CCJ Weighs Bias, Warns Counsel- Reserves Judgment in Mohamed Extradition Case

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reserved judgment in the high-stakes extradition challenge involving Guyanese businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed, following a tense hearing Tuesday that exposed sharp concerns about fairness, political influence, and the limits of executive power in Guyana’s justice system.

At the close of arguments, CCJ President Winston Anderson told attorneys the court was “not yet in a position” to rule, indicating that judgment will be delivered “as soon as is reasonably practicable,” while acknowledging the urgency attached to extradition matters. Until then, the court’s interim stay remains in force, freezing committal proceedings in Guyana.

The case stems from a October 2025 request by the United States for the extradition of the father and son on allegations including fraud and money laundering.  Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond issued an Authority to Proceed (ATP), triggering the legal process—now under intense scrutiny after failed challenges in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Azruddin Mohamed is not just a litigant at the centre of the case. He is the leader of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), the main opposition party in Guyana’s National Assembly with 16 seats, and serves as Leader of the Opposition. His political rise adds a charged dimension to the proceedings. He was previously known to be closely aligned with President Irfaan Ali and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, a relationship that later fractured under circumstances widely viewed as beginning with personal differences before escalating into a broader political rupture.

Appearing for the Mohameds, Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein made it clear the applicants are not resisting extradition itself, but the legality of how the process began. He argued the ATP is invalid due to a reasonable perception of bias, insisting that decisions affecting liberty must be grounded in strict impartiality. Under questioning, he acknowledged that a properly issued ATP by an independent authority could allow the process to continue lawfully.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde advanced a decisive middle-ground position, urging the court to fix—not destroy—the process. He argued that even if the ATP is flawed, the defect is not fatal, and the law allows for the function to be reassigned to an impartial authority. The solution, he contended, is to reset the process at its source, warning that leaving a tainted starting point intact would contaminate the entire case. He further pointed to public statements by senior government officials as reinforcing a perception of pre-judgment.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall S.C. rejected those claims, maintaining that the minister acted lawfully and within established procedures. He also defended his public commentary, telling the court it was made in proper context and did not prejudice the proceedings.

The bench, however, pressed the State on whether such public remarks could undermine confidence in the fairness of the process. In a pointed warning, Anderson cautioned all lawyers connected to the matter to avoid public commentary that could influence ongoing proceedings, underscoring the court’s concern about both actual fairness and its perception.

With no ruling date set, the matter now hangs in the balance. The CCJ’s decision will determine whether the extradition can proceed as initiated, must be reset under a new authority, or faces deeper legal consequences. At its core, the court is being asked to decide a fundamental question: can justice proceed when its starting point is credibly called into question—or must it begin again to remain just?