Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, has indicated that he will hand down his ruling in the Mohamed’s High Court case related to the extradition request by the US on the 2nd February, 2026.

In Court today, the Attorney for Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed told the High Court today that the Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond wants to extradite the main rival of the ruling People People’s Progressive Party/Civic, as he clashed with Attorneys for the Government over whether the Home Affairs Minister exhibited bias in issuing the Order to Proceed, which triggered the extradition hearing in the Magistrates’ Court.

In late October, following a request from the US for Leader of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), Azruddin Mohamed to be extradited along with his father, the Home Affairs Minister issued an Order to Proceed.

But the Mohameds, through Attorney Siand Dhurjon, are contending that Minister Walrond issued the order on the basis of bias.

Citing a number of cases, Dhurjon told the acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh that both the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Attorney General have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings because of their political allegiance to the ruling PPP/C.

Minister Walrond, like the Attorney General, was a candidate for the PPP/C in the 2025 Elections, and as a consequence of their election, they now sit as Members of Parliament and Cabinet Members in the Irfaan Ali Administration.

Azruddin Mohamed is among 16 Members of Parliament representing WIN in the National Assembly, and is considered the presumptive Opposition Leader.    

Dhurjon, while describing the PPP/C as a “pressure group,” furnished the High Court with 15 statements, in which the leaders of the PPP/C, including President Irfaan Ali; Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo; and Executive Member, Attorney General Anil Nandlall weighed in publicly on the alleged crimes committed by Azruddin Mohamed and his father.

He said those statements, some of which were made in the presence of the Home Affairs Minister during the elections campaign, demonstrated clear bias against the Mohameds. In summary, he told the Court that Minister Walrond was “misguided by her political motive and bias” when she issued the Order to Proceed. That order, he argued, was issued even as Nazar Mohamed was facing criminal charges in the Magistrates’ Court related to tax evasion and fraudulent declarations.

But the Attorney for the Minister of Home Affairs, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes of Trinidad and Tobago, told the Court that the Minister was merely executing her functions in accordance with the laws of Guyana.

He argued that while the Minister of Home Affair issued the Order to proceed, she has no control over the outcome of the extradition proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.

In doing so, he was keen on pointing out that the request was made by the US and not the PPP/C Administration.

Emphasizing that context was important; Mendes questioned whether the Minister ought not to have issued the Order despite the serious allegations leveled against the Mohameds.

Further, he questioned whether the Minister should have delegated her functions to someone else, particularly not associated with the government in breach of the laws, and contrary to the country’s international obligations.

“It is not something you can delegate,” he stressed as he submitted to the Court that it was necessary for the Home Affairs Minister to act.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall – the third named respondent in the case – told the Court that the theory on which the case is based is “absurd.”

He said the Minister of Home Affairs has not been accused of failing to execute her functions with regards to the laws governing extradition, adding that whether she is bias or not is immaterial.

Minister Nandlall argued that by issuing the Order to proceed, the Home Affairs Minister was carrying out a mechanical function. Like Mendes, he said it is the Magistrates’ Court which will decide on the outcome of the extradition proceedings.

The acting Chief Justice will hand down his decision in the case on February 2, 2026.

Related posts:

Mohameds extradition case adjourned to February 5; Magistrate warns Prosecution against further disclosures Foreign Affairs Permanent Secretary testifies of receiving extradition request for Mohameds from US Government Acting Chief Justice denies Mohameds’ request for stay of Magistrates’ Court extradition proceedings Magistrate rejects Mohameds’ application to have extradition case moved to High Court for Constitutional matters