Chief Justice dismisses bias claim as Mohamed extradition case advances 

Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh has dismissed a High Court challenge brought by US-indicted businessman and political figure Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar, rejecting claims that the Government of Guyana and senior state officials acted with political bias in the extradition process against them.

The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, clears the way for extradition proceedings to continue before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court and represents a significant legal victory for the State.

Speaking shortly after the decision, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said the court had fully accepted the State’s arguments and decisively rejected the allegation that political rivalry tainted the process.

“This was the case in which they contended that the Minister of Home Affairs is biased, the Government is biased, the President is biased, the Vice President is biased, and the entire government architecture is biased,” Nandlall said. “The Chief Justice has ruled that a case for bias has not been made out and, importantly, cannot be made out in law.”

At the heart of the case was a challenge to the Authority to Proceed issued by the Minister of Home Affairs under the Fugitive Offenders Act. The applicants argued that the Minister’s decision was infected by political bias because Azruddin Mohamed had contested the last general elections and was a political opponent of the government.

The Chief Justice rejected that argument, holding that the Minister, in issuing an Authority to Proceed, does not act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity but performs an executive function mandated by statute.

In his ruling, Justice Singh stated that it would be an “absurd proposition” to suggest that a minister is disqualified from exercising statutory powers simply because an affected person is a political opponent. He further found that the decision to issue the Authority to Proceed amounted to a “lawful exercise of executive discretion.”

Attorney General Nandlall said this finding goes to the core of extradition law.

“The court accepted our submission that questions of bias apply to judicial tribunals — the magistrate, the High Court, the Court of Appeal — not to the executive when it is lawfully discharging treaty and statutory obligations,” he explained.

Nandlall warned that accepting the applicants’ argument would have dangerous consequences for the rule of law.

“If that were the law, then any person facing extradition could simply enter politics and claim immunity from extradition on the ground of political bias,” he said. “That cannot be the law of Guyana, and the Chief Justice has confirmed that it is not.”

The court also found no evidence of bad faith, improper purpose, or personal interest on the part of the Minister of Home Affairs, noting that the extradition request was processed through established diplomatic and governmental channels.

The Chief Justice dismissed the Fixed Date Application in its entirety and declined to grant a stay of the ongoing extradition proceedings before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.

Instead of dealing separately with the stay request, the judge determined the entire matter at once, concluding there was no basis to halt the magistrate’s court proceedings.

In a further blow to the applicants, the court awarded $500,000 in costs to each respondent — the Attorney General, the Minister of Home Affairs, and Principal Magistrate Latchman.

“This brings an end to this set of proceedings in the High Court,” Nandlall said.

While this challenge has been dismissed, Nandlall noted that a second, separate case — in which the applicants are challenging the constitutionality of amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act — remains before the High Court.

That matter has already been argued and is scheduled for ruling later this month.

Meanwhile, extradition proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court are expected to continue on Thursday.

“This ruling reaffirms that extradition is a process governed by law, not politics,” Nandlall said, “and that Guyana will honour its legal and international obligations.”