Mohameds Take Extradition Fight to CCJ as Local Proceedings Continue

More communities to benefit from phased electricity cost reductions – Pres Ali

Over 250 Melanie families to secure land titles through regularisation exercise

The extradition battle involving businessman and Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, has escalated to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), with their attorneys seeking to halt ongoing proceedings in the local courts.

In the latest development, the father-and-son duo have filed an appeal before the Trinidad-based CCJ, challenging a recent ruling by Guyana’s Court of Appeal which cleared the way for their extradition to the United States. The regional court has set March 25, 2026, for case management of the matter.

The Mohameds are also asking the CCJ to grant a stay of the committal proceedings currently before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, where the extradition case continues to be heard.

Their appeal follows a significant setback earlier this month when the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed their challenge to the extradition process, ruling that their claims of political bias against Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond and Attorney General Anil Nandlall had “no merit.”

The appellate court upheld that the minister’s issuance of the “Authority to Proceed” (ATP)—a key step initiating extradition—was an administrative act and not subject to claims of bias, thereby allowing the case to advance in the magistrates’ court.

In their filing to the CCJ, however, the Mohameds contend that the lower court erred in law by failing to properly consider what they describe as “politically infected” decision-making.

They argue that public statements made by senior government officials—including the President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and Attorney General Anil Nandlall—created an environment of prejudice that undermined their right to a fair and impartial process.

The appellants further maintain that the minister’s role is not merely procedural, but central to the extradition process, since she ultimately holds the authority to decide whether extradition should occur if committal is ordered. As such, they argue that impartiality at the initiation stage is critical.

The case stems from a 2025 request by United States authorities seeking the extradition of the two men to face federal charges, including allegations of money laundering, fraud and gold smuggling.

Following the issuance of the ATP in October 2025, arrest warrants were executed and both men were placed before the court, where they were granted bail pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings.

Despite their legal challenges, the extradition matter has continued to advance locally, with the magistrate’s court conducting committal hearings to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to send the men to the United States to stand trial.

The CCJ’s upcoming case management hearing is expected to determine how the regional court will proceed with the appeal, including whether interim relief—such as a stay of the lower court proceedings—will be granted.