Court of Appeal dismisses Mohameds’ case of bias against home affairs minister in extradition case

Last Updated on Tuesday, 17 March 2026, 21:04 by Writer

The Guyana Court of Appeal on Tuesday dismissed a case by Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed that home affairs minister Oneidge Walrond was infected with political bias when she issued the Authority To Proceed (ATP) for a magistrate to conduct extradition committal proceedings.

Chancellor of the Judiciary, Roxane George-Wiltshire said the case “has absolutely no merit” and that the minister merely exercised an administrative fact in keeping with the Fugitive Offenders Act. She said the Mohameds failed to establish that the process was infected by political bias.

“On the facts of this case, bias does not arise. It is not a case of the Minister having to make a decision as between two competing parties or competing positions once the statutory provisions have been met. In carrying out this function, once the Minister addresses her mind to and has complied with the statutory considerations and requirements regarding the issuance of an ATP, the ATP must be issued,” she said.

The committal proceedings are underway before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman who received the ATP on October 30, 2025 in keeping with Section 12 of the Fugitive Offenders Act.

After receiving the authority, the magistrate issued the arrest warrants on October 31 when the duo was nabbed and handcuffed in Georgetown.

Concerning the application for a stay of the extradition committal proceedings pending an appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice, Guyana’s final court of appeal, she said that would be “best addressed” by that regional judicial organ.

In reading the unanimous decision, she said no fair-minded person could conclude that Ms Waldron’s mere performance of that function amounted to bias, despite claims by the Mohameds’ lawyers’ utterances by President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, Attorney General Anil Nandlall and Ms Walrond.

Further, the Court of Appeal said it is the Magistrate and the Court of Appeal, if necessary, to decide whether the Mohameds are to be extradited rather than the minister.

The Chancellor also struck out the argument that the Minister of Home Affairs could have delegated that act to another minister because any other minister is also part of President Ali’s Cabinet.

Further, she said no submissions were made stating who the Attorney General should have delegated his responsibility to and so the court concluded that the Mohameds were pursuing that point.

In dismissing the case, the Guyana Court of Appeal awarded costs of GY$1.5 million each to the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Attorney General.

The Guyana Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, on almost identical grounds.

The Mohameds, through their lawyers challenged the independence of the home affairs Minister to issue the ATP on grounds that during the 2025 election campaign their political opponents had made repeated public statements depicting the appellants especially Mr Azruddin Mohamed, leader of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) political party as (alleged) criminals of tax fraud, and as being guilty of the offenses subject of the extradition request in light of the fact that he was a political rival.

They further contended that Ms Walrond by her body language and a remark, was derogatory concerning the younger Mohamed at an election meeting.

The Chancellor said the Attorney General advised the home affairs minister on the basis of law and there was no evidence that such advice was tainted.

Justice George-Wiltshire also said that based on the facts of the case, bias does not arise.