Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes told the Guyana Court of Appeal on Tuesday that the extradition process involving U.S indicted businessmen Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed cannot be halted simply because one of the men being sought by the United States has since entered politics and is an opposition figure.
“We have come too far to say let’s stop extradition proceedings,” Mendes argued, as the appellate court heard the challenge against the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond.
The panel— led by acting Chancellor Roxane George, alongside Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan— heard arguments from both sides during the expedited hearing.
At the end of proceedings, George indicated that ruling will come by March 17.
The appeal stems from a February 4, 2026 ruling by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who dismissed the Mohameds’ application to quash the ATP.
The businessmen contend that Walrond’s decision to authorise the extradition process was tainted by political bias, arguing that Azruddin Mohamed had contested the last general elections and is a political opponent of the government.
Trinidadian Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, leading the defence, largely repeated arguments that were made before the High Court.
Appearing alongside him were attorneys Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva.
Hosein argued that because the minister is politically aligned with the governing administration, she should have delegated the decision-making authority to another official.
However, Chancellor George pressed him on how such delegation would work.
She pointed out that the defence’s pleadings suggested that even the President could be viewed as tainted, raising the question of whether any decision-maker could be accused of bias.
“Wouldn’t that person be infected by presumed bias?” the Chancellor asked during the exchange.
Hosein responded that the issue was not simply delegation itself but who performed the delegation, insisting that the process must avoid perceived political conflict.
He also asked the appellate court that it grant a stay of the magistrate’s court proceedings to allow the matter to be taken to the Caribbean Court of Justice, should it rule against the Mohameds.
Hosein argued that the extradition proceedings should not be “hustled to facilitate prosecution.”
Leading the state’s case, Mendes rejected the defence’s position, arguing that the law does not provide for delegation of a minister’s authority on a case-by-case basis.
According to Mendes, any delegation must be general in nature and made beforehand, rather than in response to a particular matter.
He also argued that delegating the power to another minister would not solve the defence’s concerns.
“If another minister were to act, they too would be accused of presumed bias,” he told the court, adding that delegation would more appropriately be made to a public officer if it were contemplated at all.
Mendes stressed that the Authority to Proceed is purely procedural and does not determine whether the individuals will ultimately be extradited.
Importantly, he said the defence’s argument about political bias applies only to Azruddin Mohamed, and not to Nazar Mohamed.
“The request for extradition will impact on politics, but the case for Nazar has not been made out at all,” Mendes argued.
He further noted that the extradition request predated Azruddin Mohamed’s political involvement, telling the court that the process cannot be invalidated because he later entered electoral politics.
“Process of extradition cannot grind to a halt because one of thr men being sought is an opposition leader,” Mendes said.
He added that even if the court were to accept the defence’s concerns about bias, no alternative decision-maker has been proposed.
“They want to strike down the Authority to Proceed but cannot say who should now be delegated,” Mendes said.
“This is merely academic. To what end? What is the prejudice caused?”
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who is a respondent in the matter, also addressed the court after Mendes.
Nandlall said he fully endorsed Mendes’ submissions, arguing that the initial High Court challenge should never have been filed.
“The fixed date application in the High Court should have never been filed and consequently this appeal should not have been filed,” he told the court, describing both cases as “equally hopeless.”
Nandlall said Azruddin was well aware a request for extradition was pending when he contested the last elections and contended that Azruddin did so to make the very claims he now does.
He said the situation was deliberatedly created, consequently contrived and should be rejected out of hand.
While the appeal is pending, the substantial committal hearing in the extradition proceedings continues before Magistrate Judy Latchman.
Those proceedings are expected to move toward completion soon, with the hearing scheduled to resume on Wednesday.
During arguments, Mendes suggested that once the committal stage concludes, the defence could pursue other legal avenues such as habeas corpus.
However, he maintained that the court should not interrupt the process now.
“We have come this way,” Mendes told the judges. “We have come too far to say stop the extradition proceedings.”
With the matter now argued, the Court of Appeal is expected to deliver its ruling by March 17th at 14:00hrs, determining whether the extradition process against the Mohameds will continue without interruption.
The post ‘We’ve come too far’ – Extradition cannot grind to a halt because Azruddin is opposition leader, Court of Appeal hears appeared first on News Room Guyana.
