The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed the substantive appeal filed by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, clearing the way for extradition proceedings against them in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to resume.
The ruling stems from a request by the United States Government seeking the extradition of the Mohameds to face an 11-count criminal indictment, including allegations of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering. The request was submitted to the Government of Guyana in October 2025.
Following that request, the Minister of Home Affairs issued an Authority to Proceed under the Fugitive Offenders Act, requiring a magistrate to determine whether there is enough evidence to justify extradition. Arrest warrants were later issued for the Mohameds, formally commencing extradition proceedings in the court of committal.
The Mohameds subsequently moved to the High Court, challenging the validity of the Authority to Proceed and seeking a stay of the extradition proceedings. Their central argument was that the Minister’s decision was tainted by bias. However, their claim was dismissed by the High Court on February 4, 2026, and later by the Court of Appeal on March 17, 2026.
The CCJ had earlier stayed the extradition proceedings pending its decision and ordered that the special leave application be treated as the hearing of the substantive appeal.
Delivering the ruling, the court noted that general elections were held in Guyana on September 1, 2025, and that Azruddin Mohamed was elected Leader of the Opposition and sworn into office in January 2026. Nazar Mohamed was identified as his father.
The appeal focused on two main issues: whether the Minister and/or Attorney General were tainted by actual or apparent bias in relation to the issuing of the Authority to Proceed, and whether the law required them to delegate their statutory powers in the circumstances.
In the lead judgment, President Adrian Saunders Anderson and Justice Barrow found that the Mohameds had met the threshold for special leave, meaning it was arguable that the lower courts were wrong to conclude that the rule against bias did not apply to the issuance of the Authority to Proceed.
However, the court ultimately found that while the rule against bias can apply to the Minister’s decision to issue an Authority to Proceed, the process does not carry the full range of procedural rights available in judicial proceedings.
“There was no general right to be heard prior to the issuance of the ATP. There was no requirement for the Minister issuing the ATP to be free from political bias,” the court said.
The judges found that what was required was for the Minister to engage in a process that allowed consideration of the factors contemplated by the Fugitive Offenders Act. They also noted that the Mohameds had not challenged the process leading to the issuance of the Authority to Proceed, except for the allegation that the Minister was politically biased.
The court also addressed the role of the Attorney General, noting that while the Attorney General, as Chief Legal Adviser to the Government, must be careful when commenting on extradition requests, the decision to issue the Authority to Proceed was legally vested in and exercised by the Minister with “very minimal advice” from the Attorney General.
A separate opinion by Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar and Balkan found that the rule against bias could apply to the issuance of an Authority to Proceed and that the apparent bias test was the appropriate one. However, they concluded that no appearance of bias was established against the Minister as the decision-maker.
That separate judgment found there was a real possibility that the Attorney General was biased, but concluded that any apparent bias had not contaminated the Minister’s decision to issue the Authority to Proceed.
In another separate opinion, Justices Chantal Ononaiwu and Chile Eboe-Osuji said bias must be assessed from the position of a fair-minded and informed observer who considers all the facts and circumstances, not only the complainant’s grievance.
The CCJ ultimately granted the application for special leave but dismissed the substantive appeal. It also lifted the interim stay imposed on March 25, 2026, allowing the extradition proceedings in Guyana to continue.
