HGP Nightly News – Attorney General Anil Nandlall has acknowledged that some Caribbean Court of Justice judges found apparent bias on his part, but says they ultimately agreed that his conduct did not invalidate the Authority to Proceed against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
Speaking on his weekly programme, Issues in the News, Nandlall emphasised the distinction between a finding of apparent bias and the legal question of whether that bias tainted the ministerial decision underpinning the extradition proceedings.
“I don’t know that I am not biased,” Nandlall said. “But my contention always was that my bias doesn’t have the legal impact required to invalidate any process.”
The CCJ dismissed the Mohameds’ appeal on July 29, lifting an interim stay that had paused proceedings before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
All seven judges agreed on the final result, although they delivered three separate judgments and followed different lines of reasoning. Some criticised public statements attributed to Nandlall and other senior government officials, while members of the court also found that the legal test for apparent bias had been met in relation to the Attorney General.
Those findings, however, did not produce the further conclusion needed to set aside the Authority to Proceed issued by the Minister of Home Affairs.
Nandlall said his role was limited to giving legal advice to the minister and was not sufficient to contaminate the decision.
“Whatever bias I may possess had no connection to the case,” he said, outlining what he understood to be the position accepted by a majority of the judges.
The Mohameds had argued that the Authority to Proceed was unlawful because the extradition process was tainted by alleged bias involving the Attorney General, President, Vice President, Minister of Home Affairs and wider government.
While the CCJ made significant observations about the conduct and public comments of government officials, it unanimously upheld the validity of the ministerial authority and dismissed the appeal.
Nandlall said the result followed similar decisions in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
He calculated that 11 judges had now considered the challenge across the three courts: one in the High Court, three in the Court of Appeal and seven at the CCJ.
The Attorney General argued that each court ultimately rejected the remedy sought by the Mohameds, even though the judges did not all agree on the legal reasoning or on the conduct of the officials involved.
He also disputed claims that the judgment had clarified previously uncertain law, maintaining that the established principles governing bias had been clear from the outset.
The ruling clears the way for the extradition committal proceedings to resume before the Magistrates’ Court. That court will determine whether the legal requirements for extradition have been satisfied, not whether the Mohameds are guilty of the allegations made by United States authorities.
