Last Updated on Thursday, 12 March 2026, 18:43 by Writer
— lawyers haggle over draft statement
Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman on Thursday rejected a fresh request for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to disclose the contracts with United States (US) lobbyists that the Guyana government hired.
Defence Lawyer, Siand Dhurjon for Azruddin Mohamed was hoping to secure disclosure of the contracts after he provided evidence that one of the firms had successfully gotten two US members of Congress to post comments against his client who was indicted and extradition requested for by the US.
The younger Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed are wanted by the US to face trial for alleged financial crimes of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering.
“They have to do, Madam, with the body and soul of our defence,” he told the court, adding that the registration of the lobbyists with the US Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) now provided a sound basis to again ask for disclosure of the contracts with the lobbyists, conversations with the US on topics about the Mohameds and monies spent by the Guyana government “speak” to political persecution of his client.
The defence team has consistently contended that Mr Azruddin Mohamed, leader of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), is being targeted by the People’s Progressive Party Civic and its government because of his political views.
Mr Dhurjon also sought to convince the court that the Mohameds were being targeted for their stance in support of the Palestinians. “It has been known that the Mohammeds have organized parades in support of the Palestinian side of the war…,” the lawyer added.
Though Mr Dhurjon said the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards had previously told the court that she was unaware of the contractual details between the Guyana government and the American lobbyist, he sought to convince that she had access to records to prove otherwise. “That is not possible. So she is the office holder. She’s actually the custodian of the records in a sense,” he said.
“What we’ve shown to Your Worship is the smoking gun,” he said.
Apparently referring to the FARA filings by one of the Guyana government-hired lobbyists, he said that firm had sent draft tweets to policymakers and lawmakers in the United States.
However, US-hired prosecutor Herbert McKenzie maintained the prosecution’s objection, saying there was no obligation to disclose the contracts and communications with the lobbyist firms. He also said the request for proof of payments was a new element of the disclosure request.
Mr McKenzie said a cursory look at the FARA documents that were “thrust upon us” contained a list of questions with responses in checkboxes.
He deemed those documents “theoretical”, “generic” and containing nothing that Mr Dhurjon said in his oral submissions.
The prosecutor said the document contained “absolutely nothing at all” in relation to receiving evidence and asked the court to proceed with continuation of the extradition committal proceedings.
Mr McKenzie, in his objections, said the FARA registration documents that contained screenshots of tweets by US members of Congress Republican Carlos A. Giménez and María Elvira Salazar could not form the basis for the court to grant disclosure because they are not in line with the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Evidence Act.
“Your Honour, all of these things are completely irrelevant, has no bearing upon anything that this court should consider in determining the issue before it. Your Honour, I dare say that what we are on right now, at this moment, because this document is a grand fishing expedition. You can’t fish for evidence to support your case,” he said.
He challenged the defence lawyers to provide, as evidence, that political philosophy and political leaning advanced by his client to support the contention of political persecution.
Meanwhile, much of the remainder of Thursday’s session was taken up over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Permanent Secretary’s draft statement, based on a template, and one that was finalised with assistance from her lawyers, after the extradition request was made.
After much persistence by Defence Lawyer Roysdale Forde, he succeeded in getting the court to accept that there was a draft statement on November 25 and a final statement on November 27 which the Permanent Secretary said she signed and gave to prosecutor McKenzie through the foreign ministry’s Legal Officer.
The Permanent Secretary said she “got rid” of that draft statement, but admitted that changes were made to that draft.
The Principal Magistrate said she was unprepared to entertain questions on previous statements. “We don’t have any statements for the 26th. And if you want to show inconsistency, then you need to do it the proper way. I don’t see how you’re showing an inconsistency or even an omission,” she said.
Mr Forde said he wanted to know the contents of the previous statement, if the US had become involved in adoption or parts or portions of the previous statement. He said the defence was concerned about what statements were delivered and when.
“We’re trying to solicit information that goes towards explaining material questions that the court has to answer or decide upon, and they’re all tied to credibility and reliability of the witness,” he added.
Discover more from Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
