Appeal Court rejects bias claims in Mohameds’ extradition case

Mar 18, 2026 News

---

…dismisses challenge with costs

(Kaieteur News) – The Court of Appeal on Tuesday  handed down a decision effectively ruling out that there was any political bias involved in the State’s facilitating an extradition request by United States for businessman turned politician, Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.

The Mohameds are facing a federal indictment in Miami, United States, following the unsealing of a 25-page indictment on October 2, 2025. The indictment alleges a wide-ranging fraud and money-laundering scheme involving gold exports, customs fraud, bribery, and the evasion of millions of dollars in taxes and royalties owed to Guyana.

Following a formal request from the United States, Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond signed the Authority to Proceed, allowing the extradition matter to proceed in  the magistrates’ court. If sufficient evidence is established during committal proceedings, the magistrate could order the Mohameds’ extradition to face charges in the United States.

The appeal stems from an earlier high court ruling involving a judicial review challenge to the Minister of Home Affairs’ Authority to Proceed (ATP) in the extradition case, as well as a constitutional challenge to sections of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009. On February 4, 2026, the High Court dismissed the judicial review application, which had alleged bias by the government, particularly Walrond.

On Tuesday, Chancellor (Ag) of the Judiciary, Justice Roxane George gave a virtual account of the ruling that was unanimously endorsed by Appeal Court Justices Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan.  According to the Chancellor, the Appeal Court found “no merit,” in the application to overturn the initial decision of the Chief Justice (Ag) Navindra Singh where he found that the allegation of bias was not made out, because the mere fact that Mohamed is the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister is a member of government.

The CJ found this did not establish bad faith, improper purpose, predetermination or unlawful bias in the exercise of the statutory power to issue the ATP. The CJ dismissed contention raised by attorneys representing the embattled businessman. He held that the minister’s decision to issue the ATP was an executive and not a judicial decision that can attract the consideration of bias.

“Therefore, 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 dresses 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 said in her ruling.

Given the decision, Justice George said the court is of the view that the appellants have not established that the minister was affected by bias that would disqualify her decision to issue the ATP on the factual circumstances of the case. “The court holds that the contentions regarding bias in the minister and the [Attorney General] have no merit. The minister does not start the process in relation to extradition. A request for extradition from another state does so. Once the request is submitted, it is for the Minister to consider the factors in the fugitive Offenders Act,” Justice George said.

Further, the Chancellor said there is no evidence that the minister did not do what was required under the act.

She noted “It cannot be that the minister or any Minister of the Government who has responsibility for extradition matters cannot sign an ATP regarding someone who is a political rival. The fact that the statements were made on the election hosting does not translate into presumed or apparent bias, the minister has no interest in the outcome of the case. United States, as the requesting state does, further they are the safeguarding provisions of the fugitive Offenders Act, which require a magistrate to consider the documentation and evidence provided to determine whether in fact, the request relates to an extraditable offense.”

The Chancellor emphasised “indeed, for the avoidance of doubt, there is no challenge to the ATP itself as content before the appellants in the speaking notes. This is, in essence, a challenge to the qualification and standing of the Minister to make this decision having regard to presumed bias as well as apparent bias.”

While the Mohameds also submitted that the responsibility to consider the issuance of the ATP could have been transferred or delegated to another minister, the Court noted that it was unclear from the appellant’s written submissions to which the minister was to delegate her functions. On those grounds, the submission was rejected. The Chancellor added “The court is of the opinion that this appeal has absolutely no merit.”

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs to the Minister of Home Affairs and to the Attorney General in the sum of $1.5 million each.

---

• Appeal Court, Azruddin Mohamed, Bias, Nazar Mohamed

---