under punishment in the territories of the High Contracting Party applied to for any other crime or offence, his extradition shall be deferred until the conclusion of the trial and the full execution of any punishment awarded to him.”

Article 5 – “The Extradition”

“The extradition shall not take place if, subsequently to the commission of the crime or offence or the institution of the penal prosecution or the conviction thereon, exemption from prosecution or punishment has been acquired by lapse of time, according to the laws of the High Contracting Party applying or applied to.”

Benschop’s view is that pending local charges could have complicated or delayed any U.S. extradition request, and that discontinuing them may have been a step toward facilitating extradition proceedings.

U.S. Indictment and Extradition Case

In October 2025, a U.S. grand jury in the Southern District of Florida indicted the Mohameds on multiple counts, including conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and gold smuggling. The indictment alleges that they exported over 10,000 kilogrammes of gold without paying proper taxes or duties, costing Guyana an estimated US $50 million in lost revenue.

Extradition proceedings are now before Guyanese courts. The case was first heard by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, where the Mohameds were each granted G$150,000 bail and ordered to report weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station on Fridays between 13:00 and 15:00 hrs, beginning November 7, 2025.

Constitutional Right to Due Process

Under the Constitution of Guyana, every person is entitled to due process and fair trial before any deprivation of liberty or property. The Mohameds, through their attorneys, have communicated their willingness to exhaust that right, including pursuing the matter, if necessary, to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) — Guyana’s court of final appeal.

While Benschop’s theory offers a possible explanation for the government’s move, the GRA’s decision leaves unresolved questions about transparency, accountability, and the ultimate outcome of one of Guyana’s most high-profile financial investigations.