Mindful of public confidence

# Chief Magistrate offers caution against rushing of Mohameds' extradition proceedings - News Source Guyana Author: News Source Guyana Published: 2026-09-10T16:56:50+00:00 Source: newssourcegy.com (newssourcegy.com) Language: en ## Story Chief Magistrate offers caution against rushing of Mohameds' extradition proceedings - News Source Guyana # Chief Magistrate offers caution against rushing of Mohameds’ extradition proceedings By News Source Guyana on September 10, 2026 Stating clearly that the Court will not take orders from persons inside or outside of the Courtroom, Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman today warned against rushing the extradition proceedings involving the Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. She also cautioned Special Prosecutor, Glen Hanoman, who had complained about the length of time that the case was taking to be completed. “This Court will not be controlled by any mortal within inside of this Court or outside of this Court. The Court will never be controlled by any mortal being, only by divine intervention. This Court will control its own pace,” the Chief Magistrate said. Noting that the case is of great national importance, Chief Magistrate Latchman said it deserves “quality and “careful” attention, and should not be rushed. “I am well aware of the timeline; I need no reminder of the timeline. Justice delayed is justice denied but again we must also recognize that rushed justice is crushed justice,” the Chief Magistrate said. She said the case is a complicated matter with complicated issues, and ought to be carefully considered, warning that “justice in pace” can give rise to complications and mistakes, and the Court needs to get it right “We need to get it right, the court needs to get it right, and this court will not take orders within or outside,” the Chief Magistrate iterated. But even as she spoke, Hanoman attempted to interject, and it was then that she inquired whether she should leave, so he can speak. The issue arose following written submissions by both the Prosecution and Defence on a question initially posed to Senior Superintendent Prem Narine as he was being cross-examined by Defence Attorney Siand Dhurjon during occasion. But as the Court today sought clarification on a number of the submissions made by the Defence, Attorney Dhurjon indicated to the Court that he would be withdrawing the question, which did not sit well with the Prosecution. Hanoman told the Court that it would appear as though the Defence is on “fishing expedition,” with its questions. With the cross-examination of the witness ongoing for days, Hanoman told the Court that he thinks the Court is losing sight. The Chief Magistrate interjected and made it clear that it is for the Prosecution to advocate, and for the Court to adjudicate. The Defence Attorney said that his team was on no fishing expedition, even as the Special Prosecutor accused the Attorneys for the Mohameds of abusing the Court process. It was while Hanoman was lamenting the issue, and complaining about the lengthy cross-examinations being done by the Defence that the Chief Magistrate offered her words of caution.

# Magistrate moves forward with Mohamed extradition hearing after lawyers obtain matching local charges by Denis Chabrol Tuesday, 6 January 2026, 11:01 ... Principal Magistrate, Judy Latchman on Tuesday decided to go ahead with the extradition committal proceedings after the prosecution provided the local corresponding charges, despite the filing of a stay pending the hearing and determination of an appeal to the full court of Chief Justice Navindra Singh’s decision. ... Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed had wanted a stay pending the hearing and determination of two High Court constitutional challenges to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act and Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond’s Authority To Proceed (ATP) on the grounds that the Mohameds are being politically targeted because Mr Azruddin is the leader of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN). ... The full court of the High Court has to schedule a hearing of an appeal of the Chief Justice’s decision that the Principal Magistrate could go ahead with the extradition committal proceedings before the hearing and determination of two constitutional cases. ... The substantive case before the Chief Justice is scheduled for January 14. The Principal Magistrate had scheduled the commital hearing for January 6 and 8.

# Earlier today, the dismissed an from and allowed extradition proceedings to continue against the Guyanese Opposition Leader and his father. Learn more here: | Caribbean Court of Justice · LinkedIn · 2026-07-29 **Caribbean Court of Justice**: Caribbean Court of Justice is a company that focuses on achieving court excellence and achieving judicial conduct and discipline regulations. They provide corporate administration, communications and information, information systems, governance, and trust fund services. Caribbean Court of Justice has 30-40 employees (+3-4% YoY), founded in 2005. Headquartered in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with an office in Port of Spain. Its workforce is distributed across 7 countries (including Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Canada, Antigua and Barbuda, and Ireland). --- Earlier today, the #CCJ dismissed an #appeal from #Guyana and allowed extradition proceedings to continue against the Guyanese Opposition Leader and his father. Learn more here: https://loom.ly/JmlFoVs ## Engagement - Reactions: 3

(Kaieteur News) – The Court of Appeal has issued its ruling ordering that extradition proceedings involving Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed in the Magistrate’s Court to proceed. ... However, the three-judge panel explicitly directed that the final disposition of the matter by the presiding Magistrate is stayed until the substantive appeal regarding constitutional challenges to the Fugitive Offenders Act is fully heard and determined. ... The unanimous ruling was handed down on August 27, 2026, following an urgent hearing held on August 26, 2026, under Appeal No. 2025/1163-HC-FDA-DEM-CIV/APL-CIV 25/2026. The panel comprised Acting Chancellor, Justice Roxane George and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud, and Nareshwar Harnanan, who considered an urgent Notice of Motion filed on behalf of the Appellants seeking interim relief. ... In rendering its decision, the Court outlined the balance between the ongoing lower court proceedings and the underlying constitutional questions. The panel observed that “The substantive appeal before this Court directly concerns the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act governing the extradition proceedings now before the Magistrate’s Court.” Weighing the broader legal implications, the judges declared, “Having considered the arguability of the appeal, the respective risks of injustice, the balance of convenience, prejudice and the public interest in the orderly and expeditious conduct of extradition proceedings, the Court is not satisfied that those proceedings should be halted entirely. It is, however, just in the circumstances to preserve the effectiveness of the appeal by permitting the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court to continue while staying the final disposition pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.” ... Consequently, the Court ordered “that the extradition proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court involving the Appellants are to proceed; however, the final disposition of the said proceedings by the presiding Magistrate is stayed until the hearing and determination of this Appeal,” while further mandating that the appeal itself be heard on an expedited basis. ... This development follows the dismissal of the substantive constitutional challenge mounted by Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed. In February 2026, acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh rejected their application in the High Court, clearing the way for the extradition process to continue. They had challenged the constitutionality of the Fugitive Offenders Act, specifically its 2009 amendments, arguing that the statutory framework governing their extradition was unlawful.