CCJ Recusal Fight: Lawyers Demand Records in 7 Days

For legal professionals, this recusal demand is a textbook stress test of the apparent bias doctrine at the apex of a national judiciary. When counsel for the Mohameds asserts a 'constitutionally guaranteed' fair hearing was compromised, they are asking the CCJ to confront the question every appellate court fears: can a judge who met with political actors about judicial appointments fairly adjudicate the extradition of an opposition leader? The seven-day disclosure deadline turns a quiet integrity dispute into a public deadline with real litigation consequences.

The legal team for Guyana's Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, gold dealer Nazar Mohamed, has thrown down a direct challenge to the Caribbean Court of Justice, demanding that CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson recuse himself from all proceedings involving their clients and threatening formal legal action unless the court makes sweeping internal disclosures within seven days. The August 14, 2026 letter, obtained by the Trinidad Express and addressed to the CCJ Registrar, was signed by attorneys Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva. It grounds the recusal demand in the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing, asserting that the Mohameds were "deeply disturbed and distressed by the allegations" and had formed "the strong and reasonable view that they may not have received the fair hearing which is constitutionally guaranteed to them."

“

The August 14, 2026 letter, obtained by the Trinidad Express and addressed to the CCJ Registrar, was signed by attorneys Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva.

The disclosure request is unusually broad in scope. The lawyers are seeking "full and frank disclosure" of all emails, correspondence, and documents touching on leaked internal disputes among CCJ judges, as well as records of Justice Anderson's 2025 meetings with then-Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton and President Irfaan Ali concerning the more than two-decade delay in confirming Guyana's Chancellor and Chief Justice. The demand extends specifically to any material bearing on the July 29, 2026 ruling in the Mohameds' own extradition appeal — in particular, whether Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond's authorization to proceed against the Mohameds was politically motivated. The attorneys have also asked the court to preserve all related records, including communications, itineraries, and diary entries involving Anderson, Norton, President Ali, and Guyanese government officials.

The legal significance of this demand operates on at least three levels. First, it directly invokes the common-law doctrine of apparent bias: a judge must ordinarily step aside where a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility of bias. The allegation here is not merely that Justice Anderson had contact with political figures, but that those contacts concerned the very subject matter — judicial appointments and the integrity of Guyana's higher judiciary — that intersects with the Mohameds' appeal. Second, the recusal demand tests the CCJ's capacity for institutional self-regulation. As Guyana's final appellate court, the CCJ is the apex of the country's judicial hierarchy, and a recusal of its President would have cascading implications for the composition of panels, the allocation of cases, and public confidence in the court's impartiality. Third, the seven-day disclosure ultimatum converts a confidential judicial-integrity dispute into a public, time-bound standoff with litigation risk.

The extradition backdrop sharpens the stakes. The Mohameds were indicted in Florida in 2025 on wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering charges. Azruddin Mohamed's position as Opposition Leader of Guyana injects acute political sensitivity: his lawyers are effectively arguing that the extradition proceedings against him and his father may have been tainted by political considerations, evidenced by the leaked internal judicial disputes and the President's meetings with the country's top political actors. The twenty-plus-year delay in confirming a Chancellor and Chief Justice — a vacuum in Guyana's appellate and trial leadership — provides the constitutional context for the lawyers' claim that their clients cannot be confident in a fair hearing.