The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) today said it will rule on the appeal filed by the Mohameds ‘as soon as practicable’ with CCJ President, Justice Winston Anderson announcing that the interim stay of proceedings which was issued by the Court last month will continue until the Court makes a decision on the substantive application.

He also advised that caution be maintained in public discourse on the case.

It was a five-hour long legal showdown during today’s virtual appeal hearing with Attorneys representing the Mohamed’s trying to convince the Judges of the Court that their arguments can withstand scrutiny.

The billionaire father and son, who have already been sanctioned by the US Government, are facing an extradition hearing in the local Magistrates’ Court following an official extradition request from the US for them to face an 11-count indictment related to allegations of fraud and tax evasion.

At the heart of the argument by the Attorneys for the Mohameds at the CCJ is that the Authority to Proceed (ATP) with the extradition request under the Fugitive Offenders Act was tainted with bias from the Home Affairs Minister.

The Attorneys argued that within two hours of receiving the request, the Authority to Proceed was signed by the Minister of Home Affairs. They described that as a strange occurrence, which they said gave the impression that the Minister was waiting on the document to sign off for the Mohameds to be extradited.

Counsel for the Mohameds Fyard Hosein argued that the function of the Minister is adjudicative.

“The position is, procedural fairness must operate from the very from the very inception as a preliminary act down to the very beginning and the case law is very very clear on that. In that case, the question of the appointment of and investigative committee and the argument might have been that this is only preliminary but we are saying that extradition is even more nuances than that,”

Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who is representing the interest of the Home Affairs Minister, argued that there should be no issue with the timeline associated with the issuance of the Authority To Proceed.

He said the Minister could have been accused of not carrying out her functions if that ATP was not issued by her in a timely manner.

“If the ground of challenge is that the Minister did in fact did not exercise her functions under section 12 (2) because the time was too short to do so, that is not a bias argument, that is an argument that the Minister did not exercise her function at all  and of course that is a classic ground of public law challenge, where you are requited to exercise a discretion and you simply didn’t do it,” Mr. Mendez told the Court.

Senior Counsel Mendes was supported by Attorney General Anil Nandlall who stated that the Minister’s powers could not be delegated to anyone else. He said she was correct to issue the ATP when the request was made.

“And that is why we say respectfully your honour that the ATP doesn’t attract the rigour of the bias doctrine as it would ordinarily apply in administrative tribunals, that is why the legislature vested that power in a Minister and it appears on its face that it is non-delegable and I advance that proposition as part of my general submission”, Nandlall said.

However, Mr. Nandlall was quizzed by the CCJ Judges of his role in the case, and whether he felt that the process was properly conducted. The CCJ President questioned Mr. Nandlall about the quality of advice that he would have offered in the case, particularly as Government’s chief legal advisor.

Mr. Nandlall said his role was not an advisory one, nor did he advise the Minister. He said he only had his say after the ATP was issued.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who also argued on behalf of the Mohameds, stated that the Minister effectively had an interest in the case and should not have been the one to issue the ATP.

He said while the applicants have no issue with the extradition process itself, they maintain the right to a hearing that is fair and free from influence.

Related posts:

CCJ pauses extradition committal proceedings and sets April 21 for hearing of Mohameds’ appeal Court of Appeal dismisses Mohameds’ appeal of High Court ruling on perceived bias in extradition matter Court of Appeal rejects request to halt Magistrate Court’s hearing as it reviews High Court ruling in Mohameds’ extradition matter Acting Chief Justice to rule on Mohameds High Court case related to extradition request on February 2