Extradition hearing zooms in on details as defence seeks notebook from Permanent Secretary

Friday’s proceedings in the committal hearing for U.S.-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed largely came down to the details as cross-examination of Foreign Affairs Ministry Permanent Secretary Sharon Roopchand-Edwards continued before Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.

During the hearing, defence attorney Roysdale Forde, S.C., pressed Roopchand-Edwards on the circumstances surrounding her statement dated November 27, 2025, which outlined how documents from the United States Embassy were received and handled at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, several of Forde’s questions were disallowed by the court after repeated objections from prosecuting attorney Herbert McKenzie, who argued that many of the questions were irrelevant or had already been addressed.

Based on the exchanges during the hearing, at least 10 questions from the defence were not allowed after objections by McKenzie and rulings by the magistrate.

Many of the disputed questions centred on details not included in Roopchand-Edwards’ written statement, including descriptions of the courier who delivered the package, how long the courier remained in her office and whether the template used to prepare her statement could have been retrieved electronically.

During questioning, Roopchand-Edwards acknowledged that her statement was a “summary” rather than a step-by-step account, explaining that some details, including that she opened the folder in the presence of the courier and that it had first been received by her office staff , were not included in the written statement.

Forde also questioned the process used to prepare the statement, noting that Roopchand-Edwards said she had consulted with a lawyer from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and relied on a template when drafting the document.

Under further questioning, the Permanent Secretary revealed that she made notes during that consultation in a notebook kept in her office.

When asked about the notebook’s whereabouts, Roopchand-Edwards said it was likely among several notebooks kept at the ministry.

Forde then requested that the notebook be produced in court.

Magistrate Latchman granted the request, directing the witness to locate and produce the notebook when the hearing resumed at 1:30 p.m., if it could be found.

When court resumed at 1:30 p.m., Roopchand-Edwards informed the court that the notebook could not be located. She said she checked throughout the lunch break but was unable to find it at that time.

The defence had argued that the notebook could shed light on the consultation process and the preparation of the Permanent Secretary’s statement, which forms part of the evidence in the extradition proceedings.

Throughout the morning session (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.), McKenzie repeatedly rose to object to lines of questioning from the defence, particularly those relating to the courier’s identity, the timing of events and communications surrounding the preparation of the statement.

Magistrate Latchman sustained several of those objections, ruling that some of the questions were irrelevant to the proceedings or had already been answered.

Note: This report reflects developments during the morning session of the hearing, between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m..