“This is not a game of ambush, no further disclosure” – Principal Magistrate rules in Mohameds extradition case

Last Updated on Thursday, 8 January 2026, 20:03 by Writer

Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman on Thursday ruled that there would be no further disclosure of evidence in the extradition committal hearing for gold traders Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed after lawyers representing the United States (US) tendered document from Foreign Affairs Minister Hugh Todd

“There will be no further disclosure. That is the end of the disclosure. You had enough time,” she said on application from defence lawyers Roysdale Forde and Siand Dhurjon.

Ms Latchman then adjourned the matter to February 5, 2026 at 9 a.m. for continuation to allow the Mohameds’ lawyers to study the document “even if it is one word”. “No, not on today’s date; not with this statement now coming forward. They will have to get fresh instructions, as Mr. Durjon indicated, even if it’s one line, they need to study it. Even if it’s one word, it may be very crucial. One word could be crucial,” she said.

“I must caution the prosecution that this is not a game of chess, not a game of chess so you cannot be jumping. There are no knights here,” emphasised the Principal Magistrate.

She obliged the acceptance of the document after hearing strong objections by Mr Dhurjon and Mr Forde but declined a request by one of the prosecutors for the US, Kenneth Williams that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards be allowed to continue her evidence.

Under questioning by the magistrate about why he did so only on Thursday, he said Mr Todd’s statement was not accepted, he would be called to the court.

The issue stemmed from the fact that prosecutor for the United States, Glenn Hanoman on Wednesday afternoon emailed a one-page statement by the Foreign Minister certifying that his signature was on previously disclosed documents.

Initially, the defence said they did not receive that document but after Mr Hanoman provided the date, time and email address to which it was sent, Mr Dhurjon checked his phone and said he saw it.

Mr Williams told the court that the disclosure was made “out of an abundance of caution” as the prosecution had a duty to disclose material that comes into its possession.

The magistrate issued the ruling after the prosecutor could not give a clear-cut commitment that he would not be disclosing anything further in the case. I

In fact, he noted that disclosures could be made even after a case is closed if new evidence emerges.

“If something arises, we do not now foresee that anything will arise, but if something arises, that does require further disclosure, it is our duty to do so. It is not, it is not that we are going to say that we’re frozen in time, and if something happens which can be answered, it would not be just of us to sit back and say, ‘well, let us not do anything further’,” he said.

The Mohameds are wanted in the US to face trial for mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering linked to their gold trading business.

One of the 11 counts in a grand jury indictment also refers to Mr Azruddin Mohamed’s purchase of a Lamborghini.

In the offences, the US alleged that the Mohameds defrauded the Guyana government of taxes.

Mr Dhurjon expressed grave concern that on Wednesday, the prosecution was seeking to “patch a gap” after the inquiry was “well under way”. He said on the first occasion, the Permanent Secretary of the foreign affairs ministry could not substantiate the foundational evidence that caused the certificate of the minister under the Fugitive Offenders Act. “This is most unfair. We’re caught by ambush,” he said, calling it an “abusive application” in contrast to the prosecution’s repeated position that it was ready.

He said that was done twice.

He said at the very least, the prosecution should have sought leave from the court to disclose that there is a treaty arrangement that is in force between the two States that “goes to the very heart and soul” of the case.

“Today, they come with a completely new statement that changes the shape, causes us to have to recoordinate, reorganise our defence, our approach. We now have to seek fresh instructions…It seems like a formal statement but it is not. It concerns a matter that is in contention or would be put in contention,” he said.

Mr Forde told the court that the Foreign Minister’s statement was only now being tendered as evidence to cure a gap in Ms Roopchand-Edwards’ evidence. “It is clear that this statement from mister Todd is only meant to fill the gap or the deficiency in the evidence revealed as of yesterday,” he said.

“On every occasion we have done this, and on every occasion we would have been told by them that they have completed their disclosures; the record would be replete with statements like that. Your Worship, it is clear that this statement from mister Todd is only meant to fill the gap or the deficiency in the evidence revealed as of yesterday.”