Judiciary must be mindful of public confidence — Cedric Lord — Opinion

Judiciary must be mindful of public confidence

September 11, 2026·2 min read

Published in

Guyana Chronicle ·Sep 11, 2026

Dear Editor,

The recent declaration by Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman that her court “will control its own pace” in the extradition proceedings involving Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed should concern every citizen who values the efficient and orderly administration of justice.

No reasonable person expects a judicial officer to sacrifice fairness or accuracy for speed. However, the Chief Magistrate’s remarks cannot be considered in isolation from the history of these proceedings. The substantive hearing began in January 2026^[1] and has been characterised by prolonged cross-examinations, repeated legal challenges and numerous adjournments. The prosecution has publicly complained about the duration of the process, even describing aspects of it as a “masterclass in delay.”^[2]

The approach of the superior courts provides a striking contrast. When related challenges reached the Court of Appeal, that court refused to suspend the extradition hearing and allowed the Magistrates’ Court proceedings to continue.^[3] The Caribbean Court of Justice subsequently dismissed the Mohameds’ appeal on July 29, 2026^[4], clearing the way for the committal proceedings to proceed. It also dismissed an appeal to stop the case from continuing in the Magistrates’ Court.

Those courts considered the substantial legal arguments placed before them, delivered decisions and permitted the underlying matter to advance. Yet, while the related litigation moved through two superior courts, the substantive proceeding before the Chief Magistrate continued at what many observers may reasonably regard as a snail’s pace.

Against that background, the assertion that the court will determine its own pace may appear dismissive of legitimate concerns about delay.

Judicial independence is indispensable, but it does not mean that a court is insulated from scrutiny or from the authority of superior courts. Neither should independence be invoked as a response to reasonable questions about judicial efficiency and case management.

The implications extend beyond this particular extradition matter. Courts derive their authority not only from the Constitution and the law, but also from public confidence in their fairness, consistency and efficiency. Conduct or comments that create an appearance of disregard for legitimate concerns can diminish confidence in the judiciary as a whole and risk bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

There are also broader economic consequences. Local and international investors consider the predictability, efficiency and credibility of a country’s judicial system when determining where to invest. A perception that high-profile litigants can keep significant proceedings tied up indefinitely could undermine confidence in Guyana’s ability to administer justice promptly and impartially.

Civil society, the wider judiciary, the Guyana Bar Association and other concerned stakeholders should therefore take careful note of the Chief Magistrate’s worrying remarks and the continuing pace of these proceedings.

Justice must certainly be careful, but care and urgency are not mutually exclusive. Justice delayed remains justice denied.

Yours faithfully,
Cedric Lord

References

Magistrate moves forward with Mohamed extradition hearing after lawyers obtain matching local charges – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana — demerarawaves.com ↩
Prosecution slams delay in Mohameds’ extradition case – NCN Guyana — ncnguyana.com ↩
US extradition request - US-sanctioned & indicted Mohameds fail to halt proceedings at Magistrate’s Court - Guyana Times — guyanatimesgy.com ↩
CCJ rejects Mohameds' appeal, clears way for U.S. extradition case to resume - News Room Guyana — newsroom.gy ↩

Magistrate moves forward with Mohamed extradition hearing after lawyers obtain matching local charges – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana

