Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes on Tuesday urged Guyana’s Court of Appeal not to halt extradition proceedings against U.S.-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed, arguing that the legal process cannot be stopped simply because one of the men has since become involved in politics.
Addressing the appellate court, Mendes said the extradition case had already advanced significantly and should be allowed to continue through the courts.
“We have come too far to say let’s stop extradition proceedings,” Mendes told the panel.
The appeal is being heard by a three-member bench led by acting Chancellor Roxane George, with Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan also presiding.
At the close of arguments, George indicated that the court will deliver its ruling on March 17.
The appeal arises from a Feb. 4, 2026 decision by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who dismissed an application by the Mohameds seeking to quash the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond. The ATP allows the extradition case to move forward in the magistrate’s court.
Lawyers for the businessmen argue that Walrond’s decision was influenced by political bias because Azruddin Mohamed contested the last general elections and is now an opposition figure.
Trinidadian Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, who is leading the defense, repeated many of the arguments previously made before the High Court. Appearing with him were attorneys Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva.
Hosein argued that because the minister is politically aligned with the governing administration, she should have delegated the authority to issue the ATP to another official.
However, Chancellor George questioned how such a delegation would work in practice.
She noted that the defense’s own arguments suggested that even the president could be viewed as politically biased, raising doubts about whether any political official could be considered neutral.
“Wouldn’t that person be infected by presumed bias?” George asked during the exchange.
Hosein responded that the concern centered on the appearance of political conflict and maintained that the decision-making authority should have been delegated to avoid that perception.
He also asked the Court of Appeal to grant a stay of the ongoing magistrate’s court proceedings so the matter could be taken to the Caribbean Court of Justice if the Mohameds lose the appeal.
According to Hosein, the extradition process should not be rushed.
Leading the state’s case, Mendes rejected the argument that the minister should have delegated her authority.
He told the court that the law allows for general delegation of ministerial powers but does not permit delegation on a case-by-case basis.
Mendes added that assigning the responsibility to another minister would not resolve the defense’s concerns.
“If another minister were to act, they too would be accused of presumed bias,” he said.
He also stressed that the Authority to Proceed is merely a procedural step that enables the magistrate’s court to hear the extradition request and does not determine whether the men will ultimately be extradited.
Mendes further argued that the defense’s claim of political bias relates only to Azruddin Mohamed and has no relevance to Nazar Mohamed.
“The request for extradition will impact politics, but the case for Nazar has not been made out at all,” he said.
He noted that the extradition request was initiated before Azruddin Mohamed became involved in electoral politics and argued that the process cannot be invalidated because of developments that occurred afterward.
“The process of extradition cannot grind to a halt because one of the men being sought is an opposition leader,” Mendes told the court.
He also questioned what alternative the defense was proposing if the ATP were struck down.
“They want to strike down the Authority to Proceed but cannot say who should now be delegated,” Mendes said. “This is merely academic.”
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who is a respondent in the matter, also addressed the court and said he fully supported Mendes’ submissions.
Nandlall argued that the original High Court challenge should not have been filed and described both the application and the appeal as without merit.
“The fixed date application in the High Court should have never been filed and consequently this appeal should not have been filed,” he told the judges.
Nandlall also said Azruddin Mohamed knew an extradition request was pending when he entered the last elections.
He argued that the political circumstances cited by the defense were therefore self-created and should not invalidate the legal process.
While the appeal is being considered, the substantive extradition proceedings continue before Magistrate Judy Latchman.
The committal hearing is expected to resume Wednesday as the magistrate’s court moves toward determining whether the case should be sent forward for extradition.
Mendes told the appellate court that the defense would still have other legal avenues available later in the process, including applications such as habeas corpus, but argued that there was no justification for interrupting the proceedings at this stage.
“We have come this way,” he said. “We have come too far to say stop the extradition proceedings.”
The Court of Appeal is expected to issue its ruling on March 17 at 2 p.m., determining whether the extradition process against the Mohameds will proceed uninterrupted