The Caribbean Court of Justice has sharply criticised statements made by senior Guyana Government officials during the extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, warning that some of the comments threatened the presumption of innocence, judicial independence and the proper administration of justice.
Although the CCJ dismissed the Mohameds’ substantive appeal and lifted the stay on the extradition proceedings, its 256-page judgment, delivered on July 29, 2026, contained several serious criticisms and concerns about the conduct of the Attorney General, Vice-President and President.
The case challenged the Authority to Proceed issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond following an extradition request from the United States. The Mohameds argued that the decision was affected by actual or apparent bias because of a sustained campaign of hostile public statements by senior members of the PPP/C Government.
The CCJ did not find sufficient evidence that Minister Walrond was personally biased or that the Authority to Proceed was legally contaminated. However, the judges rejected the view that bias was irrelevant merely because the issuance of the authority was an executive or administrative act.
Attorney General warned over presumption of innocence
At paragraph 104, CCJ President Winston Anderson and Justice Denys Barrow said Attorney General Anil Nandlall, as the Government’s principal legal adviser, was required to conduct himself with circumspection.
They said the Attorney General could not properly undermine the constitutional presumption of innocence or create the impression that he had already made up his mind on a matter upon which his advice might later be requested.
The judges observed that more difficult legal questions would have arisen had the Attorney General himself been responsible for deciding whether to issue the Authority to Proceed.
Three other judges, Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Peter Jamadar and Winston Anderson Bulkan, went further and found that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Attorney General was biased.
They said his remarks were inconsistent with his high constitutional office and crossed the threshold into apparent bias. Those judges also concluded that the Attorney General should have delegated his advisory role in relation to the extradition request.
“Criminal already” statement improper
Justice Chantal Ononaiwu and Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji also criticised the Attorney General’s description of Azruddin Mohamed as “a criminal already”.
At paragraph 370, Justice Eboe-Osuji rejected the Attorney General’s contention that nothing he had said was improper.
The Court said Attorneys General have a special responsibility to promote restraint and civility, uphold the rule of law, protect the presumption of innocence and respect lawyers who represent persons accused of serious wrongdoing.
Justice Eboe-Osuji concluded that branding an unconvicted person facing an extradition request as “a criminal already” could not be considered proper.
Attack on lawyers criticised
The judgment also addressed an allegation that the Attorney General had referred to the Mohameds’ legal representatives as “bush lawyers”.
Justice Eboe-Osuji said Attorneys General, as leaders of the Bar, have a special professional responsibility to avoid ridiculing lawyers who are carrying out their duty to represent their clients resolutely.
The observation amounted to a defence of the constitutional right to legal representation and a warning against government officials attacking attorneys because of the clients they represent.
Statements concerning magistrate raised alarm
The Court expressed particular concern about statements directed at the magistrate conducting the extradition proceedings.
The judgment examined statements attributed to Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo suggesting that officials might be “compromised” and that the Government was “watching” persons who failed to perform their duties. These remarks followed criticism of the magistrate’s decision to grant the Mohameds bail in the sum of GYD$150,000.
Justice Eboe-Osuji said judicial independence is weakened when senior members of the Executive engage in conduct capable of undermining a judicial officer or placing political pressure on that officer to conduct or decide a case in a manner pleasing to the Government.
Three judges issued an even stronger condemnation at paragraphs 341 and 342. Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar and Bulkan said statements by the Vice-President and Attorney General could undermine judicial independence and have harmful effects on the administration of justice.
They described judicial independence as “sacrosanct” and declared that conduct reasonably capable of undermining it “is to be denounced”.
Claims of unusual delay rejected
The judgment also rejected the suggestion that the extradition proceedings were unusually slow or should have been completed within two or three days.
At paragraph 372, Justice Eboe-Osuji observed that the general experience of extradition proceedings did not support such a claim. Extraditions involving the United States commonly take more than a year between the initial request and surrender, with some cases taking considerably longer.
This contradicted the public narrative that the magistrate or the Mohameds’ lawyers were improperly delaying what should have been a simple process.
President and Vice-President criticised
The judgment recorded statements attributed to President Irfaan Ali describing Azruddin Mohamed as a “gangster” and a “crook and criminal of no mean order”. It also recorded the Vice-President describing Mohamed as “a criminal”.
Justice Eboe-Osuji acknowledged that politicians have a right to respond to attacks from political opponents. However, he said such responses must remain reasonable and proportionate.
He found that there was real concern that the Attorney General, President and Vice-President had crossed the line of proportionality and joined the other judges in their negative assessment of the statements.
Government-funded “Maduro puppet” narrative questioned
A three-judge opinion also examined the Government’s promotion of claims that Mohamed was aligned with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and posed a threat to Guyana’s national security.
The judges observed that no evidence of such an association had been presented and that no local or foreign treason-related charge had been brought against Mohamed.
They also considered evidence that Continental Strategy, a US lobbying firm retained by the Guyana Government for US$50,000 per month, allegedly provided suggested social media posts to an American congressman linking Mohamed to Maduro.
The firm reportedly declined to provide the evidential basis for the claims, while the President appeared not to have provided a public explanation when questioned about the use of a government-funded lobbying company against a political opponent.
The judges considered whether this represented the deployment of the financial machinery of the State against Mohamed.
Political timing raised legitimate questions
The three judges also examined the unexplained two-month delay in convening Parliament after the September 2025 election, the rapid approval of the extradition request shortly before Parliament eventually convened and the additional 12-week delay in electing Mohamed as Leader of the Opposition.
They held that these circumstances raised legitimate questions about whether state institutions were being arrayed against Mohamed.
The judges stopped short of finding that the parliamentary delays were deliberately engineered to facilitate the extradition request. They nevertheless regarded the concerns as serious and deserving of consideration.
Questions were also raised about whether the Home Affairs Minister could properly have reviewed the extensive extradition material within two days or, based on the Mohameds’ account, within a matter of hours.
The Minister’s decision survived the challenge because her sworn evidence stated that she had considered the relevant documents and statutory requirements, and no direct evidence established that she was personally biased.
The CCJ granted the Mohameds special leave to appeal but dismissed the substantive appeal. It ordered that each side bear its own costs before the Court.
The ruling means the extradition committal proceedings may continue. It does not constitute an order extraditing the Mohameds or a finding that either man is guilty of the offences alleged by the United States.
