GEORGETOWN, Guyana, Mar 17, CMC – The Court of Appeal Tuesday dismissed a motion filed by Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed and his businessman father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, that Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond was politically 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 also that 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,” The Chancellor added.
The Mohameds are challenging their extradition to the United States where they are wanted on several fraud related charges. They were indicted in the United States in October 2025 on charges including wire/mail fraud, money laundering, and bribery linked to a US$50 million gold smuggling and tax evasion scheme. They were arrested in Guyana in October 2025 following a US extradition request, which remains ongoing.
The committal proceedings are currently 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 for the two Mohameds.
The Mohameds had 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 the Opposition Leader as (alleged) criminals, tax frauds, 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 Walrond by her body language and a remark, was derogatory concerning the younger Mohamed at an election meeting.
Regarding the application for a stay of the extradition committal proceedings pending an appeal to the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Guyana’s highest and final court, the Chancellor said that would be “best addressed” by that regional judicial organ.
Justice George-Wiltshire reading the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal, said no fair-minded person could conclude that Waldron’s mere performance of that function amounted to bias, despite claims by the Mohameds’ lawyers that utterances by President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, Attorney General Anil Nandlall and Walrond.
Further, the Court of Appeal said it is the Magistrate and the Court of Appeal, if necessary, that have to decide whether the Mohameds are to be extradited rather than the minister.
The Court of Appeal 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.
She said no submissions were made stating who the Attorney General should have delegated his responsibility.
In dismissing the case, the Court of Appeal awarded costs of GUY$1.5 million (One Guyana dollar=US$0.004 cents) each to the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Attorney General.
The Court of Appeal 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
CMC/gt/ir/2026