Guyana Court of Appeal to rule on extradition challenge by US-sanctioned businessmen
Key Points(5)
- The Guyana Court of Appeal is set to rule on March 17 on an appeal by U.S.-sanctioned businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed challenging the authority issued by Oneidge Walrond to proceed with their extradition.
- During a hearing at the Court of Appeal in Kingston, the appellate bench rejected the Mohamed duo’s request for a stay of extradition proceedings before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court until a decision is rendered on their substantive appeal.
- The father-and-son pair had appealed a February 4 ruling by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, which dismissed their challenge to the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
- The Mohameds claimed the ATP was tainted by political bias, citing Azruddin Mohamed’s involvement in politics and his role as a competitor in the September 2025 General and Regional Elections.
- They argued that the authority to proceed, the arrest warrant, and ongoing proceedings before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman should be quashed.
The Guyana Court of Appeal is set to rule on March 17 on an appeal by U.S.-sanctioned businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed challenging the authority issued by Oneidge Walrond to proceed with their extradition.
During a hearing at the Court of Appeal in Kingston, the appellate bench rejected the Mohamed duo’s request for a stay of extradition proceedings before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court until a decision is rendered on their substantive appeal.
The father-and-son pair had appealed a February 4 ruling by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, which dismissed their challenge to the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act. The Mohameds claimed the ATP was tainted by political bias, citing Azruddin Mohamed’s involvement in politics and his role as a competitor in the September 2025 General and Regional Elections.
They argued that the authority to proceed, the arrest warrant, and ongoing proceedings before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman should be quashed. However, the Chief Justice ruled that the Minister of Home Affairs acted within her executive capacity as prescribed by law, not in a judicial or quasi-judicial role.
Following arguments from attorneys for both the applicants and the State, the Court of Appeal allowed the extradition proceedings to continue but reserved judgment on the substantive appeal. A ruling is expected next week.
