…says vindicated Guyana’s courts
The Guyana Government has welcomed the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), a significant step that clears the way for the United States’ extradition proceedings involving sanctioned and indicted Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, to resume in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
“Of course, we welcome the decision of the CCJ,” Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall expressed during his programme “Issues in the News” on Tuesday.
“All seven Judges who comprise that court sat in that case, and all seven of them rejected the submissions of the appellants and upheld the submissions of the Attorney General and the submissions made on behalf of Minister Oneidge Walrond,” he posited.
The extradition proceedings had been temporarily halted for about five months pending the outcome of the appeal before the CCJ. Following the regional court’s decision on July 29, Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman has scheduled the case for hearings on September 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Recalling that Mohamed once remarked that he had to cross the Caribbean Sea to get justice, Nandlall posited that, “well, he got justice. I hope he’s satisfied with the justice that he got.”
“Recall they were attacking the legal system of Guyana. They were attacking the courts in Guyana. They were saying that the extradition proceedings were politically inspired and instituted, that they were being politically influenced… And that the courts in Guyana were being politically influenced. They made all those remarks, all those allegations in the public domain… So, I hope that the appellants are satisfied that they have received the justice that they were seeking,” Nandlall expressed.
Back in March, the Mohameds approached the CCJ, seeking special leave to appeal the decisions of the High Court and Appeal Court of Guyana – both of which had previously dismissed legal proceedings to halt their extradition to the US, where they are indicted on charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.
The appeal sought to challenge aspects of the extradition process initiated against the father and son. The CCJ had decided to hear the application for special leave and the substantive appeal at the same time during the April 21 session.
During that hearing, the Mohameds had told the CCJ that they are not opposed to the extradition itself but are asking the court to overturn the “Authority to Proceed” (ATP) issued under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond, arguing that the Minister’s decision was legally flawed and politically biased.
The defence had noted 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.
But Nandlall and Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, representing Guyana’s Government, defended the issuance of the ATP, contending 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.
In its ruling, the CCJ unanimously dismissed the appeal being sought by the Mohameds.
“Don’t know; I’m not biased”
The AG acknowledged that while the seven Judges delivered three separate Judgements, all came to the same conclusion that the ATP was valid and “there was no finding of bias required by the law to invalidate the ATP”.
Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Peter Jamadar, and Arif Bulkan, though agreeing that the case should be dismissed, found that there was a possibility of bias displayed by the attorney general. But the Judges ruled that this did not influence the home affairs Minister’s decision.
Commenting on this decision, Nandlall said, “Well, I don’t know that I am not biased”; however, he maintained that his contention has always been “that my bias doesn’t have the legal impact required to invalidate any process”.
“Four out of the seven Judges said that whatever bias I may possess had no connection to the case. And that my involvement was minimal. All I did was to advise the Minister on elementary principles of law,” he highlighted.
Political litigations
The AG also defended his right to comment on political litigations, especially in defence of the judicial system.
“When persons of political leanings are involved in litigation of a political type or non-political type, and they make statements in the public domain seeking to politicise litigation involving the state and the Attorney General, and they make those statements outside of court, the Attorney General will respond. The Attorney General has a duty to respond and will do so in due deference to the established and requisite legal principles,” Nandlall asserted.
“When litigants, whether they are politicians or not, subject the legal system to unfair and baseless attacks or subject the administration of justice to scurrilous and scandalising attacks, the Minister with responsibility for justice doesn’t have the luxury of remaining quiet. It is the duty of the Minister of justice in those circumstances to defend the legal system and the administration of justice. And this Minister of Justice will not resile or derogate from that duty and solemn responsibility,” he added.
Nonetheless, Nandlall affirmed that any such comments have been and will continue to be done in due compliance with and in due observance of the relevant legal principles regarding pending litigation.
Collateral challenges
Moreover, the AG highlighted a fundamental point in the regional court’s decision dealing with collateral challenges. He recalled that five of the seven Judges found that “in extradition proceedings, satellite challenges or collateral challenges must await the determination of the committal proceedings”.
“If, for example, one wishes to make an allegation of bias, then that allegation ought to be made before the committal proceedings and recorded, but… a challenge regarding that bias should await the conclusion of the committal proceedings. And five of the seven Judges wrote at length on that particular issue,” Nandlall noted.
In this regard, the AG said, “We are therefore of the considered view that it should become the practice in our courts, except where it is manifestly clear that the extradition proceedings must fail, that any and all challenges to the issuance of the ATP may be brought at any time but should only be heard after the completion of the committal proceedings.”
“This practice would be consistent with the international framework for extradition, encourage prompt performance of extradition treaty obligations, and provide a reasonable balance between the interest of the person whose extradition is requested and that of the state. And that’s the point that we have been making.”
Prior to the CCJ stay, the extradition proceedings had already faced extensive delays due to constitutional and legal challenges, health claims and lateness from parties involved. In fact, the last hearing on March 24 had to be adjourned after Azruddin Mohamed did not show up and the Magistrate’s court was told that he had suffered from dengue. His diagnosis and laboratory results were submitted to the court, and his doctor was called to give evidence on his condition.
Back in October 2025, the US Government had requested the extradition of the Mohameds to face charges regarding the alleged smuggling of more than 10,000 kilograms of gold through the United States and evading over US$50 million in taxes.
The father-and-son duo has been out on $150,000 bail each, pending the outcome of the extradition committal proceedings.
Discover more from Guyana Times
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
