The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reserved its decision in the appeal brought by businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, who are challenging the legality of extradition proceedings initiated against them in Guyana.
The appeal, which stems from a judicial review application already dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal, centres on claims that the Minister of Home Affairs acted with bias in issuing the Authority to Proceed (ATP), thereby compromising the process from its inception.
During Tuesday’s hearing, attorneys for the Mohameds argued that procedural fairness must apply from the earliest stage of the extradition process. Trinidadian Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, leading the defence, contended that alleged bias at ministerial level undermines the entire proceedings and should be subject to immediate challenge.
Members of the bench, however, questioned whether such concerns could instead be addressed at later stages, including committal proceedings or through habeas corpus review. Hosein acknowledged that no specific unlawful act had been identified beyond the general allegation of bias.
Supporting submissions from Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde suggested that even if bias were established, the law permits the minister’s functions to be delegated, allowing the matter to be reconsidered by another impartial authority rather than bringing the process to an end.
Appearing for Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes argued that the applicants had effectively waived objections by engaging the minister’s office prior to the issuance of the ATP. He maintained that the minister’s role at this stage is administrative, requiring only a determination of whether any legal bar to extradition exists.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall told the Court that extradition is a sui generis process grounded in international obligations, and that the minister’s function is executive in nature, not subject to the full application of traditional natural justice principles. He also denied making any public comments that could prejudice the proceedings, stating that his remarks had been taken out of context.
The matter was heard before a full bench presided over by CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson, alongside Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Chile Eboe-Osuji, Chantal Ononaiwu, Denys Barrow, Peter Jamadar and Arif Bulkan.
At the close of arguments, the Court indicated that it would act with expedition in delivering its ruling. It also advised attorneys on both sides to avoid public statements that could undermine fairness or confidence in the administration of justice, while noting it does not regulate commentary outside the courtroom.
The CCJ had earlier granted a stay of the extradition proceedings, effectively halting committal hearings at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. That stay will remain in effect until the Court issues its decision.
