— decision expected shortly as Nandlall tells Court extradition governed by distinct legal framework; stay remains in force
THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reserved its ruling in the high-profile extradition case involving Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, with a decision expected as soon as possible.
The matter, which is being treated as both an application for special leave and the substantive appeal, was heard before the region’s apex court, where arguments centred on the legal framework governing the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, told the court that extradition decisions must be assessed within a distinct legal and constitutional framework, separate from ordinary administrative functions of the State.
He argued that the ATP operates in a specialised context shaped by international law and treaty obligations, and as such, general legal principles cannot be applied with the same rigidity.
Nandlall emphasised that Guyana has consistently honoured its international commitments, noting that once the statutory requirements are satisfied, the extradition process proceeds in accordance with those obligations.
Addressing his role, he told the court that under Article 112 of the Constitution, the Attorney General serves as the principal legal adviser to the government and provides guidance to ministers on matters such as extradition. However, he stressed that the decision to issue the ATP rests solely with the Minister of Home Affairs.
The court also heard that extradition has been characterised in legal authorities as an executive and diplomatic function, involving policy considerations beyond routine administrative decision-making.
Against that backdrop, Nandlall submitted that while allegations of bias can arise in general legal contexts, their application must be carefully assessed in relation to the ATP, given its unique nature.
He argued that claims of political bias, including those grounded in perceived political rivalry, do not automatically invalidate the minister’s decision. Rather, the central question is whether the decision was made fairly and without improper influence.
The Attorney General further addressed issues surrounding treaty obligations, including provisions relating to extradition to third states, noting that such matters form part of the legal advice provided to the minister in the decision-making process.
He maintained that the legislation deliberately assigns the extradition function to the minister, reflecting the policy and diplomatic considerations inherent in such decisions.
BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
Azruddin Mohamed, identified in court filings as the Leader of the Opposition, and his father are wanted by United States authorities in connection with an 11-count indictment, including allegations of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering.
The extradition process was initiated on October 30, 2025, when the United States submitted its request to Guyana. The following day, the Minister of Home Affairs issued the ATP, and arrest warrants were granted by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, commencing committal proceedings.
In December 2025, the Mohameds launched judicial review proceedings against the Minister of Home Affairs, the Attorney General and the Magistrate, seeking to quash the ATP and halt the extradition process. That application was dismissed by the High Court on February 4, 2026, and subsequently by the Court of Appeal on March 17, 2026.
After both courts refused to grant a stay, the applicants moved to the CCJ.
At a case management conference on March 25, 2026, the CCJ granted an interim stay of the extradition proceedings, effectively pausing the committal hearing before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court pending the outcome of the appeal.
The court also ordered that the special leave application be treated as the substantive appeal, streamlining the proceedings at what is effectively the final judicial stage of the matter.
With arguments now concluded and the ruling reserved, the interim stay remains in force. The pending decision is expected to determine whether the extradition proceedings will resume or be set aside, bringing a pivotal chapter in the protracted legal battle to a close.
