The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) today rejected an appeal by Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed against the Authority to Proceed used by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond to respond to an extradition request for them by the United States.
The CCJ also lifted a stay of the extradition proceedings against the Mohameds in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court. This means that the extradition proceedings against the Mohameds can now continue before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman.
The decision was read by Justice Denys Barrow. That decision had been authored by him and President of the court Justice Winston Anderson.
Three separate judgments were issued by the CCJ. The judgments left open the possibility of a later judicial challenge to the proceedings on the question of bias which had been raised in these proceedings. It was not found that the issue of bias was relevant in these proceedings.
One judgment denounced comments made in this matter by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC. Another judgment said that Azruddin Mohamed himself did not have “clean hands” in relation to his claim of attacks on him. He himself had made similar attacks on others.
The full decision of the court is to be made available by Friday.
A release from the CCJ follows:
CCJ DISMISSES APPEAL, ALLOWS EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS TO CONTINUE AGAINST GUYANESE OPPOSITION LEADER AND FATHER
Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. On Wednesday, 29 July 2026, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ/Court) dismissed an appeal brought by Mr Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition in Guyana, and his father, Mr Nazar Mohamed, challenging the validity of an Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act in connection with a request by the United States of America for their extradition.
The extradition request was received by the Government of Guyana on 28 October 2025. Two days later, the Minister of Home Affairs issued an ATP, which initiated the extradition process before the courts. The Applicants subsequently sought judicial review of that decision, alleging that the ATP was invalid because it was tainted by actual or apparent bias arising from public statements made by senior government officials during the 2025 election campaign. They also contended that the Minister had improperly consulted the Attorney General, who was likewise alleged to be biased.
The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge. The Applicants then sought special leave to appeal to the CCJ, which decided to hear the application for special leave and the substantive appeal at the same time. The Court also granted an interim stay of the extradition proceedings pending determination of the appeal.
At the CCJ, President Anderson and Justice Barrow, in a joint judgment, held that special leave should be granted. On the merits, they held that while the broad rule against bias can apply to a ministerial decision to issue an ATP, mere political bias would not vitiate its grant. They further found that the Applicants had failed to establish that the issuance of the ATP was tainted by bias in any relevant sense and emphasised that an ATP is a preliminary administrative step in the extradition process. The Minister’s role is to engage in the decision-making process contemplated by the legislation. The Applicants did not allege that the Minister failed to consider relevant factors or had relied on irrelevant considerations. Instead, they relied solely on allegations of political bias. The Judges found those allegations insufficient to invalidate the ATP.
President Anderson and Justice Barrow also expressed the view that challenges to an ATP may be filed before but, save in the most exceptional of circumstances, should be heard only after completion of the committal stage of the extradition process. Such an approach, they reasoned, would better align with Guyana’s extradition framework and international obligations.
In separate reasons, Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, and Bulkan agreed that the appeal should be dismissed but held that there was no legal bar preventing an early judicial review challenge to an ATP where bias is alleged. While finding no appearance of bias on the part of the Minister, they concluded that there was a real possibility of apparent bias on the part of the Attorney General. Nevertheless, they determined that any such apparent bias did not contaminate the Minister’s decision-making process or invalidate the ATP. The CCJ Judges further ordered that each party bear its own costs and underscored the importance of judicial independence, cautioning against public comments by public officials on pending judicial proceedings.
In a further separate opinion, Justices Ononaiwu and Eboe-Osuji agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. They stressed that allegations of bias must be assessed from the perspective of a fair-minded and informed observer who considers all the surrounding circumstances. On that test, bias is not made out in the particular circumstances of the present case. The CCJ Judges also highlighted procedural considerations concerning the timing of challenges to an ATP, observing that extradition proceedings themselves provide mechanisms for addressing potential unfairness.
Ultimately, the CCJ unanimously granted special leave to appeal but dismissed the substantive appeal. The interim stay of extradition proceedings previously granted by the Court was lifted. The Court further ordered that there be no order as to costs before the CCJ and reserved its decision on the costs in the courts below.
The appeal was heard by the full CCJ Bench comprising the Honourable President Mr Justice Winston Anderson, and the Honourable Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji, and Bulkan. Mr Fyard Hosein, SC, Mr Roysdale A. Forde, SC, Mr Sasha Bridgemohansingh, Mr Siand Dhurjon, Mr Damien Da Silva, and Mr Aadam Hosein represented the Appellants. Mr Douglas L. Mendes, SC and Mr Clay J. Hackett represented the First Respondent, the Minister of Home Affairs. Mr Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, Attorney General, Mr Nigel O. Hawke, Solicitor General, Ms Shoshanna V. Lall, Deputy Solicitor General, and Ms Dishon Persaud represented the Second Respondent, the Attorney General. Mr Arudranauth Gossai represented the Third Respondent, Magistrate Judy Latchman.
……………………..
The matter was heard virtually on April 21 before a full bench comprising CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson and Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Chile Eboe-Osuji, Chantal Ononaiwu, Denys Barrow, Peter Jamadar and Arif Bulkan.
The appeal challenged the legality of the extradition proceedings, with the Mohameds arguing that Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond’s issuance of the Authority to Proceed (ATP) was tainted by bias, rendering the process unlawful from the outset. Their judicial review application was previously dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
During the five-hour hearing on April 21, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, who led the arguments for the appellants, submitted that the principles of procedural fairness should apply from the earliest stage of the extradition process. He argued that the alleged bias at the ministerial level compromised the integrity of the proceedings and should be capable of immediate judicial review.
The panel of judges questioned whether those concerns could instead be addressed during the committal proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court or through a habeas corpus application. Hosein acknowledged that no specific unlawful act had been identified beyond the allegation of bias.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, also appearing for the appellants, argued that even if bias were established, the law allows for the minister’s functions to be delegated to another impartial authority rather than terminating the extradition proceedings altogether.
Appearing on behalf of Walrond, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes contended that the Mohameds had effectively waived any objection by engaging with the minister’s office before the Authority to Proceed was issued. He maintained that the minister’s role at that stage is administrative and limited to determining whether any legal bar to extradition exists.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC, representing the State, submitted that extradition is a sui generis process governed by international obligations and that the minister’s role is executive rather than judicial, meaning the full principles of natural justice do not apply at that stage. He also denied making public statements that could prejudice the proceedings, saying his remarks had been taken out of context.
The CCJ had previously granted a stay of the extradition proceedings before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.
The Mohameds are facing extradition to the US to answer a series of charges relating to the underinvoicing of gold exports and other matters. They were indicted by a Grand Jury in Florida and have been challenging the process in court. In the interim, Azruddin Mohamed is now the Opposition Leader as his party, We Invest in Nationhood won 25% of the vote at last year’s general elections.
Discussion