DPP asks High Court to order Mohamed remain in jail pending outcome of extradition hearing

Last Updated on Saturday, 14 November 2026, 22:23 by Written By Denis Chabrol

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has asked the High Court to quash Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman’s  refusals to quash the GY$150,000 bail to Azruddin Mohamed pending the outcome of the hearing of a United States (US) request for his extradition to stand trial for financial crimes.

This effectively means that even if he is granted bail on four other criminal charges, he would remain in prison until the extradition hearing is finished.

Chief Justice Navindra Singh will hear the Fixed Date Application (FDA) on November 23, 2026.

In court papers seen by Demerara Waves Online News, the DPP’s grounds for applying for the Chief Magistrate’s refusals to cancel the bail on November 2 and 3, 2026 was because the latter’s decision was made in a way that is unauthorised or contrary to law; failing to satisfy or observe conditions or procedures required by law; unreasonable, irregular or improper exercises of jurisdiction; in conflict with the policy of a Act(s) and in error of law.

The DPP has specifically applied for an “order that the bail granted to the Interested Party by the Respondent in the Extradition proceedings be revoked.”

The High Court is also being asked to issue a declaration that on the true and proper construction of section 7(1)(c) of the Bail Act, the establishment of the conditions prescribed therein does not require proof of a criminal conviction or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Armed with supporting affidavits, including one by lawyer for the US in the extradition hearing Herbert McKenzie, the DPP said Mr Mohamed has been charged with unlawful possession of firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and attempt to obstruct the course of justice in relation to an incident at almost midnight on 12 October 2026 where it was alleged that he and other men were apprehended after they were detected conducting surveillance of the home of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, a witness in the extradition proceedings. The court papers state that Chief Magistrate Latchman was further informed that Mr Mohamed was further charged with breaching the Cybercrime Act by allegedly being involved in the unauthorised downloading and sharing of video data of aspects of the incident described from the police database.

The prosecution says Ms Latchman was asked to revoke the bail because Mr Mohamed had allegedly committed offences while on bail, had allegedly interfered with witnesses, and the substantial risk of similar misconduct.

The High Court was told that the Chief Magistrate was informed that police officers who could speak directly to the allegations were present and could be examined by her , but she indicated that was unnecessary.

The DPP in her High Court filing said the Chief Magistrate rejected the application reasoning that had Mr Mohamed been convicted while the extradition proceeding is still ongoing, that conviction may very well have some bearing on the application for bail revocation; charges by themselves, without more, do not satisfy the court that the Interested Party has committed an offence or is likely to commit an offence; and that there must be something substantial that elevates the charge to satisfy the court that the defendant has committed an offence or is likely to commit an offence.

The DPP is supporting her case with an affidavit by the Court Superintendent in Region 4A, Superintendent Shellon Daniels who says that “it is the standard practice in the magistrates’ courts that bail is regularly revoked.

Grounds for revocation of bail include being charged with the alleged commission of other offences, exhibited a pattern of repeat offending; tampered with, or attempted to tamper with, evidence; attempted to interfere with, or has interfered with, witnesses and otherwise attempted to obstruct the course of justice. “It is also the established practice that if it is reported by the prosecutor from the bar table that the defendant has provided an address that is not his true residence, this can and does cause bail to be refused or revoked,” the DPP states 
Furthermore, the court reif the prosecutor reports that there are pending investigations of a serious nature involving the defendant, bail is also often refused or revoked.