demerarawaves.com · 2026-01-06

Magistrate moves forward with Mohamed extradition hearing after lawyers obtain matching local charges – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana ... # Magistrate moves forward with Mohamed extradition hearing after lawyers obtain matching local charges by Denis Chabrol Tuesday, 6 January 2026, 11:01 Nazar "Shell" Mohamed (blue shirt) and his son, Azruddin Mohamed (right) leaving the High Court on January 5, 2026 ... 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). ... Less than five minutes after Ms Latchman ruled that there would be no stay and ordered the first witness to take the stand, defence lawyer Roysdale Forde stood and told the court that the proceedings should not go ahead until a schedule of the corresponding local offences are provided. ... An 11-count US grand jury indictment accuses the Mohameds of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. ... the magistrate has ... 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. ... The Mohameds also want the full court to find that Chief Justice erred in law when he found that the assurance (in the form of a diplomatic note) issued by the United States in respect of re-extradition to a third country satisfied the requirement under section 8(3)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, and so rendered the applicants’ challenge to the constitutionality of sections 8(3B)(a) and 8(3B) (b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act not a serious issue to be determined, when he found that section 8(3B)(c) of Fugitive Offenders Act related to the extradition arrangements as opposed to the extradition process. ... Further, the full court is being asked to find that Justice Singh relied on incorrect principles in the determination of whether a stay of proceedings ought to be granted, and that he was wrong in law when he ruled that the Mohameds had failed to demonstrate that the matter would be rendered nugatory if it was resolved in the Fixed Date Application and consequently dismissed the Notice of Application and ordered that the award of costs be costs in the cause, that he misdirected himself by concluding that the public interest would be undermined if extradition proceedings could be routinely stayed, failed to recognize that the greater risk of prejudice lies with the Appellants, as the refusal to grant the stay effectively allows the magistrate to proceed to conduct the committal proceedings despite the pending hearing and determination of the substantive matter, resulting in the grave potential injustice where the Appellants would be detained for an indeterminate period awaiting surrender to the requesting State prior to a determination of the substantive matter. ... ality of the provisions in the Fugitive ... 2009 ... as it governs

Prosecution slams delay in Mohameds’ extradition case – NCN Guyana

ncnguyana.com · 2026-03-17

Prosecution slams delay in Mohameds’ extradition case – NCN Guyana # Prosecution slams delay in Mohameds’ extradition case March 17, 2026 -Trial resumes March 18 -by Kimberly Giddings Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman didn’t hold back today, accusing the Mohameds of executing “masterclass delays” as he slammed the defence for dragging out the high-profile extradition case. Extradition proceedings resumed on Tuesday at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, adding another tense chapter to the ongoing legal battle. The courtroom drama is now approaching the conclusion of testimony from the first witness. Three more witnesses are expected to take the stand to present crucial evidence, including the Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Waldrond. At the center of the current testimony is Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whose evidence is nearing completion. “ That witness was first called on the 6 th of January so she has been under cross examining for over 2 and a half months, a masterclass in delay. At the rate we’re going it looks like it can last quite a few more months,” he lamented. Roopchand-Edwards was cross-examined on the Office of the Permanent Secretary’s incoming correspondence. The defence’s questions drew repeated objections from prosecutors, who argued they were irrelevant to her role in handling extradition documents and diplomatic correspondence. Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman sustained many of these objections, blocking numerous defence queries amid tense courtroom exchanges. Hanoman criticised the defence’s tactics as attempts to delay the trial. “ They have stated that their case is that, as I understand it, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not receive extradition documents from the U.S.A. The very documents are already in evidence. I find it mind-boggling,” Hanoman said. A new line of questioning during cross-examination focused on post-request correspondence between Guyanese authorities and the US Embassy. Roopchand-Edwards testified that a communication was sent to the US Embassy on December 3, 2025, on behalf of the Government, with a follow-up response, note #458, later received. She said the exchange was carried out on her minister’s directive, following legal advice, and related to safeguards under Article #7 of the extradition treaty, which limits the charges an extradited person may face. The defence sought to tender the document in court but were blocked after prosecutor Herbert McKenzie objected, with Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman ruling that the proper legal foundation had not been laid. The Mohameds extradition case continues on Wednesday, March 18.

US extradition request - US-sanctioned & indicted Mohameds fail to halt proceedings at Magistrate’s Court - Guyana Times

