Summary
- CCJ Hearing Set: The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will conduct a case management hearing on Wednesday for Guyanese Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar ‘Shell’ Mohamed, regarding their extradition to the US.
- Appealing the ATP: The Mohameds are appealing a Guyana Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the Home Affairs Minister’s issuance of an Authority To Proceed (ATP), which triggered their extradition process.
- Allegations of Bias: Defense lawyers argue the Minister’s decision to issue the ATP was tainted by political bias and persecution, citing prejudicial statements made by top government officials, including the President and Vice President.
- Seeking a Stay: The appellants are asking the CCJ to halt the current extradition committal proceedings, arguing that the Minister’s administrative actions should not be immune to judicial review for bias.
- Background Charges: The Mohameds face US extradition following their October 2025 indictment on wire fraud, money laundering, and bribery charges connected to a US$50 million gold smuggling and tax evasion scheme.
GEORGETOWN – THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will conduct a case management hearing on Wednesday involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his businessman father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, who are contesting their extradition to the United States on fraud-related charges.
The Mohameds moved to the Trinidad-based CCJ, Guyana’s highest and final court of appeal, challenging a decision by the Guyana Court of Appeal. The lower court had ruled that Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond was merely performing an administrative function when she issued the Authority To Proceed (ATP) to a Magistrate Court to begin their extradition process.
The ATP paved the way for the court to issue arrest warrants for the Mohameds and initiated subsequent committal proceedings, which are currently before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman. However, the Mohameds are asking the CCJ for a stay of the current extradition committal proceedings. Their lawyers argue that Walrond’s decision was “infected” by political bias due to public utterances against the Opposition Leader. They add that these statements amounted to political persecution by his political opponents, namely President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall.
“The Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact when it failed to give due weight to the sheer prejudicial nature of the accepted evidence of innumerable statements uttered by the Minister’s political leaders to whom she was answerable… (and) who for several consecutive months prior to the issuance of the Minister’s ATP constantly advanced their views and acted as a pressure group in labelling the Mohameds as ‘criminals’, ‘tax frauds’, ‘dishonest’, ‘robbers’, etc., and ‘guilty’ of the very offences which formed the subject of the ATP,” the lawyers noted in the appeal.
The lawyers are also asking the CCJ to rule that the Guyana Court of Appeal erred in law when it found that the Minister’s issuance of the ATP, which set the extradition committal proceedings in motion, was merely an “administrative act incapable of attracting any actual, perceived or notional bias.” They argue this impermissibly immunizes the Minister’s ATP decision from being susceptible to judicial review for bias, effectively carving out a category of decisions in law that are immune from bias.
In their appeal, the Mohameds contend that the Guyana Court of Appeal failed to consider that the Minister, her government, and its leaders directly stood to benefit politically from the extradition of their main political rival and his father. They argue this political benefit explains the prejudicial statements made by her political leaders prior to the issuance of the ATP, which were designed to suppress the Applicants’ adverse political views.
The CCJ is also being asked to find that the Court of Appeal was wrong in law when it determined that the Attorney General was not infected with bias, presumed or apparent, despite unaddressed evidence of prejudicial statements he made against Azruddin Mohamed.
Furthermore, the defense states the Court of Appeal failed to consider that if the Magistrate ordered the committal of the applicants, the Minister would be obligated under the Fugitive Offenders Act to make the final decision on whether to issue an extradition order. Therefore, the Minister’s impartiality is indispensable to their right to receive a fair hearing from an unbiased decision-maker.
Also cited as a ground for appeal was the Guyana Court of Appeal’s holding that the ATP decision of the Minister—and any role of the Attorney General in facilitating or advising on it—could not be delegated to a person unaffected by presumed or apparent bias under section 27 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, Cap. 2:01, and/or the Carltona principle.
The appellants contend that the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to give due consideration to the fact that the ATP decision substantially encroaches upon fundamental rights, as it confers jurisdiction upon the court of committal and triggers the local extradition process, without which no arrest, committal, or extradition may occur.
The Mohameds also argue that the Guyana Court of Appeal made a mistake by relying on subsequent judicial safeguards, such as committal proceedings and habeas corpus, to conclude that bias was incapable of arising at the initiation stage of the ATP decision.
Additionally, the appellants say the Court of Appeal failed to consider the duty of fairness owed by the Minister to the Applicants/Intended Appellants, considering the substantial adverse impacts the decision would cause on their lives.
The Mohameds are challenging their extradition to the United States, where they are wanted on several fraud-related charges. They were indicted in the US in October 2025 on charges including wire and mail fraud, money laundering, and bribery linked to a US$50 million gold smuggling and tax evasion scheme. They were arrested in Guyana in October 2025 following a US extradition request. (CMC)
