PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago – In a landmark unanimous ruling delivered July 29, 2026, the full bench of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed a high-profile appeal brought by Guyana’s opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed, who sought to invalidate the legal order that opened the door to their extradition to the United States.
The legal dispute traces back to October 2025, when the government of Guyana received an official extradition request from U.S. authorities for the two men. Just 48 hours after the request landed, Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs issued an Authority to Proceed (ATP), a required preliminary administrative document that launches the formal court-led extradition process under Guyana’s existing Fugitive Offenders Act.
Unwilling to proceed with the extradition process, the pair launched an immediate legal challenge, arguing the ATP was legally invalid. Their core claim centered on allegations of both actual and apparent political bias, stemming from public comments made by senior Guyanese government officials during the country’s 2025 general election campaign. They also contended that the Minister of Home Affairs had improperly consulted the Attorney General, who they also claimed held biased views against them.
Lower courts rejected the challenge out of hand: first the Guyana High Court, then the country’s Court of Appeal, both upheld the validity of the ATP. Undeterred, the Mohameds applied for special leave to appeal the decision to the regional CCJ, which agreed to hear both the leave application and the full substantive appeal in a single proceeding. The court also granted an temporary pause on all extradition proceedings while the appeal was under consideration.
In a joint leading judgment, CCJ President Winston Anderson and Justice Barrow confirmed that the court would grant special leave to hear the appeal, but rejected the appellants’ core claims. They noted that while legal rules prohibiting biased decision-making do extend to ministerial decisions to issue an ATP, generalized claims of political bias alone are not enough to invalidate the order. The justices further found that the appellants had failed to provide concrete evidence that the ATP was issued as a result of improper bias, emphasizing that an ATP is only an early procedural step in the broader extradition process, not a final ruling on extradition itself. They pointed out that the pair never alleged the Minister failed to consider relevant legal factors or relied on irrelevant information – instead resting their entire case on unproven claims of political bias, which the court ruled was insufficient to invalidate the ATP.
President Anderson and Justice Barrow also outlined a procedural framework for future challenges, noting that while challenges to an ATP can be filed before the committal stage of extradition proceedings, they should only be heard early in extraordinary circumstances. This approach, they reasoned, better aligns with Guyana’s domestic extradition legislation and the country’s international legal obligations.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, and Bulkan agreed the appeal should be dismissed, but pushed back on the procedural guidance from the leading judgment, holding there is no legal rule that bars early judicial review of an ATP when bias is alleged. While they found no evidence of actual or apparent bias on the part of the Minister of Home Affairs, they concluded there was a real possibility of apparent bias on the part of the Attorney General. Even so, they ruled that any potential bias on the Attorney General’s part did not taint the Minister’s independent decision-making process, so the ATP remained valid.
All three justices in this concurrence also joined the court’s broader emphasis on judicial independence, issuing a formal caution to public officials against making public comments on ongoing pending judicial proceedings. The court ordered that each party would cover its own legal costs related to the appeal.
In a third separate concurring opinion, Justices Ononaiwu and Eboe-Osuji also backed the dismissal of the appeal. They stressed that bias allegations must be evaluated through the lens of a fair-minded, well-informed observer who takes full account of all surrounding circumstances. Applying that standard, they found no proof of bias in the case. They also echoed the focus on procedural timing, noting that the extradition process itself includes built-in mechanisms to address potential unfairness for requested persons.
In its final outcome, the full 7-member CCJ bench unanimously granted the appellants special leave to appeal, but then voted unanimously to dismiss the substantive appeal. The temporary stay on extradition proceedings was immediately lifted. The court ruled no additional costs order would be issued for the CCJ proceeding, and reserved decision on costs related to the earlier lower court proceedings for a later date.
The full bench that heard the appeal included President Winston Anderson, along with Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji, and Bulkan. Legal representation for the appellants was led by Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein and Roysdale A. Forde, supported by barristers Sasha Bridgemohansingh, Siand Dhurjon, Damien Da Silva, and Aadam Hosein. Senior Counsel Douglas L. Mendes and Clay J. Hackett represented the first respondent, Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs. Attorney General Senior Counsel Mohabir Anil Nandlall led representation for the second respondent, the Attorney General of Guyana, alongside Solicitor General Nigel O. Hawke, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna V. Lall, and Dishon Persaud. Arudranauth Gossai represented third respondent Magistrate Judy Latchman.