PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, Jul 29, CMC – The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Wednesday dismissed an appeal brought by Guyana’s Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed and his businessman father Nazar Mohamed, challenging the validity of an Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued under the country’s Fugitive Offenders Act.
The Mohameds had filed the appeal in connection with an extradition request by the United States where they are wanted on several fraud related matters..
On October 30, 2025, the US government had submitted a request to Guyana seeking the extradition of the Mohameds to face an 11-count criminal indictment, including allegations of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering.
Following receipt of the request, the Minister of Home Affairs of Guyana issued an ATP under the Fugitive Offenders Act and on October 31, 2025, Magistrate Judy Latchman issued arrest warrants, formally commencing extradition proceedings in the Court of Committal, which remain ongoing.
But last December 2025, the Mohameds initiated judicial review proceedings against the Minister of Home Affairs, the Attorney General and the Magistrate, challenging the validity of the Authority to Proceed and seeking a stay of the extradition process.
The applicants had argued that the ATP was invalid because it was tainted by actual or apparent bias arising from public statements made by senior government officials during the 2025 election campaign. They also contended that the Minister had improperly consulted the Attorney General, who was likewise alleged to be biased.
The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge and the applicants then sought special leave to appeal to the CCJ, Guyana’s highest and final court.
The CCJ decided to hear the application for special leave and the substantive appeal at the same time, while granting an interim stay of the extradition proceedings pending determination of the appeal.
CCJ President Winston Anderson and Justice Denys Barrow, in a joint judgment, held that special leave should be granted. On the merits, they said that while the broad rule against bias can apply to a ministerial decision to issue an ATP, mere political bias would not vitiate its grant.
They further found that the applicants had failed to establish that the issuance of the ATP was tainted by bias in any relevant sense and emphasised that an ATP is a preliminary administrative step in the extradition process.
The CCJ said that the Minister’s role is to engage in the decision-making process contemplated by the legislation and that the Mohameds did not allege that the Minister failed to consider relevant factors or had relied on irrelevant considerations. Instead, they relied solely on allegations of political bias.
The CCJ judges found those allegations insufficient to invalidate the ATP.
They also expressed the view that challenges to an ATP may be filed before but, save in the most exceptional of circumstances, should be heard only after completion of the committal stage of the extradition process.
Such an approach, they reasoned, would better align with Guyana’s extradition framework and international obligations.
In separate reasons, Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Peter Jamadar, andArif Bulkan agreed that the appeal should be dismissed but held that there was no legal bar preventing an early judicial review challenge to an ATP where bias is alleged.
While finding no appearance of bias on the part of the Minister, they concluded that there was a real possibility of apparent bias on the part of the Attorney General. Nevertheless, they determined that any such apparent bias did not contaminate the Minister’s decision-making process or invalidate the ATP.
The CCJ further ordered that each party bear its own costs and underscored the importance of judicial independence, cautioning against public comments by public officials on pending judicial proceedings.
In a further separate opinion, Justices Chantal Ononaiwu and Chile Eboe-Osuji agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. They stressed that allegations of bias must be assessed from the perspective of a fair-minded and informed observer who considers all the surrounding circumstances.
They said on that test, bias is not made out in the particular circumstances of the present case. The CCJ judges also highlighted procedural considerations concerning the timing of challenges to an ATP, observing that extradition proceedings themselves provide mechanisms for addressing potential unfairness.
Ultimately, the CCJ unanimously granted special leave to appeal but dismissed the substantive appeal. The interim stay of extradition proceedings previously granted by the Court was lifted. The Court further ordered that there be no order as to costs before the CCJ and reserved its decision on the costs in the courts below.
CMC/ag/ir/2026