Mohameds tell CCJ they do not oppose US extradition

– Court to rule “as soon as practicable” on appeal
– interim stay remains as Court examines effect of alleged bias in Minister’s action

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Tuesday announced that it will deliver its ruling on the US-sanctioned father-son duo, Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed’s appeal “as soon as practicable” while at the same time ruled that the interim stay of proceedings granted in March will remain in effect until the Court reaches a decision.

The decision means that extradition proceedings at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court before Principal Magistrate, Judge Latchman remain effectively frozen until the region’s apex court delivers its ruling on the appeal, which challenges the legality of the ministerial step that triggered the case.
Delivering the Court’s position at the conclusion of several hours of arguments, CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson said the bench would issue its judgment “as soon as practicable,” noting that extradition matters are treated with urgency but still require full judicial consideration before determination.
He confirmed that the interim stay previously granted by the Court will continue to operate, preventing the committal process in Guyana from advancing while the appeal is pending.
The Court also reiterated expectations of restraint in public commentary on the case, cautioning that while it does not police public statements, legal practitioners should avoid remarks that could undermine public confidence in the fairness of proceedings.
During Tuesday’s hearing, counsels for the Mohameds Fyard Hosein and Roysdale Ford clarified that their clients are not resisting the extradition request from the United States, which seeks to prosecute them on allegations including fraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering linked to their gold trading operations.
Instead, the challenge is focused entirely on the legal validity of the Authority to Proceed issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond, which activated extradition proceedings in Guyana.
Through Senior Counsel Hosein, the applicants told the Court that they are not seeking to derail the extradition process altogether but insist that it must be handled by a decision-maker free from perceived bias.
Hosein submitted: “At the Court of Appeal, we’re not saying that this is the end of the extradition at all or the request. What we are saying …is that another official who is not biased could do it.”
The defence argued that the speed at which the ATP was issued, shortly after the request was received, created an appearance of predetermined approval and raised questions about fairness at the earliest stage of the process.
The bench subjected the arguments to detailed scrutiny, questioning whether allegations of bias at the ministerial level were sufficient to invalidate the process entirely or whether such concerns could be addressed later in the extradition chain.
Judges repeatedly asked counsel to identify any specific illegality beyond the general claim of bias. In response, Hosein conceded that no distinct procedural breach had been identified apart from that central allegation.
That admission became a focal point of the hearing, as the Court examined whether the challenge rested on legal defect or perceived impropriety.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde argued that even if bias were established, the law allows for the ATP function to be delegated under Guyana’s Interpretation and General Clauses Act to another public officer.
He suggested that the process could be preserved by assigning the decision to a neutral authority rather than terminating it entirely.
State defends minister’s role in extradition process
On behalf of the Government, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes defended the issuance of the ATP, arguing that the minister’s role at this stage is administrative and not adjudicative.
He rejected the suggestion that the timing of the decision indicated bias, stating instead that any delay could have equally been criticised as a failure to act.
Mendes told the Court that: “If the ground of challenge is that the Minister did in fact did not exercise her functions… that is not a bias argument.”
He maintained that the minister is required only to determine whether there is any legal barrier preventing extradition from proceeding, not to evaluate guilt or test evidence.

The State further argued that the applicants had engaged the process prior to raising objections, and therefore could not later challenge the minister’s authority on grounds of bias.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, also defended the framework governing extradition, describing it as a “sui generis” process grounded in international obligations rather than ordinary administrative decision-making.
He argued that ministerial involvement reflects executive responsibility under treaty arrangements and does not attract the full application of judicial bias standards.
Nandlall further maintained that once statutory requirements are satisfied, the minister is obliged to act on extradition requests and that such decisions are inherently executive in nature.
“And that is why we say respectfully your honour that the ATP doesn’t attract the rigour of the bias doctrine as it would ordinarily apply in administrative tribunals, that is why the legislature vested that power in a Minister and it appears on its face that it is non-delegable and I advance that proposition as part of my general submission”, Nandlall said.
The defence also pointed to public statements allegedly made by senior government officials, including Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and the Attorney General, arguing that these contributed to a perception of pre-judgment in the matter.
They contended that such remarks reinforced their claim that the decision-making process lacked the appearance of impartiality required at its inception.
The State, however, maintained that extradition inherently involves executive discretion and that any concerns about fairness can be fully addressed through judicial mechanisms at later stages.
With submissions concluded, the CCJ reserved its ruling. Justice Anderson reiterated that while urgency is recognised in extradition matters, the Court must carefully determine the legal issues before it.
Until that ruling is delivered, the interim stay remains in effect, and extradition proceedings in Guyana will not proceed beyond their current stage.