The extradition case against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, intensified Tuesday as the Court of Appeal dismissed their challenge to the extradition process, while ongoing hearings exposed sharp exchanges during cross-examination.
In a decisive ruling, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the Mohameds’ judicial review application, finding their challenge to the “Authority to Proceed” issued by Oneidge Walrond to have no merit. The court upheld an earlier High Court decision and ruled that the minister’s role in authorising extradition is administrative, rejecting arguments that she was disqualified due to alleged political bias.
Defence attorneys, led by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, had argued that the minister’s decision was influenced by Azruddin Mohamed’s political role. However, the court found no evidence that proper legal procedures were breached or that bias affected the process.
The ruling clears the way for the extradition proceedings to continue before the Magistrates’ Court.
Meanwhile, in ongoing hearings, defence attorneys continued an aggressive cross-examination strategy, targeting the handling of key evidence linked to the United States’ extradition request. During recent proceedings, attorneys pressed a government witness on omissions and inconsistencies in her written statement regarding how documents from U.S. authorities were received and processed.
Under questioning, the witness acknowledged that some details in her oral testimony were not reflected in her written statement, describing it as a summary rather than a full account. The defence sought to use these omissions to challenge the reliability of the evidence, raising questions about how documents were handled, who was present during their review, and whether consultations influenced the final account.
Prosecutors raised repeated objections during the exchanges, several of which were upheld, contributing to tense moments in court. The magistrate also ordered submissions on issues raised about potential procedural fairness.
The extradition case stems from U.S. indictments alleging that the Mohameds were involved in fraud, money laundering and tax evasion linked to gold exports. The defence has also pointed to sanctions imposed by the United States Department of the Treasury under the Global Magnitsky Act, arguing that these external actions have influenced the local proceedings.
The matter continues to carry significant political and legal implications. The defence maintains that the proceedings are intertwined with international sanctions and domestic politics, while the state, led by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, insists it is a straightforward legal process grounded in the rule of law.
With the appellate court declining to intervene, the case will proceed in the Magistrates’ Court, where further cross-examinations and legal arguments will determine whether the Mohameds are committed for extradition to the United States.
