Last Updated on Tuesday, 6 January 2026, 21:00 by Writer
Principal Magistrate, Judy Latchman on Tuesday decided to go ahead with the extradition committal proceedings after the prosecution provided the local corresponding charges, despite the filing of a stay pending the hearing and determination of an appeal to the full court of Chief Justice Navindra Singh’s decision.
Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed had wanted a stay pending the hearing and determination of two High Court constitutional challenges to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act and Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond’s Authority To Proceed (ATP) on the grounds that the Mohameds are being politically targeted because Mr Azruddin is the leader of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN).
Less than five minutes after Ms Latchman ruled that there would be no stay and ordered the first witness to take the stand, defence lawyer Roysdale Forde stood and told the court that the proceedings should not go ahead until a schedule of the corresponding local offences are provided.
“The requesting State (US) is under a duty to furnish the defendants with a schedule of the corresponding local offences upon which the committal enquiry is to proceed,” he said.
He said if that was not done, as a matter of law and constitution, the Mohameds could be exposed to double criminality, inadmissibility and irrelevant evidence and the possibility that a prima facie case exist.
Mr Forde cautioned that there would be a “long arduous road ahead” and that there would be objections at every step of the way.
He said the legal teams could not “cull” what the local offences are by going through the documents.
He said the Authority To Proceed could mean that the court go ahead without ascertaining what the local corresponding offences are.
He said the corresponding local changes are required for him to conduct a cross-examination. “It is not as if we want to be difficult but we want to go through this process in a fair manner,” he said.
An 11-count US grand jury indictment accuses the Mohameds of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering.
Attorney-at-law Damien Da Silva said the magistrate has no authority to proceed and commit on foreign criminal charges.
Lead prosecutor, Jamaican lawyer Terrence Williams, at the request of the Principal Magistrate, said the charges include computer related fraud, obtaining by false pretence, inducing persons by false declaration, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and forged false declarations under the Customs Act.
The Principal Magistrate then insisted and ordered the prosecutor to call the first witness, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sharon Roopchand-Edwards.
The full court of the High Court has to schedule a hearing of an appeal of the Chief Justice’s decision that the Principal Magistrate could go ahead with the extradition committal proceedings before the hearing and determination of two constitutional cases.
The substantive case before the Chief Justice is scheduled for January 14. The Principal Magistrate had scheduled the commital hearing for January 6 and 8.
According to the application drafted by Mr Forde, the Chief Justice was wrong on numerous legal grounds when he finally determined issues in the interlocutory proceedings which only properly fall for determination in the substantive proceedings still pending.
The Mohameds also want the full court to find that Chief Justice erred in law when he found that the assurance (in the form of a diplomatic note) issued by the United States in respect of re-extradition to a third country satisfied the requirement under section 8(3)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, and so rendered the applicants’ challenge to the constitutionality of sections 8(3B)(a) and 8(3B) (b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act not a serious issue to be determined, when he found that section 8(3B)(c) of Fugitive Offenders Act related to the extradition arrangements as opposed to the extradition process.
Other areas that the Mohameds believe that the Chief Justice was wrong are his findings that the habeas corpus proceedings was a redress available to the Applicants if committed by the Magistrate to allege a breach in the extradition proceedings, the constitutional challenge to Section 8(3B)c did not disclose a serious issue to be tried, allowing the committal proceedings will not cause irreparable harm as no surrender order was presently imminent and the risk of onward extradition to third country remained hypothetical and not sufficient to justify halting statutory proceedings, in assessing the balance of convenience, a stay of proceedings was a drastic remedy in the circumstances, and he did not duly consider the related prejudice the Applicants would endure if the stay of proceedings is not granted.
Further, the full court is being asked to find that Justice Singh relied on incorrect principles in the determination of whether a stay of proceedings ought to be granted, and that he was wrong in law when he ruled that the Mohameds had failed to demonstrate that the matter would be rendered nugatory if it was resolved in the Fixed Date Application and consequently dismissed the Notice of Application and ordered that the award of costs be costs in the cause, that he misdirected himself by concluding that the public interest would be undermined if extradition proceedings could be routinely stayed, failed to recognize that the greater risk of prejudice lies with the Appellants, as the refusal to grant the stay effectively allows the magistrate to proceed to conduct the committal proceedings despite the pending hearing and determination of the substantive matter, resulting in the grave potential injustice where the Appellants would be detained for an indeterminate period awaiting surrender to the requesting State prior to a determination of the substantive matter.
The Mohameds further state that the Chief Justice erred in law and misdirected himself by failing to appreciate that the constitutionality of the provisions in the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009 is a matter of public importance as it governs extradition in Guyana.
Discover more from Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
