THE pace of the extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, now demands serious
public attention.
The Mohameds were arrested on October 31, 2025, following an extradition request from the United States.
Since then, legal questions arising from the proceedings have travelled through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Caribbean Court of Justice. The CCJ delivered its ruling on July 29, 2026, dismissing their challenge and clearing the way for the substantive extradition proceedings to continue.
Yet, before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman, the court has been unable to complete the evidence of a single witness.
Let that sink in. Matters connected to this case have been argued, considered and determined by three superior courts, including Guyana’s final appellate court, while the Magistrates’ Court remains occupied with the first witness in the substantive hearing.
Every accused person is entitled to due process, competent representation and a fair hearing. Those rights must be fully respected. They cannot become the basis for proceedings without reasonable limits, repetitive applications, prolonged exchanges and a timetable that appears increasingly disconnected from the urgency and seriousness of an extradition matter.
The public is entitled to ask how much judicial time will be consumed before the evidence of one witness is completed, how many interventions will be entertained on matters already ventilated before superior courts, and when a firm schedule will be established for the conclusion of the substantive hearing.
Judicial independence must always be protected, and with that independence comes the responsibility to manage proceedings firmly, efficiently and fairly. A court controlling its own process must also ensure that its process is not overwhelmed by delay.
The question before the Magistrates’ Court is whether the legal requirements for committal have been satisfied. The court is not being asked to conduct the trial that may eventually take place in the United States.
Justice must be careful, but justice must also move. When the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the CCJ can all hear and determine matters arising from an extradition case before the evidence of the first witness is completed in the Magistrates’ Court, the public has every right to question whether the process is being managed with the necessary firmness and urgency.
The judiciary must guard against any appearance that persons with considerable financial resources and large legal teams can stretch proceedings indefinitely. Equal justice requires equal discipline in the management of the court’s time.
The substantive extradition hearing should proceed on a clear and tightly managed timetable. Guyanese citizens, the requesting state and the men before the court are all entitled to a process that reaches a lawful determination within a reasonable time.
Yours truly,
Adron Pires
