Dear Editor,
I wish to draw attention to a disturbing campaign of personal abuse being orchestrated by supporters of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) against Principal Magistrate Madam Judy Latchman. This psychological assault, which has descended into the character assassination against both the Magistrate and her family, is not only unjustified but demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how judicial discretion operates under Guyana’s extradition laws.
On February 19, 2025, in a post on the PPP-aligned Facebook page “Live in Guyana,” they sought to contrast the handling of two extradition matters: one where Ronley Floyd Bynoe appeared before acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty and was remanded into custody pending extradition and the case of Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed where they were granted $150,000 bail by Magistrate Latchman.
What followed was a series of comments from PPP supporters, including one from Raghunandan Singh, a PPP Regional Democratic Councillor from Soesdyke who also serves as Overseer of the Coverden/ Soesdyke Neighbourhood Democratic Council. Mr Singh contributed to this public disparagement by PPP supporters of a sitting magistrate with a comment that suggested that Magistrate Latchman had acted above the law.
Mr. Singh adds a particularly troubling dimension, coming as it does from an elected official who should understand the importance of respecting judicial independence. For the benefit of Mr Singh and those who share his misunderstanding, let me clarify the legal principles that distinguish these two cases.
Under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act, magistrates must consider two critical factors when determining bail in extradition matters: the defendant’s intention to challenge extradition and their perceived flight risk. These factors, not judicial caprice, explain the different outcomes.
The Bynoe Case: Ronley Floyd Bynoe was remanded because he informed the court that he would not be challenging his extradition and was prepared to return to the United States voluntarily. When an accused person consents to extradition, the legal process moves directly towards surrender. From a judicial perspective, such an individual presents a clear flight risk—not in the sense of evading justice, but because there remains no legal impediment to their departure. Granting bail to someone awaiting surrender to foreign authorities would be legally unusual and judicially unsound.
The Mohamed Case: By contrast, Azruddin Mohamed and his father are actively contesting their extradition through multiple legal avenues, including constitutional motions and allegations of judicial bias. Because these proceedings remain ongoing, their presence in Guyana is legally required and court-accessible. Magistrate Latchman granted them bail of $150,000 each, imposing strict conditions: surrender of passports and mandatory weekly reporting to the police. Far from demonstrating leniency, this constitutes standard judicial practice for defendants engaged with the legal system.
Indeed, Magistrate Latchman has demonstrated her commitment to enforcing these conditions. When Azruddin Mohamed recently arrived late to a hearing, she issued an arrest warrant—recalling it only after his appearance, accompanied by a stern warning that any further tardiness would result in immediate remand. This is not the conduct of a magistrate showing favour; it is the conduct of a judicial officer ensuring compliance with court orders.
If the personal attacks against Principal Magistrate Latchman were not sufficiently disgraceful, one PPP supporter operating under the name “Malachi Austin” saw fit to attack the Magistrate’s elderly father. What possible justification exists for subjecting an innocent senior citizen to public abuse? This man has no connection to the extradition proceedings and deserves to spend his remaining years in dignity, not as a target of political spite.
The Guyana Bar Association and the Private Sector Commission have been conspicuously silent throughout this affair. Their failure to speak out against these attacks on judicial independence is deeply disappointing. Justice must be served not because the PPP demands it, but because it follows the rule of law and nothing else.
I call upon Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, General Secretary of the PPP, to rein in these wild PPP supporters and put an end to this intimidation. If the PPP has confidence in its legal arguments, let them advance those arguments in the proper forum—the courtroom—rather than through social media attacks on the character of judicial officers.