Caption: Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed

Summary

• Lawyers for Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, have asked the Court of Appeal to stay the magistrate’s extradition committal proceedings pending a substantive appeal over the Authority to Proceed (ATP).
• They argue that without a stay the committal case could conclude quickly, risking prejudice if the appeal later succeeds, and they allege governmental persecution and bias involving the Home Affairs Minister and the Attorney General.
• The Mohameds are wanted in the US on fraud-related charges and were previously sanctioned by OFAC over alleged gold smuggling; their lawyers are also seeking to have the ATP quashed under the Fugitive Offenders Act.

GEORGETOWN – Lawyers representing Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his billionaire businessman father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, are seeking an order from the Court of Appeal to suspend the extradition committal proceedings now before the magistrate’s court.

In court documents, the lawyers said their clients—wanted in the United States on fraud and related charges—are asking the Court of Appeal to stay the committal proceedings pending the hearing of a substantive appeal against an earlier High Court ruling on the Authority to Proceed (ATP).

“For the substantive appeal to be meaningful, the proceedings before the learned magistrate ought to be stayed; otherwise, if successful in the substantive appeal, the proceedings before the learned magistrate may have well advanced or concluded to the detriment of the Appellants, who would be committed to prison to await extradition or the outcome of habeas corpus proceedings,” the lawyers said.

Chief Justice Navindra Singh dismissed the legal challenge to Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond’s decision to issue the ATP to Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman to conduct the committal proceedings. The challenge was based on alleged political bias by the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration.

Mohamed is leader of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), which won 16 of the 65 seats in the National Assembly following the September 1 regional and general elections.

The Mohameds have been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for allegedly smuggling more than 10,000 kilogrammes of gold worth more than US$50 million and failing to pay relevant taxes to the Guyana Government.

Last October, a US federal grand jury unsealed an 11-count indictment against the Mohameds for alleged wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. The United States subsequently requested their extradition. The matter is now before the local courts.

Their attorneys—Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva—are arguing governmental persecution, presumed bias, apparent bias, unconscious bias, bias by the Attorney General, and that the High Court decision was erroneous.

They said the committal proceedings could be completed within a month based on how Magistrate Latchman is scheduling the matter, allegedly at the insistence of US prosecutors.

“There is a most conspicuous and real risk of injustice, danger and serious prejudice occurring for which damages cannot compensate should the stay sought herein be refused,” they said.

The lawyers also argued that the appeal has strong prospects of success and that Chief Justice Singh’s decision was premised on errors of law and fact that collectively resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

They contended that the judge erred by failing to consider that Walrond’s decision to issue the ATP engaged their clients’ right to liberty and other fundamental rights, requiring the weighing of statutory and common-law factors.

They further argued that presumed and apparent bias affecting Walrond and Attorney General Anil Nandlall, “jointly and severally”, rendered the ATP void and a nullity, and breached the natural justice principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause.

The lawyers are asking the Court of Appeal to quash the ATP, which they said purported to confer jurisdiction on the “third respondent” to commence extradition proceedings against the Mohameds under the Fugitive Offenders Act.

“It is clear that the bias which infected” the home affairs minister and the Attorney General “automatically disqualified and rendered void the ATP. It is clear that if successful in this appeal, the extradition proceedings brought under the ATP must necessarily fail,” the documents state.

They also want the court to find that the judge erred by treating the label attached to Walrond’s decision—whether quasi-judicial, judicial or administrative—as determinative, arguing that modern administrative law focuses on the substance and effect of the decision under review.

Additionally, they argued that Walrond’s role was not limited to issuing the ATP. They said that if the magistrate orders committal, Walrond would be required under section 26(1) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, Cap. 10:04, to make the final decision on whether to issue an extradition order—making her impartiality essential to the applicants’ right to a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker. (CMC)