HGP Nightly News – The extradition proceedings against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, can resume after the Caribbean Court of Justice dismissed their appeal and lifted the interim stay blocking the case.
Justice Denys Barrow delivered the lead judgment on behalf of himself and CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson.
The CCJ granted the Mohameds special leave to appeal, finding that their arguments met the threshold for consideration. After examining the substantive case, however, the court dismissed the appeal.
Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.
The Mohameds had challenged the Authority to Proceed issued by the Minister of Home Affairs following an extradition request from the United States.
An Authority to Proceed does not order extradition. It authorises a magistrate to begin committal proceedings to determine whether the legal requirements for extradition have been satisfied.
The applicants argued that the minister’s decision was invalid because of actual or apparent bias.
They relied on public comments reportedly made by senior government figures, including the President, Vice President and Attorney General, during the election campaign. They also contended that the Attorney General’s involvement in advising the minister tainted the process.
The High Court dismissed their judicial-review application in February, finding that the minister was performing an executive rather than a judicial function and that the allegations did not establish disqualifying bias.
The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld that decision and refused to stop the extradition proceedings.
The Mohameds then approached the CCJ, which granted an interim stay on March 25 while it considered their appeal.
In the lead judgment, Justices Barrow and Anderson accepted that the rule against bias applied to the minister’s decision to issue the Authority to Proceed. They found, however, that the nature and preliminary stage of the extradition process affected how that rule should be applied.
The applicants were not entitled at that point to the full range of procedural protections available during the judicial phase of extradition. There was also no general requirement for them to be heard before the authority was issued.
The minister was required to consider the factors set out in the Fugitive Offenders Act. Apart from their allegation of political bias, the Mohameds did not claim that she ignored a relevant consideration or relied on an improper one.
The lead judgment found that the Attorney General provided only limited advice and that the statutory decision remained with the minister.
In those circumstances, determining whether the Attorney General was personally biased would add little to deciding whether the Authority to Proceed was valid, Justices Barrow and Anderson concluded.
A separate opinion by Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar and Burgess found that there was a real possibility of apparent bias on the Attorney General’s part.
They nevertheless concluded that his involvement had not contaminated the minister’s decision sufficiently to invalidate the Authority to Proceed.
Those judges also warned that public statements by the Vice President and Attorney General concerning active judicial proceedings could undermine judicial independence and harm the administration of justice and the rule of law.
Another separate opinion stressed that bias must be assessed through the eyes of a fair-minded and informed observer considering the complete circumstances, not solely from the perspective of the person making the complaint.
That opinion concluded that Azruddin Mohamed had participated in a politically charged public exchange and had provoked some of the verbal attacks on which his complaint relied.
The court also considered when legal challenges to an Authority to Proceed should be heard.
The lead judgment suggested that, except where an obvious defect would make extradition proceedings unsustainable, challenges to the authority should generally be determined after the committal process has concluded.
The judges said this approach would prevent unnecessary delays while preserving the requested person’s right to challenge any illegality at the appropriate stage.
The ruling does not order the Mohameds’ extradition to the United States. It allows the magistrate to resume the proceedings that will determine whether they should be committed for extradition.
With the interim stay lifted, the case now returns to the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
