Appeal Court unanimously rejects Mohameds’ judicial review challenge in extradition case

The Guyana Court of Appeal on Tuesday unanimously dismissed the judicial review appeal brought by businessmen Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, ruling that their challenge to the Authority to Proceed (ATP) in the United States extradition case had “absolutely no merit.”

In a ruling delivered by Acting Chancellor Roxane George, the appellate court upheld the earlier decision of Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who on February 4 dismissed the Mohameds’ High Court application seeking to quash the ATP issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond.

The appeal court also ordered costs of $1.1 million each to be paid to the Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney General. No order as to costs was made in favour of Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, who was named as a respondent but took no active role in the appeal.

The ruling clears the way for the extradition proceedings now continuing before Magistrate Latchman.

The Mohammeds had argued that Walrond was disqualified from issuing the ATP because of alleged political bias, contending that Azruddin Mohamed’s status as an opposition political figure and statements made during the 2025 election campaign created apparent or presumed bias. They also argued that the Attorney General’s legal advice to the minister was similarly tainted.

But the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments in full.

George said the court found that while bias can apply to decision-making, whether judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, the factual context of this case was critical. In the case of an ATP under the Fugitive Offenders Act, the minister performs an administrative and executive function, not a judicial one, the court held.

“Therefore, on the facts of this case, bias does not arise,” George said in summarising the judgment.

The court found there was no evidence that the statutory procedure for issuing the ATP had not been followed, nor any evidence that the minister failed to consider the matters required under the law before issuing it.

“There is no evidence that the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act regarding the issue of the ATP were not followed,” George said.

She added that there was also no basis for the suggestion that legal advice provided by Attorney General Anil Nandlall could itself amount to bias.

“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 and on an uncomplicated statutory form can be biased,” George said. “There is no evidence to support a finding that such advice could be tainted with bias.”

The court also rejected the argument that Walrond should have delegated the power to issue the ATP to another minister or official.

George said Section 27 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act did not apply in the way the appellants suggested and that the Fugitive Offenders Act does not contemplate delegating the ATP function to another minister or to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Further, the court reasoned that if the Mohammeds’ position were accepted, it could mean no minister of government would be capable of acting in extradition matters involving a political opponent.

“It cannot be the minister or any minister of the government who has responsibility for extradition matters cannot sign an ATP regarding someone who is a political rival,” George said.

She said the fact that statements may have been made on the election platform did not translate into presumed or apparent bias, and stressed that the minister has no interest in the outcome of the extradition case itself. The United States, as the requesting state, has that interest, the court said.

The court also noted that the ATP is only a preliminary step and does not determine guilt or whether extradition will ultimately occur. Those matters remain for the magistrate and, potentially, higher courts through later challenges.

In its final conclusions, the court said the Mohammeds had failed to establish that the minister was affected by any bias that would disqualify her decision, and found no merit in the complaints against either the minister or the Attorney General.

“The court is of the view that the Chief Justice was correct in dismissing the application,” George said.

The court also declined to grant any stay of the ongoing extradition proceedings, noting that any such request would be more appropriately directed to the Caribbean Court of Justice if the Mohammeds decide to pursue a further appeal.

The appeal arose from the ATP issued by Walrond on October 30, 2025, after the United States submitted a request dated October 28, 2025 for Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed to be extradited to stand trial on federal indictments there.

Following the ATP, warrants were issued and the two men were arrested, later appearing before Magistrate Latchman and obtaining bail pending the extradition proceedings.

The ruling came after an expedited appeal hearing last week, during which Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, appearing for the State, argued that the extradition process could not be stopped simply because Azruddin Mohamed had since entered politics and become an opposition figure.

Meanwhile, the substantive committal hearing in the extradition matter continued before Magistrate Latchman on Tuesday and is expected to resume on Wednesday as the case moves toward completion.

 

The post Appeal Court unanimously rejects Mohameds’ judicial review challenge in extradition case appeared first on News Room Guyana.