By Svetlana Marshall

The Court of Appeal today rejected an application by Businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed for the extradition committal proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to be halted, pending the hearing and determination of their challenge to the recent High Court ruling on the issue of political bias.

Instead, the panel of Appellate Judges led by the Chancellor (ag), Roxane George announced that the decision will be handed down on March 17, 2026.

The father and son, who are currently facing an extradition request having been indicted in a US Court, are challenging the High Court’s decision that the issuance of the Authority To Proceed (APT) by the Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond, was not done on the basis of political bias.

Today, outside of the Court of Appeal, Attorney General Anil Nandlall welcomed the interim decision of the Court of Appeal. According to Mr. Nandlall, the case should have never been filed.

“The matter below should have never been filed in the High Court and consequently the appeal that flows there from, should have never been filed. It was hopeless from the beginning and the stay was rejected. You know why the stay was rejected? Because, the appeal has no likelihood of success – a stay is granted once you have a strong appeal. If an appeal doesn’t have any merit, then a stay would not be granted,” Minister Nandlall said.

The Attorney General is among respondents in the appeal brought by the Mohameds. At the Court of Appeal today, Mr. Nandlall along with Trinidad and Tobago Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, rejected the notion of political bias in the handling of the extradition matter.

On receipt of the Request for Extradition from the US in October, 2025, the Minister of Home Affairs sought advice from the Attorney General before issuing the Authority to Proceed.

The ATP triggered the Extradition Committal Proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court currently being heard by Principal Magistrate, Judy Latchman.

The Mohameds have argued that the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) wants its main political rival – Azruddin Mohamed – to be extradited because that outcome would benefit them in the end.

But both Senior Counsel Mendes and the Attorney General argued that no case of bias can be proven.

 It was argued that the Minister of Home Affairs is not involved in the decision process, but rather it is for the Courts to decide whether the father and son ought to be extradited.

“The case of bias against the minister is manufactured and contrived, and if that case of bias is to apply then someone can simply enter into the political arena against the Government of the day and then invoke argument of bias. Then if that is the law then extradition processes are going to be shut down. That the minister did not perform a judicial function, that the extradition process involves a judicial process that is taking place in the Magistrates’ Court, and after that, there is a challenge to that in the High Court and then there is a further challenge to that in the Court of Appeal,” the Attorney General explained.

Attorney For the Mohameds, Fyard Hosein submitted to the Court that given the perceived bias on the part of the Home Affairs Minister and the Attorney General, an officer who is independent should have been delegated with the function of determining whether or not the Authority To Proceed should be issued.  

In doing so, he questioned whether the Home Affairs Minister was qualified to issue the ATP. Interjecting, the Acting Chancellor not only inquired who would be the independent officer, but she said in any event it would be the President who would have to delegate, and given the serious allegations made against the President, it could then be argued that the appointed person is also tainted.

Weighing in on this issue, the Attorney General argued that the Minister cannot delegate her functions to anyone else in the extradition matters.

“The Minister is named by the Parliament as the agency to perform this function. It is an executive function, treaty obligations, extradition is from Government to Government. If the Minister is to alienate that function, the minister will run foul with the legislation, the minister will run foul with the constitutional concept of separation of powers. And to whom will the Minister delegate it? If the Minister delegates it to any other minister then the same bias argument will apply, because they are saying the entire government is bias,” the Attorney General said.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who is also representing the Mohameds, said the legal team is determining its next step.

“The stay wasn’t granted. The court indicated that it will be delivering its decision shortly. The team will be taking into consideration what are our next steps in order to secure a stay. We are currently considering that, and we will be making a decision shortly,” Forde said.

He maintains that by proceeding with the extradition hearing, Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, would be acting on the issuance of an Authority To Proceed by an individual they contend is bias.

Related posts:

Foreign Affairs PS grilled on handling of extradition requests in Mohameds’ extradition hearing Acting Chief Justice to rule on Mohameds High Court case related to extradition request on February 2 Mohameds extradition hearing gets underway as Magistrate shuts down Defence team’s request for pause Magistrate rejects Mohameds’ application to have extradition case moved to High Court for Constitutional matters