guyanatimesgy.com · 2026-08-28

#### After failing to secure a full stay of their extradition proceedings, United States (US)-sanctioned Opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, who is also sanctioned and indicted, will see the case against them continue before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Courts on September 3, 2026. The Court of Appeal, however, has stopped short of allowing the proceedings to reach a final determination, directing that Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman must await the outcome of their constitutional appeal before delivering a final decision. The unanimous ruling was delivered on Thursday by Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Roxane George, SC, and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan. The Mohameds had returned to the appellate court seeking a stay while challenging aspects of a February ruling by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on the constitutionality of provisions of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act. Justice Singh had found Section 8(3)(B) of the Act inconsistent with the Constitution of Guyana while upholding the constitutionality of the other provisions challenged by the Mohameds. ... appeal is resolved. The Mohameds were represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva. Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, SC, appeared in person, assisted by Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna Lall, and attorneys Joshua Cullen and Dishon Persaud. Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde had argued for interim protection, maintaining that his clients’ appeal should be preserved before the extradition proceedings advance to a point that could affect their liberty. Forde is challenging aspects of Sections 8(3)(A) and 8(3)(B) of the act, arguing that they give the executive an inappropriate role in an otherwise judicial process. He maintained that the provisions allow the Minister of Home Affairs to order the extradition of an individual without the matter first being fully dealt with by the Magistrate’s Court. He argued that this conflicts with Article 122(A) of the Constitution of Guyana and the principle of separation of powers. The defence also expressed concern that the Magistrate’s Court could rely on what Forde described as erroneous findings in the Chief Justice’s ruling while the appeal remains pending. Continue without interruption The state opposed the application, with Attorney General (AG) and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC, the lone respondent, arguing that the extradition proceedings should continue without interruption. The state argued that allowing the Magistrate’s Court to continue would not undermine their constitutional appeal or result in their immediate surrender to the US. The state maintained that another stay would cause further delays to an already interrupted proceeding, while the Mohameds would retain access to legal safeguards and remedies, including bail and appellate review. However, it supported an expedited hearing of their constitutional appeal. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) had previously granted an interim stay on March 25, 2026, bringing the extradition proceedings before the Chief Magistrate to a temporary halt while it considered the Mohameds’ appeal. The stay remained in force for about four months before being discharged on July 29, when the regional court dismissed their appeal. The Court of Appeal has now gone further by directing that the constitutional appeal be case-managed and heard on an expedited basis. The case management directions require the appellants to file their Record of Appeal by September 4, followed by their written submissions on September 9. The AG is required to file submissions by September 23, with the Mohameds permitted to respond by September 30. The appeal has been fixed for hearing on October 13, 2026, at 09:30h. The latest development follows a series of legal challenges by the Mohameds in connection with their extradition. The US is

CCJ rejects Mohameds' appeal, clears way for U.S. extradition case to resume - News Room Guyana

newsroom.gy · 2026-07-29

CCJ rejects Mohameds' appeal, clears way for U.S. extradition case to resume - News Room Guyana ... # CCJ rejects Mohameds’ appeal, clears way for U.S. extradition case to resume ... July 29, 2026 ... The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by Guyana Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, clearing the way for extradition proceedings sought by the United States to resume after a four-month suspension. The seven judges were unanimous in their decision dismissing the appeal. ... The region’s highest court upheld decisions by Guyana’s High Court and Court of Appeal, ruling that the Minister of Home Affairs acted within the powers granted under the Fugitive Offenders Act when issuing an Authority to Proceed (ATP) following a U.S. extradition request. ... The ruling lifts an interim stay granted by the CCJ in March, allowing the extradition case before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to resume. The United States is seeking the extradition of the father and son to face an 11-count indictment alleging conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering. ... eds argued that ... On appeal, the Court of Appeal similarly dismissed the appeal and refused the request for a state of the extradition proceedings. ... The case will now return to the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where committal proceedings had been suspended since March by order of the CCJ. ... In separate reasons, Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, and Bulkan agreed that the appeal should be dismissed but held that there was no legal bar preventing an early judicial review challenge to an ATP where bias is alleged. While finding no appearance of bias on the part of the Minister, they concluded that there was a real possibility of apparent bias on the part of the Attorney General. Nevertheless, they determined that any such apparent bias did not contaminate the Minister’s decision-making process or invalidate the ATP. The CCJ Judges further ordered that each party bear its own costs and underscored the importance of judicial independence, cautioning against public comments by public officials on pending judicial proceedings. ... In a further separate opinion, Justices Ononaiwu and Eboe-Osuji agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. They stressed that allegations of bias must be assessed from the perspective of a fair-minded and informed observer who considers all the surrounding circumstances. On that test, bias is not made out in the particular circumstances of the present case. The CCJ Judges also highlighted procedural considerations concerning the timing of challenges to an ATP, observing that extradition proceedings themselves provide mechanisms for addressing potential unfairness.