Extradition documents submitted as Mohameds’ case moves ahead

Extradition proceedings against U.S-indicted businessman Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed advanced on Tuesday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court after key extradition documents were formally tendered into evidence, clearing the way for the committal hearing to continue despite repeated attempts to delay the matter.

Magistrate Judy Latchman rejected a defence application to pause the proceedings and ordered the prosecution to call its first witness, making it clear that the court would not entertain tactics aimed at slowing the case.

“I have ruled. Let’s not have a kangaroo court at this time. Call the first witness,” the magistrate said sternly, addressing defence counsel, Roysdale Forde, SC in a raised tone.

The ruling came even as defence attorneys, Forde and Dhurjon, argued that related legal challenges remain pending before the High Court. They contended that the court should “hold its hand” until applications for a stay are determined, noting that an appeal has already been filed against a constitutional ruling delivered on Monday by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh.

The defence maintained that the Chief Justice’s decision dealt only with a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Fugitive Offenders’ Act and did not address the legality of the extradition process itself. They further pointed out that a separate judicial review application, which also seeks a stay of the extradition proceedings, remains unresolved.

However, prosecutors led by King’s Counsel Terrence Williams countered that no stay is currently in force and that there is no legal basis for halting the committal hearing. The magistrate agreed, paving the way for the prosecution to proceed.

The prosecution’s first witness, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gave evidence detailing how the extradition request from the United States was received and processed.

Roopchand-Edwards testified that on October 30, 2025, she received a package containing a bundle of documents and an envelope marked as Diplomatic Note No. 417, formally known as a note verbale. She explained that diplomatic correspondence between Guyana and foreign missions is routinely conducted through such notes, each carrying a unique number.

She said the documents indicated a request from the United States of America and included official papers bearing distinctive features such as yellow and red ribbons, seals of the US State Department, and signatures associated with the US Secretary of State.

After confirming the nature of the documents, Roopchand-Edwards said she immediately notified the Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond and delivered the package to the minister on the same day, describing this as standard procedure. She further testified that she later recognised the “order to proceed” by the minister’s signature, stating she was familiar with the signature through her previous work as the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism between 2020 and 2025.

During her testimony, the prosecution applied to have Diplomatic Note 417 and the accompanying documents shown to the witness for identification and formally tendered into evidence. Dhurjon objected on several grounds, including challenges to whether the witness had sufficient authority to identify the documents and whether all procedural requirements had been met.

After hearing arguments, the magistrate overruled the objections. Diplomatic Note 417 and its accompanying documents were admitted into evidence and marked accordingly, representing a significant step forward in the extradition proceedings.

Also, following the failure to secure an adjournment, the defence raised another legal challenge, arguing that the order to proceed issued in the matter cites only foreign offences and does not specify corresponding local offences under Guyanese law.

Defence counsel Rorde, SC, contended that, as a matter of basic fairness, the defendants are entitled to know the local offences that correspond to the foreign allegations before the end of the committal hearing.

Prosecutors responded by outlining the local offences they say correspond with the extradition request. These include conspiracy to commit misdemeanour and felony offences under the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, computer-related fraud under the Cybercrime Act, obtaining and inducing by false pretence, forging of public documents, false declarations under the Customs Act, and conspiracy to commit money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act.

The prosecution maintained that the law does not require those corresponding offences to be set out in the order to proceed at this stage and that the extradition process is unfolding in accordance with statutory requirements.

With the extradition documents now formally before the court and the first witness having testified, the matter is set to continue on Thursday, January 08, as the committal hearing moves forward.