—cites defence’s irrelevant questions as causing “substantial delays” in extradition proceedings

 

–Magistrate sternly warns Mohameds’ family member for posting courtroom information

 

CONCERNS over compliance with bail conditions surfaced on Friday as attorney-at-law Glen Hanoman alerted Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman to possible breaches by businessmen Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed in their ongoing extradition case.

 

Azruddin is the Leader of the Opposition, and also serves as the leader of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party.

Hanoman, one of the four prosecutors, told the court that the two men had inconsistently reported to the Ruimveldt Police Station, sometimes arriving earlier than the scheduled time, at other times reporting a day or two late, or failing to appear altogether.

 

The Mohameds were granted bail of $150,000 each on October 31, 2025, with conditions requiring them to report weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station and to surrender their passports.

 

These measures were imposed to ensure their availability for the ongoing court process. Failing to comply could result in the court revoking their bail and remanding them to prison.

 

“There were times when I noticed that Mr Nazar Mohamed has actually been going [to the station] earlier than the appointed time, as he did last Friday [March 6]. It is technically still a breach. There were times when they arrived one day late, two days late…” he explained.

 

The prosecutor also shared that he, along with the station sergeant, had compiled a comprehensive list of the breaches after personally inspecting the station diaries, which the police has since locked away. According to Hanoman, Nazar Mohamed missed reporting on December 26, 2025, and January 2, 2026.

He cautioned that the Mohameds seem to act as if they can report to the police whenever they choose, instead of adhering to the court’s directives.

 

“The pattern that is here shows that they feel as though they can report when they feel like and not strictly comply with timelines set by the court. It is important for monitoring purposes that they maintain the strict reporting conditions, especially as we grind toward the end of these legal proceedings,” the prosecutor added.

 

To verify the allegations, Magistrate Latchman summoned a police officer to present the station diary. However, the diary provided only began on March 03, 2026, leaving gaps in the record of the men’s reporting since their bail was granted on October 31, 2025.

 

The officer stated that he could not access the other station diaries because they were secured by the station sergeant, who was currently unavailable.

 

“The station sergeant is the custodian of all exhibits and all records,” the cop told the court.

 

The magistrate ordered the officer to return on Monday, March 16, 2025, with the older diaries so that the court could examine a complete record.

 

In response, Magistrate Judy Latchman said, “I would definitely need to see the book before I can act.”

During the hearing, defence attorney Siand Dhurjon asked that his clients be excused from reporting to the police station on days when they are required to attend court.

 

Magistrate Judy Latchman approved the request, amending the reporting order so that when a scheduled reporting day coincides with a court appearance, the obligation to report to the officer in charge is temporarily suspended.

 

The extradition hearing will resume on Monday at 9 a.m., with further cross-examination of Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation.

 

At the extradition proceedings on Friday,  Hanoman also highlighted both procedural delays and the need for cautious reporting.

 

Speaking after the morning session, Hanoman said that a number of questions posed by the defence had been ruled irrelevant by the court, contributing to a slowdown in the hearing.

 

Representing the Mohameds are Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva.

 

“By and large, I think of particular note today is that the court ruled that a number of questions posed by the defence were ruled to be irrelevant,” he said.

 

Hanoman explained that each time the prosecution objects, witnesses often have to leave the courtroom while arguments are discussed on both sides, which further extends proceedings.

 

“Unfortunately, that is also a time-consuming process because each time that the prosecution objects, in most cases the witness has to leave the courtroom and then there are discussions on both sides,” he added.

 

He stressed that these delays are having a significant impact on the progress of the case.

 

“So, if I could put it like this, the number of irrelevant questions asked by the defence are the cause for substantial delays in the matter at the moment,” Hanoman stressed.

 

The prosecutor also warned members of the media and public about reporting evidence from the proceedings. He reminded media operatives that under Guyana’s Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, certain hearings restrict the real-time publication of evidence.

 

“Under the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act of Guyana, established court reporters would know that there’s a law that says that you cannot report in real time about evidence led in certain proceedings. In my view, this is one such type of proceedings,” he stated.

 

Hanoman expressed concern over inaccurate reporting by individuals connected to the Mohameds.

 

“There have been incidents where persons who have a stake in the proceedings have been publicising the evidence, and not always accurately,” he said, adding that such actions could undermine the administration of justice.

 

“And I think that’s a real danger to the administration of justice, because there are strong reasons for these rules, the non-publication of evidence. Very good juridical reasons for it being so,” he noted.

 

He urged journalists to exercise caution. “I’d like to urge the other members of the press to be very cautious about reporting the evidence,” Hanoman said, while clarifying that updates on adjournments and other submissions may still be reported.

 

“Of course, you could report on what adjournments and other submissions made, but when it comes to the evidence, there’s a need to be cautious,” he explained.

 

During the hearing, Principal Magistrate Latchman reprimanded Hana Mohamed, the daughter of Nazar and sister of Azruddin, after it was brought to the court’s attention that information from inside the courtroom was being recorded and shared on social media.

 

It was reported that Hana Mohamed, who attends the hearings in person, had posted details of the proceedings on her Facebook account, and after her account was reportedly restricted, the content was allegedly passed to her sister, Hadiyyah Mohamed, who continued sharing updates online.

 

Magistrate Latchman issued a stern warning, reminding the Mohameds that the extradition proceedings involve sensitive matters, and instructed that the sharing of courtroom information cease immediately, or face consequences.

 

On the morning of October 31, 2025, businessman Nazar Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed were taken into custody in Georgetown following an extradition request from the United States, which had been transmitted the previous day.

 

The father, 72, and son, 39, are the subject of an 11-count indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They are jointly charged on 10 of those counts, while Azruddin Mohamed faces an additional charge relating to the importation of a 2020 Lamborghini Roadster SVJ into Guyana.

 

Court filings allege that the two conspired to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and customs-related offences, including conspiracy, aiding and abetting. The allegations are linked to what investigators describe as a US$50 million gold-export and tax-evasion scheme.

 

The indictment was handed down by a grand jury in October 2025.

 

According to the documents, Nazar Mohamed holds a 90 per cent stake in Mohamed’s Enterprise, while his son owns the remaining 10 per cent. The most serious charge carries a potential maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

 

In June 2024, both men and their associated companies were sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a division of the United States Department of the Treasury, over allegations of gold smuggling and large-scale corruption. The sanctions announcement also referenced claims that more than US$50 million in taxes owed to the Guyanese state had been evaded.

 

United States authorities are believed to have begun investigating the Mohameds as far back as the mid-2010s. The probe reportedly involved intelligence sharing and law-enforcement co-operation between Guyana and the United States.

 

Several American agencies were involved in the investigation, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security.

 

Prosecutors allege that between 2017 and 2024, the two businessmen participated in a scheme to export large quantities of gold from Guyana to the United States using falsified customs declarations and reused government export seals.

 

Investigators claim the operation enabled the shipment of more than 10,000 kilogrammes of gold while avoiding the payment of taxes and royalties owed to the Guyanese state.

 

United States authorities further contend that the alleged scheme resulted in approximately US$50 million in losses of taxes and duties and involved acts of wire and mail fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.

 

The indictment also references a shipment of gold valued at approximately US$5.3 million that was seized at Miami International Airport during the course of the investigation.

Following the indictment, the United States formally sought the surrender of the two men under the extradition arrangements between the two countries, giving rise to the ongoing proceedings now before the local court.