The Caribbean Court of Justice has unanimously rejected an appeal from Guyanese opposition politician Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, ending a four-month legal freeze on their extradition to the United States. The ruling permits local magistrates to resume processing the US government's request to have the two men face trial in American courts.

The legal battle stems from an 11-count US indictment targeting the father and son. American authorities are pursuing the pair on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, and both mail and wire fraud. State lawyers noted that the alleged criminal activity and the subsequent US investigations took place between 2017 and June 2024, prior to the younger Mohamed's formal entry into politics.

The Mohameds' legal team had attempted to halt the extradition by arguing that the process was compromised by political bias. Their defence centred on the claim that Guyana's Minister of Home Affairs, who authorised the proceedings, had been improperly influenced. They pointed to derogatory public remarks made by senior members of the ruling party, including the Attorney General, who had labelled the men "criminals" during a recent election campaign. The defence argued that because the Home Affairs Minister consults with the Attorney General, the resulting authorisation was inherently biased.

A seven-judge panel upheld previous rulings from Guyana's lower courts, determining that the Minister's authorisation was strictly an administrative function required by law. The court found no evidence of direct bias on the part of the Minister herself. Some justices acknowledged a real possibility of apparent bias on the part of the Attorney General in relation to his public comments, but the panel concluded that this did not legally contaminate the Minister's independent administrative decision.

State attorneys had argued that allowing the appeal would create a loophole, enabling individuals to evade international treaty obligations and extradition proceedings simply by entering the political arena. The court agreed, finding that political engagement after the fact could not be permitted to obstruct a request that had been lodged through the proper diplomatic and legal channels.

Despite ruling against the Mohameds, the CCJ delivered a firm rebuke to the Guyanese government over its public conduct. The lead judgment explicitly condemned statements made by high-ranking officials about ongoing legal matters. The justices warned that such commentary risks undermining judicial independence, the administration of justice, and the rule of law, and cautioned ministers and other officials to exercise greater restraint when cases remain before the courts.

The rebuke did not alter the outcome of the case, but it signals that the court views public commentary from government figures as a genuine institutional concern, separate from the narrower legal question of whether the extradition process itself was tainted.

The case will now return to the Georgetown Magistrates' Court to continue the committal proceedings that were suspended in March. Those proceedings will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to formally extradite the two men to face the charges in the United States.

The CCJ's judgment is expected to serve as a legal precedent for future extradition disputes in the region. It establishes that challenges regarding political bias should generally be raised and heard only after the initial magisterial process has been completed, rather than used to suspend proceedings indefinitely at an earlier stage.

For Azruddin Mohamed, who has built a political profile in Guyana in recent years, the ruling removes a legal shield that had kept the extradition request in limbo since March. His father, Nazar Mohamed, faces the same set of charges and will be subject to the same resumed proceedings.

Guyanese authorities have not indicated a timeline for when the magistrates' court will reconvene on the matter, though officials close to the case suggest hearings could resume within weeks.

‍