Latest update May 30th, 2026 12:40 AM
Latest News
- As foreign companies flock Guyana Ashni again urges locals to look abroad for investment opportunities
- Woman found dead at Cornelia Ida home; son arrested
- Bosai workers stranded after rain washes away access trail
- Israeli troops push deeper into Lebanon as the two sides start military talks at the Pentagon
- Trump says ‘final determination’ to be made on possible Iran deal
Nandlall grilled by CCJ on comments on Mohameds in extradition hearing
(Kaieteur News) – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Tuesday reserved its decision following a grueling five-hour hearing that saw Guyana’s Attorney General, Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC, face sharp rebukes from the bench regarding his public commentary and constitutional interpretations in the Mohameds’ extradition case.
The appeal, brought by Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, seeks to overturn the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond last October. While the Mohameds face an 11-count indictment in the U.S. for mail and wire fraud and money laundering, their legal team argues the entire process is “tainted” by political bias originating from the highest levels of government.
Screengrab of AG Nandlall during the day’s proceedings at the CCJ.
The “Running Commentary” Controversy
The hearing was marked by a stern interrogation of the Attorney General’s role as the state’s Chief Legal Advisor. CCJ President, Justice Winston Anderson, and Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji expressed deep concern over Nandlall’s public statements regarding the appellants. “We are just wondering whether the Attorney General making those kind of statements… is the best practice for the kind of society and democracy that we seek to encourage in Guyana,” Justice Anderson remarked, questioning if the AG’s high office demanded more professional restraint.
Justice Eboe-Osuji pushed further, asking whether the AG’s job should be to encourage respect for the judicial process “rather than making comments that might add to that negative public view.” He specifically cited allegations that the AG had cast “criminal aspersions” and offered a “running commentary” that included innuendos about the Magistrate handling the case.
Nandlall defended his actions, claiming his remarks were “exported and used for political purposes” by others. He argued the court must consider the context of a “political campaign” and noted that the allegations, which he referred to as the Mohameds’ “rap sheet”, were already in the public domain via international reports.
A “Dramatic Retreat” on Constitutional Rights
The proceedings took a tense turn when the Attorney General suggested that Article 144 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, does not apply to extradition matters.
“Are you saying that Article 144 doesn’t apply to committal proceedings?” Justice Arif Bulkan demanded. “Because if so, that would be an extraordinary submission… I am very troubled when you say ‘right to a fair hearing does not apply’ to an extradition hearing!”
Faced with the bench’s immediate and sharp rebuke, Nandlall retreated from the position, stating, “Not at all. Thank you very much, Your Honours.”
The “Elephant in the Room”: The Minister’s Independence
A key point of contention was whether Minister Walrond, a lawyer of 30 years and former Magistrate, acted independently or was influenced by the AG’s public stance. Justice Anderson noted that the “elephant in the room” was the allegation that the Minister was present at events where the AG made his mindset clear. Nandlall insisted his advice to the Minister was limited to technicalities, such as ensuring forms were filled out properly and addressing treaty conflicts. He reiterated the government’s stance that the ATP is a “special, administrative gateway function” that does not lend itself to the principles of natural justice.
Final Warning and Stay of Proceedings
As the hearing concluded, Justice Anderson issued a final warning to counsel on both sides regarding public commentary that could undermine the administration of justice. “The court does not seek to regulate public commentary… However, statements which could have the effect of undermining the fairness of the proceedings… should be avoided,” the President warned. The interim stay of proceedings remains in place, meaning the extradition process is halted until the CCJ delivers its final ruling. The court is expected to announce its decision “as soon as is reasonably practical.”
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
