GEORGETOWN, Guyana – The Court of Appeal says it will deliver its ruling on March 17, in the case in which Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed and his businessman father, Nazar Mohamed, are challenging the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by the Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond, regarding their extradition to the United States.
The Mohameds were indicted in the United States in October 2025 on charges including wire/mail fraud, money laundering, and bribery linked to a US$50 million gold smuggling and tax evasion scheme. They were arrested in Guyana in October 2025 following a US extradition request, which remains ongoing.
The latest appeal follows the February 4, 2026 decision of the High Court dismissing their application seeking to quash the ATP on grounds of alleged bias.
In their Notice of Appeal, the Mohameds argue that the High Court erred in finding that Walrond was acting in a purely political or administrative capacity when issuing the ATP, contending instead that the decision engaged quasi-judicial functions and required strict adherence to principles of natural justice, including the rule against bias.
They further contend that the Minister’s role in both issuing the ATP and potentially making the final extradition decision under the Fugitive Offenders Act makes impartiality indispensable.
“It is submitted that the decision of the learned judge in the court below was premised on a number of errors of law and of fact which operated altogether to miscarry justice,” the defence lawyers argued.
But the Court of Appeal Tuesday rejected an application by the Mohameds for the extradition committal proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to be halted, pending the hearing and determination of their challenge to the recent High Court ruling on the issue of political bias.
Trinidad-based Senior Counsel, Fyard Hosein, leading the defence, told the Court of Appeal, led by acting Chancellor Roxane George and including Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan, that because the minister is politically aligned with the governing administration, she should have delegated the decision-making authority to another official.
However, Chancellor George pressed him on how such delegation would work, noting that the defence’s pleadings suggested that even the President could be viewed as tainted, raising the question of whether any decision-maker could be accused of bias.
“Wouldn’t that person be infected by presumed bias?” the Chancellor asked during the exchange.
Hosein responded that the issue was not simply delegation itself but who performed the delegation, insisting that the process must avoid perceived political conflict.
He also asked the Court of Appeal to grant a stay of the magistrate’s court proceedings to allow the matter to be taken to the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice, the country’s highest and final court, should it rule against the Mohameds.
Hosein argued that the extradition proceedings should not be “hustled to facilitate prosecution”.
But another Trinidad-based Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, who is leading the state’s case, argued that the extradition process cannot be halted simply because one of the men being sought by the United States on fraud related charges, has since entered politics and is an opposition legislator.
“We have come too far to say let’s stop extradition proceedings,” Mendes said, rejecting the defence’s position and arguing that the law does not provide for delegation of a minister’s authority on a case-by-case basis.
According to Mendes, any delegation must be general in nature and made beforehand, rather than in response to a particular matter.
He also argued that delegating the power to another minister would not solve the defence’s concerns.
“If another minister were to act, they too would be accused of presumed bias,” he told the court, adding that delegation would more appropriately be made to a public officer if it were contemplated at all.
Mendes said the ATP is purely procedural and does not determine whether the individuals will ultimately be extradited, adding that the defence’s argument about political bias applies only to Azruddin Mohamed, and not to his father.
“The request for extradition will impact on politics, but the case for Nazar has not been made out at all,” Mendes argued, adding that the extradition request predated the son’s political involvement.
Mendes told the court that the process cannot be invalidated because he later entered electoral politics.
“Process of extradition cannot grind to a halt because one of the men being sought is an opposition leader,” Mendes said, adding that even if the court were to accept the defence’s concerns about bias, no alternative decision-maker has been proposed.
“They want to strike down the Authority to Proceed but cannot say who should now be delegated,” Mendes said, adding “this is merely academic. To what end? What is the prejudice caused?”
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who is a respondent in the matter, said he fully endorsed Mendes’ submissions, arguing that the initial High Court challenge should never have been filed.
“The fixed date application in the High Court should have never been filed and consequently this appeal should not have been filed,” he said, describing both cases as “equally hopeless”.
Nandlall said Azruddin Mohamed was well aware a request for extradition was pending when he contested the last elections and contended that he did so to make the very claims he is now making.
Nandlall, speaking to reporters after the court hearing, welcomed the interim decision saying the case should have never been filed in the first place.
“The matter below should have never been filed in the High Court and consequently the appeal that flows there from, should have never been filed. It was hopeless from the beginning and the stay was rejected. You know why the stay was rejected? Because, the appeal has no likelihood of success – a stay is granted once you have a strong appeal. If an appeal doesn’t have any merit, then a stay would not be granted,” Nandlall said.
While the appeal is pending, the substantial committal hearing in the extradition proceedings continues before Magistrate Judy Latchman and Mendes suggested that once the committal stage concludes, the defence could pursue other legal avenues such as habeas corpus.
