The Court of Appeal on Thursday denied another bid by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, to halt their extradition proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, ruling that the proceedings can continue while their latest constitutional appeal is being determined.
The three-member appellate panel, comprising acting Chancellor Roxane George and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan, ruled unanimously that it was not satisfied that the extradition proceedings should be halted entirely.
The court, however, ordered that while the proceedings before the magistrate can continue, no final disposition can be made until the Court of Appeal hears and determines the Mohameds’ substantive appeal.
In its ruling, the court said it considered the arguability of the appeal, the respective risks of injustice, the balance of convenience, prejudice and the public interest in ensuring the orderly and expeditious conduct of extradition proceedings.
The substantive appeal concerns the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act governing the extradition process.
The ruling clears the way for Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman to resume the part-heard extradition proceedings in September. The hearings are scheduled for Sept. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The Mohameds had asked the appellate court to stay the Magistrates’ Court proceedings until their constitutional appeal was heard and determined.
The Court of Appeal has ordered the constitutional appeal to proceed on an expedited timetable. The Mohameds must file their Record of Appeal by Sept. 4 and written submissions by Sept. 9. The Attorney General must respond by Sept. 23, while the appellants have until Sept. 30 to file a reply, if necessary.
The substantive appeal is scheduled to be heard Oct. 13 at 9:30 a.m.
Mohameds have made repeated attempts to halt extradition case
Thursday’s ruling follows several legal challenges by the Mohameds aimed at stopping or challenging aspects of the extradition process.
In January, acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh rejected their application to halt the Magistrates’ Court proceedings while their constitutional challenge to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act was being determined. The judge found that the constitutional case and extradition proceedings could proceed concurrently.
In a separate challenge, the Mohameds sought to quash the Authority to Proceed issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond, arguing, among other things, that the decision was tainted by political bias.
That challenge was dismissed by the High Court on Feb. 4. On March 17, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected their appeal, ruling that the challenge had “absolutely no merit.”
The Mohameds subsequently took that matter to the Caribbean Court of Justice, which granted an interim stay of the extradition proceedings in March while their appeal was considered.
But on July 29, the CCJ dismissed their appeal, ending the interim stay and clearing the way for the extradition proceedings to resume before the Magistrates’ Court.
The latest appeal is separate and challenges aspects of the High Court’s February ruling on the constitutionality of provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act. The High Court found one provision unconstitutional while upholding the remaining provisions challenged by the Mohameds.
The United States formally requested the extradition of the father and son in October 2025 to face an 11-count federal indictment that includes allegations of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud and money laundering. The Mohameds have denied wrongdoing.