—Attorney-at-Law Pieters emphasises

GUYANESE-Canadian attorney-at-law Selwyn Pieters, has emphasised that US-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed’s cases are moving at “breakneck speed” in higher courts, but the substantive matter continues to “crawl” in the magistrates’ court.

“The Mohameds’ case is moving at breakneck speed. A case filed in January has made its way from the Magistrate’s Court to judicial review in the High Court, then to the Guyana Court of Appeal, and now to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) by the end of March. Justice on target,” he said in a post on his Facebook page.

Pieters, however, cautioned that while the extradition challenge has advanced quickly, the substantive proceeding before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court is progressing at a much slower pace.

In emphasising his point, he said: “A caution though. The challenge to the extradition process has moved with breakneck speed to the CCJ. The substantive case is crawling at a snail’s pace through the Magistrate’s Court with only one witness evidence being taken since the January 6, 2026, commencement of the proceedings.”

The prosecution in the extradition proceedings recently raised concerns over the length of the cross-examination of its first witness.

Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman, speaking with reporters outside the courtroom, pointed out that the first witness, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, has been under cross-examination for more than two months.

According to Hanoman, the prolonged questioning reflects what he described as a deliberate slowing of the judicial process.

“We’re inching towards the end of cross-examination of the first witness. That witness was first called on the 6th of January, so she’s been under cross-examination now for about almost two and a half months — a masterclass in delay,” he said.

The Mohameds were sanctioned in 2024 by the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) over allegations tied to an illegal gold export and money laundering scheme involving under-declared shipments, which is at the centre of the U.S. extradition request.

They are facing serious allegations in a federal criminal case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The indictment alleges that the Mohameds conspired to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering.

Their extradition proceedings formally commenced before Magistrate Latchman on January 6, 2026, following their arrest on October 31, 2025, after an Authority to Proceed (ATP) was issued by the Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond.

The High Court proceedings were initiated in late December 2025 and challenged the constitutionality of the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act, as well as alleging bias on the part of the Minister in issuing the Authority to Proceed.

A final ruling was delivered on February 4, 2026, by Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh.

An appeal against Justice Singh’s ruling was subsequently filed to the Court of Appeal in early February 2026, with a final unanimous decision delivered on March 17, 2026, by a panel of three judges, including Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Roxane George-Wiltshire, SC.

While delivering the COA’s reasoning, Justice George underscored that Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond’s role in issuing an ATP under the Fugitive Offenders Act is administrative and executive, not judicial, thereby nullifying claims of bias raised by the appellants.

“On the facts of this case, bias does not arise,” she stated.

The court found no evidence that the statutory procedures governing the issuance of the ATP were breached, nor that the minister failed to consider the legally required factors before granting approval for the extradition process to proceed.

Justice George affirmed that “there is no evidence” that the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act regarding the issue of the ATP were not followed.

The court also dismissed arguments that legal advice provided by Attorney General Anil Nandlall could constitute bias, stressing that such counsel falls squarely within his constitutional role as the government’s principal legal adviser.

“It cannot be that advice in terms of applicable case law… can be biased,” George said, adding that there was no evidence to support such a claim.

Further, the court rejected the contention that Minister Walrond should have delegated her authority to issue the ATP, clarifying that the relevant legislation does not provide for such delegation.

The Mohameds had argued that the ATP was tainted by political bias, citing Azruddin Mohamed’s political involvement and candidacy in the September 2025 General and Regional Elections.

However, both the High Court and now the Court of Appeal found no legal basis for that argument.

In its final determination, the appellate court concluded that the appellants failed to establish any bias or impropriety that would invalidate the minister’s decision.

“The court is of the view that the Chief Justice was correct in dismissing the application,” George said.

The Court of Appeal ruling has since been appealed to the CCJ, which has already set a case management conference for Wednesday.