Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed leaving the High Court in Demerara accompanied by their legal team following the refusal of their application to stay extradition proceedings (Delano Williams photo)
GEORGETOWN, Guyana--The extradition proceedings involving businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, were on Thursday adjourned to February 5 and 6, following a ruling that the prosecution would not be allowed to make any further disclosures in the matter.
Magistrate Judy Latchman, who is presiding over the committal hearing, ordered that all disclosure be now closed, cautioning the prosecution that the case is “not a game of chess.”
The ruling followed objections from defence counsel after the prosecution sought to introduce a statement from Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd, which had been emailed to defence attorneys on Wednesday.
In Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act, Section 6 deals with the Mode of Proof of Certain Arrangements, allowing a certificate from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to prove existing extradition arrangements with the UK or treaty territories, confirming the arrangement’s terms and its extension to Guyana, serving as key evidence in extradition proceedings for fugitive offenders.
Nazar Mohamed is represented by attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Juman-Yassin Da Silva, while Azruddin Mohamed is represented by Attorneys Roysdale Forde, SC.
At the opening of Thursday’s hearing, defence attorney Forde reiterated objections raised earlier in the proceedings, arguing that the prosecution had failed to satisfy the requirement to provide corresponding local charges to ground the extradition request. He said the prosecution had merely listed alleged acts and statutory sections, maintaining that the legal threshold had still not been met.
But the controversy on Thursday centred on the one-page statement from Minister Todd, which defence attorneys described as a new and impermissible disclosure introduced well after the hearing was underway.
Dhurjon told the court that the statement was being used to “patch and close a gap” in the prosecution’s case, after foundational evidence required to tender the minister’s certificate had previously not been substantiated. He reminded the court that on Tuesday, the prosecution had been disallowed from proceeding because it could not properly ground the minister’s certificate under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
He argued that this was now the third occasion on which additional documents had been disclosed without leave of the court, describing the move as an ambush that would force the defence to reorganise and re-coordinate its case. Dhurjon applied for the court to require a firm undertaking from the requesting state that this would be the full extent of the material relied on for extradition and urged the magistrate to formally close disclosure at this stage.
Forde supported those submissions, recalling that the prosecution had repeatedly assured the court that all disclosure had already been made. He questioned the authority for tendering evidence “from the bar table” and also sought an adjournment in the interest of fairness.
Appearing for the prosecution, attorney Terrence Williams, KC, argued that the disclosure was made “out of an abundance of caution” after new material came into the prosecution’s possession. He contended that there was no legal requirement for the prosecution to seek leave before disclosing additional material and said the law allows a minister’s certificate to be tendered without calling the minister as a witness, once it is admitted by the court under Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act.
Williams also drew a distinction between evidence proper and formal documents, insisting that the minister’s certificate was a formal requirement confirming that extradition arrangements exist between Guyana and the United States.
After hearing submissions, Magistrate Latchman ruled that the minister’s statement would be allowed to be filed and served on the defence, but made it clear that this would be the final disclosure in the case.
“This is not a case of chess,” the magistrate said, adding that it is not a game involving “knights.” She ordered that all statements must be properly served and filed, and said no further disclosures will be entertained.
She then granted the defence an adjournment to allow time to consider the new material and prepare accordingly, refusing a request from the prosecution to continue the hearing immediately.
Outside of court, Williams described the issue as a “big song and dance over a very trivial formal issue,” insisting that the minister’s statement simply satisfies a statutory requirement and does not reflect any deficiency in the prosecution’s evidence. He said the prosecution would abide by the court’s orders and declined to discuss the substance of the evidence in the media.
Defence attorney Dhurjon, however, said this disclosure exposed significant gaps in the prosecution’s case that only became apparent after cross-examination had begun. ~News Room~
