Legal challenge to ATP: Wholly unfounded, lacks merit – CoA in rejecting US-sanctioned Mohamed’s attempt to block extradition

…ordered to pay AG, Home Affairs Minister $1.1M each

The Guyana Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by US-indicted Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed to halt their extradition to the US, finding that their legal challenge to the Authority to Proceed (ATP) was wholly unfounded. In a unanimous ruling delivered on Tuesday, acting Chancellor Roxane George affirmed the earlier decision of acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who had dismissed the High Court proceedings brought by the father and son.
The appellate court, which consisted of Justice George, Justice Rishi Persaud, and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, concluded that the case lacked merit, allowing the extradition matter to proceed before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman. In addition, the court ordered the Mohameds to pay $1.1 million each to the Minister of Home Affairs and Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall in costs. No such order was made in relation to Magistrate Latchman, who, though listed in the proceedings, did not take an active role. The central point of the Mohameds’ argument was that Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond should not have issued the ATP because she was allegedly influenced by political considerations, particularly given Azruddin Mohamed’s involvement in the 2025 election campaign. They also attempted to cast doubt on the neutrality of advice given by the AG. But the Court of Appeal found no legal or factual basis to support those claims. In explaining the court’s position, the Chancellor made it clear that the Minister’s responsibility under the Fugitive Offenders Act is limited in nature. “The Court holds that in the context of the Fugitive Offenders Act, in deciding whether to issue an ATP, the Minister exercises an administrative function… therefore, on the facts of this case, bias does not arise,” George said. She emphasised that the process does not involve weighing competing sides or making determinations on culpability but simply ensuring that legal requirements are met.
“It is not a case of the Minister having to make a decision as between two competing parties… once the statutory provisions have been met… the ATP must be issued,” she added. The appellate court found that the steps required by law were properly followed in issuing the ATP and that there was nothing to suggest otherwise. “There is no evidence that the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act regarding the issue of the ATP were not followed,” Justice George stated. The judges also dismissed the suggestion that legal guidance from the AG could be viewed as biased. “Apart from the fact that the AG is the principal legal adviser to the government, it cannot be that advice in terms of applicable case law… can be biased,” she said, noting that no evidence had been presented to support such a claim. Another limb of the challenge, which suggests that the Minister should have handed over the responsibility to another official, was also rejected by the court. The court found that the legislation does not provide for such delegation and that the appellants failed to show how or to whom that authority could properly be transferred. “There was and is no need for the delegation of powers of the Minister under the Fugitive Offenders Act,” George said. She warned that accepting the argument could lead to impractical consequences, including preventing Ministers from acting in cases involving political figures.
“It cannot be that the Minister… cannot sign an ATP regarding someone who is a political rival,” she said. The court also went on to address claims that remarks made during the election campaign by government officials created a perception of bias. However, the chancellor noted that such considerations fall outside what the Minister is required to assess under the law. “It would be a dereliction of duty in the Minister to consider an extraneous matter… in deciding whether or not [to] issue an ATP,” she said.
The court further pointed out that the Minister has no stake in whether extradition ultimately occurs, as that decision lies elsewhere in the judicial process. In this light, the judges stated that the issuance of an ATP is only an initial procedural step and does not determine the fate of the accused.

“It is the Magistrate… and the Court of Appeal, if necessary, [that] have to decide whether the Mohameds are to be extradited rather than the Minister,” George explained.
The court also declined to stop the ongoing extradition proceedings at the Magistrates’ Courts, stating that any such request should be directed to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) if the Mohameds pursue a further appeal. The US-indicted father and son duo have indicated their intention to take the matter to that court.
The legal challenge came to light from an ATP signed by Minister Walrond on October 30, 2025, following a formal request from the US two days earlier seeking the extradition of the two businessmen. Arrest warrants were subsequently issued, and the duo were taken into custody on October 31 before appearing before Magistrate Latchman, where they secured bail. The extradition request is linked to federal charges in the US alleging involvement in a long-running scheme related to gold exports, tax evasion and money laundering. US investigators claim that the men used their business operations to misrepresent gold shipments and reuse official seals, thereby avoiding the payment of significant sums in taxes and royalties. The alleged activities are said to have caused losses estimated at around US$50 million to Guyana. The charges against Nazar Mohamed include conspiracy to commit money laundering and fraud-related offences, while Azruddin Mohamed faces similar allegations, along with claims of tax evasion linked to the importation of a high-value vehicle. The appeal was heard on an expedited basis last week, during which Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, representing the State, argued that the extradition process could not be derailed simply because of Azruddin Mohamed’s political involvement.