The extradition committal proceedings against the Leader of the Opposition Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, restarted in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court today after a more than five month hiatus, which was punctuated by a series of legal battles in the High Court right up to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

At today’s hearing, there was another attempt by the Defence to pause the proceedings pending clarity from the Court of Appeal on its latest orders.

But the attempt failed, with the Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman, stating that the matter must proceed.

“The Court has to abide by the Court of Appeal’s decision and the matter must proceed,” the Chief Magistrate said before calling the first witness for the day.

Last week, the Court of Appeal ordered the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to proceed with the extradition proceedings against the Mohameds, who have been indicted by the US.

However, the Appellate Court instructed the Magistrates’ Court not to proceed with its final ruling until the hearing and determination of an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Fugitive Offenders Act.

When the case was called today in the Magistrates’ Court, Attorneys for the Mohameds – Roysdale Forde and Siand Dhurjon – informed the Court that they will be writing to the Appellate Court for clarity on the order issued. The Prosecution, however, said the orders of the Court were clear.

“The Court of Appeal already ruled that the case should continue, and that only the final decision of the magistrate should await the determination of the Court of Appeal. That Court of Appeal decision was CCJ agreed, with the resolution of the Court of Appeal,” Special Prosecutor, Terrence Williams told reporters.

But while noting that the order has caused “some confusion,” to the Defence team, Attorney Dhurjon explained that they intend to seek directions and clarity from the Court of Appeal on the order, adding that the provisions under challenge touch and concern much of the rights, duties and obligations of all parties in case.

Added to that, he said the order issued by the Court of Appeal requires the Magistrates’ Court to facilitate Case Management to establish the duties and obligations of the parties on either side.

He explained that in the absence of Case Management, there can be difficulties when witnesses are cross-examined on matters that touch and concern the constitutional issues that remain unresolved in the Court of Appeal.

Noting that the case is highly integrated and intertwined, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde told the Chief Magistrate that it is now up to her to decide how to proceed with the committal proceedings.

“The Court of Appeal has left it in your lap to determine what happens in a practical and efficient conduct in these proceedings. The Court of Appeal made an order staying your ultimate determination of the matter and in view of the fact that all these issues are arising in the appeal…it is for you to determine, in my respectful view, whether what we raised could be proceeded with subject to the ultimate determination of the Court of Appeal,” Forde said.

But Special Prosecutors Terrence Williams and Herbert McKenzie, in registering their objection, questioned whether the Defence was re-arguing their application for a stay, which was rejected at both the Court of Appeal and the CCJ.

McKenzie said the committal proceedings must be allowed to continue, reminding the Chief Magistrate that the Appellate Court instructed that the case be proceeded with, and only her ruling must be stayed, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

After hearing the arguments, the Chief Magistrate ruled that she must abide by the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and as such the case must proceed.

The Mohameds, in their appeal, are arguing that that parts of Section8 (3) (A) and (B) of the Fugitive Offenders Act are in violation of Article 122 (A) of the Constitution on the grounds that they empower the Minister to order the extradition of a person without due process through the Magistrate’s Court, and therefore impose executive control over a judicial process.

According to the Mohameds and their Attorneys, the sections violate the separation of powers doctrine.

The Court of Appeal will hear arguments in that appeal on October 13 before making a ruling, even as the substantive extradition matter proceeds in the Magistrates’ Court.

Related posts:

Magistrates’ Court ordered to proceed with Mohameds’ extradition case, but final determination to await outcome of appeal CCJ pauses extradition committal proceedings and sets April 21 for hearing of Mohameds’ appeal Mohameds extradition hearing gets underway as Magistrate shuts down Defence team’s request for pause Acting Chief Justice denies Mohameds’ request for stay of Magistrates’ Court extradition proceedings