CCJ questions AG Nandlall about whether making commentary on Mohameds was “proper”

Last Updated on Tuesday, 21 April 2026, 15:52 by Denis Chabrol

Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) judges on Tuesday grilled Attorney General Anil Nandlall over his public commentary about United States (US)-sanctioned and wanted Guyanese businessmen, Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed.

Meanwhile, CCJ President, Winston Anderson said while the lawyers have a right to free speech, he hoped that they would stick to their professional responsibilities and not comment on the court case. “Statements which are made outside of these proceedings and which could have the effect of undermining the fairness of the proceedings, or which could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, should be avoided,” he said. Dr Anderson hoped that the CCJ would not have to comment on that issue again, saying he was sure that the lawyers understand “the need for proper behavior in this regard.”

Mr Nandlall’s utterances took centre stage at one point in the CCJ’s hearing of the Mohameds’ appeal of the ATP’s issuance by Home Affairs Minister, Oneidge Walrond last October to a magistrate to proceed with the issuing an arrest warrant for the Mohameds to face extradition committal proceedings.

Those proceedings remain stayed until the CCJ hands down its decision in the case at a date to be announced.

Justice Anderson said while no one negates the that there were several allegations against the Mohameds, he questioned why the government’s chief legal adviser had to make public pronouncements. He said the “elephant in the room” was that the Mohameds were alleging that the Attorney General made several public statements that “indicated a certain mindset” in treating any request for their extradition and that the Home Affairs Minister, Oneidge Walrond was present.

Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji said the issue was  not whether the Attorney General made any decision but whether in the context of the Mohameds’ case, as the legal advisor to the government and ministers, making comments that led to the claims that the process was now tainted by bias. He weighed in on claims that the Attorney General cast criminal aspersions against the second applicant and he had a “running commentary” on ongoing extradition proceedings and innuendoes on about the failings or not of the Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman who is hearing the extradition committal proceedings. “Is there something to be said that it is part of the job of the AG to bring the population back to say, look, respect the process, let the process take its course rather than making comments that might add to that negative public view on the matter?,” the judge asked. 

But Mr Nandlall denied committing any infraction, instead saying that he might have quoted incorrectly. He justified making his views known within the context of  due regard to the administration of justice and the right to form and express opinions. “Let me assure you that the Attorney General did not make any improper comments.  The comments that were made were in their proper context. They may have been disputed and used for political purposes, but they were not improper statements,” the Attorney General told the regional court.

The Mohameds’ case centre on alleged political bias by Ms Walrond because she received advice from the Attorney General who has repeatedly publicly criticised the wanted men for their alleged involvement in financial crimes and has commented on their cases before the magistrates’ court, High Court and the Guyana Court of Appeal. The Mohameds lawyers also contend that she had also publicly spoken out against the Mohameds during the 2025 general and regional elections campaign.

Similarly, CCJ Judge Arif Bulkan said the Attorney General’s response at one point was reducing it to political rivalry rather than addressing the CCJ President’s question about statements concerning the extradition and what the outcome should be. But Mr Nandlall said he could not ever recall projecting the outcome of the case, but about concerns about the duration of the committal proceedings as well as concerns by Guyanese. He said prior to the extradition request, he was referring to the Mohameds’ having been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and a Reuters news agency. 

Mr Nandlall said the CCJ needed to take into account that there was a political campaign in competing for office. Referring to the several allegations, Mr Nandlall remarked that, “this is his rap sheet; this is what we have to speak about.”

The CCJ President said the panel of judges was wondering whether those kinds of statements from the AG to which the Mohameds referred was the “best practice for the kind of society and democracy that we seek to encourage in Guyana.” In response, Mr Nandlall said he did not make any decision but it was the Home Affairs Minister who did so and his  advice was limited.