Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh has deferred his decision on the legal challenge brought by U.S.-indicted businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, regarding their proposed extradition to the United States until February 9.
The ruling, which was initially scheduled for February 2, was rescheduled.
The matter before the court involves both a constitutional claim and a judicial review application challenging the legality of Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond’s decision to issue an authority to proceed with the extradition request.
During earlier hearings, the Mohameds’ attorneys argued that the process was tainted by political considerations. The duo’s legal team, Siand Dhurjon, Roysdale Forde, and Damien Da Silva, contended that the minister’s association with the governing party created an appearance of bias and undermined the fairness of the decision-making process.
They further submitted that public statements by senior political figures had effectively branded the Mohameds as guilty before the extradition process was concluded, suggesting that the minister’s decision had already been predetermined. Dhurjon argued that this political alignment could disqualify the minister from authorising extradition, likening her role to that of a prosecutor pursuing criminal charges.
The State firmly rejected those assertions. Appearing on behalf of the minister, Douglas Mendes maintained that issuing an authority to proceed is strictly an administrative act. He emphasised that the minister’s responsibility is limited to confirming whether the extradition request complies with statutory requirements and does not involve assessing guilt, innocence, or political considerations.
Mendes compared the function to that of a police officer initiating charges rather than adjudicating them.
He also relied on the doctrine of necessity, arguing that extradition matters, by their nature, involve international relations and political dimensions, making it impractical to delegate authority elsewhere.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, who is named as the second respondent, described the judicial review application as fundamentally defective. He told the court that the applicants’ arguments leaned heavily on political rhetoric and ignored the wider context of their commercial operations and the sanctions imposed by US authorities.
Nandlall further noted that the Mohameds only entered the political arena after the sanctions were imposed and extradition proceedings commenced, stressing that political engagement does not exempt individuals from lawful extradition. He said there was no evidence to suggest that the minister or any government official acted unlawfully or failed to comply with the relevant legislation.
According to the Attorney General, the procedures outlined under the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act were properly followed, and the applicants failed to meet the legal standard required to justify judicial review.
The case stems from a request by US authorities seeking the extradition of the Mohameds, who are accused of running an international criminal enterprise involving alleged gold smuggling, tax evasion, and money laundering. The pair face 11 criminal charges in the US Southern District of Florida and were sanctioned by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in June 2024.
Both men, who own Mohamed’s Enterprise, remain on $150,000 bail each. They have surrendered their travel documents and are required to report weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station while the extradition proceedings continue.
