HGP Nightly News – A bid by businessman Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar to temporarily halt their extradition proceedings has failed, with the Court of Appeal refusing to grant an urgent stay of the case currently before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
The father-and-son duo had applied for the proceedings to be paused while the appellate court considers their appeal. After hearing arguments from both sides on Tuesday, the judges declined to issue the stay, allowing the extradition hearing to move forward as scheduled.
However, the court indicated that a ruling on the substantive appeal will be handed down on March 17.
The legal battle stems from a February 4 judgment by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who dismissed a High Court challenge filed by the Mohameds. They had sought to invalidate the Authority to Proceed issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond, arguing that the decision was tainted by political bias.
Their attorneys contended that Azruddin Mohamed’s entry into politics and his participation in the September 2025 elections created circumstances where bias could be inferred. They asked the court to nullify the Authority to Proceed, effectively bringing an end to the arrest warrant and the extradition case being heard by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.
The acting Chief Justice found no merit in those arguments, ruling that the minister was exercising an executive responsibility set out in law, not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. The court also ordered the Mohameds to pay $500,000 in costs to each of three respondents: the Attorney General, the Minister of Home Affairs, and Principal Magistrate Latchman.
During the High Court proceedings, the State’s legal team, led by Attorney General Anil Nandlall and Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, argued that the minister’s statutory duty to issue the authority could not give rise to allegations of bias.
Nandlall also noted that the U.S. sanctions and extradition request involving Azruddin Mohamed predated his political activity, warning that accepting bias claims in such cases could allow individuals to evade extradition simply by entering politics and claiming they are being targeted.
The Mohameds also attempted to challenge sections of the Fugitive Offenders Act on constitutional grounds, including amendments introduced in 2009, but that aspect of their case was likewise rejected.
Despite Tuesday’s refusal of a stay, the substantive appeal remains pending before the court. In the meantime, the extradition hearing is expected to continue before Principal Magistrate Latchman on March 12.
