Replying toIssues that should determine whether Azruddin Mohamed gets bailLetter 2 of 2

Baldeo’s argument already plays out in court

November 8, 20262 min read

Conversation

2 letters, Nov 6 to 8

Albert Baldeo
Issues that should determine whether Azruddin Mohamed gets bail
Kiskadee Watch, Nov 6
replied 2 days later
Hargesh B. Singh
Baldeo’s argument already plays out in court (this letter)
Guyana Chronicle, Nov 8

Dear Editor,

A recent Albert Baldeo letter, published in the press, titled, “Azruddin Mohamed: Bail, liberty and the Rule of Law”, passionately argued that the Opposition Leader’s continued detention must be decided by law, not politics nor caprice. The author laid out a vital blueprint for justice, demanding an evidence-based inquiry under Guyana’s Bail Act 2022^[1]. However, a close look at our courtrooms reveals a reassuring truth: That what the author is urgently calling for is exactly what is happening. The current PPP/C administration seems bent on actually allowing the Rule of Law to take its course, and for that, the author should be complimentary.

The letter rightly emphasises that because a Section 9 Cybercrime Act charge carries a maximum five-year penalty, it falls completely outside the statutory definition of a “serious offence”. While this does not automatically guarantee bail, it remains highly significant. This precise legal reality drives the current proceedings. It forms the foundation upon which Defence Counsels Roysdale Forde and Siand Dhurjon mounted their legal challenge. The High Court is actively stepping in as a safety valve, ensuring the lower court’s remand order is tested against this statutory threshold.

Furthermore, the author insists that bail refusal requires concrete evidence; not speculation or political controversy. This principle actively dominates the bench. When the prosecution attempted to leverage separate, high-profile matters to revoke Mohamed’s existing bail, Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman flatly denied the request.^[2] By ruling that separate, unconvicted allegations cannot strip a citizen of liberty, the magistrate delivered exactly what the letter demanded: A total rejection of political white noise in favour of the presumption of innocence.

The letter also asks critical questions: Has Mohamed absconded? Is there concrete evidence of witness tampering? These are the identical questions the High Court has cleared its schedule to answer. Justice Priscilla Chandra-Haniff’s recent directive to secure a firsthand, sworn affidavit from Mohamed^[3] ensures these questions are resolved using unassailable, direct evidence. The court is forcing both the Attorney General Anil Nandlall and the defence to deal strictly in hard facts.

Finally, the author notes that the court can impose stringent alternatives to incarceration, such as passport surrender, because pre-trial bail must not become an unfair punishment. This is precisely the framework the judiciary is preparing to weigh. The system refuses to favor Mohamed because of his office, just as it refuses to punish him for it. This fierce legal chess match is the sound of a robust legal framework grinding through the gears of due process. We must let the independent courts work without sideline interference. The fiercely contested ongoing battle over Mohamed’s pre-trial liberty proves the rule of law under the current PPP/C administration is actively delivering fair, transparent, evidence-based justice.

A quick but very pertinent footnote is that Albert Baldeo’s demands that detention be governed strictly by law creates a devastating irony: by championing the exact legal standards that require concrete evidence of witness tampering and obstruction, Baldeo systematically condemns the very individual he seeks to extricate. In 2014, Baldeo himself was convicted in a U.S. Federal Court for obstructing justice and tampering with witnesses during an FBI investigation.^[4] Since the PPP/C administration lets the Rule of Law take its course through established statutes like the Bail Act, Baldeo should logically praise the government’s approach. Instead, his own logic transforms his defence into an involuntary indictment, automatically validating the severe state scrutiny applied to individuals accused of compromising public integrity.

Yours truly,
Hargesh B. Singh

References

Simplifying the Law: The Bail Act 2022 – Department of Public Information, Guyanadpi.gov.gy ↩
Magistrate Latchman refuses application to revoke bail for Mohamedwww.guyanastandard.com ↩
AG rips into affidavit supporting application for Mohamed’s bailkiskadeewatch.com ↩
Albert Baldeo Found Guilty For Obstructing Justiceobserver.com ↩

Simplifying the Law: The Bail Act 2022 – Department of Public Information, Guyana

dpi.gov.gy, Sep 17, 2023

Magistrate Latchman refuses application to revoke bail for Mohamed

www.guyanastandard.com, Nov 2, 2026

Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman has refused the prosecution’s application to revoke Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s bail in his extradition proceedings. The prosecution sought to have the bail rev

AG rips into affidavit supporting application for Mohamed’s bail

kiskadeewatch.com, Nov 5, 2026

Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed will remain behind bars at the Lusignan Prison as the High Court prepares to rule on November 13 on an application by Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC to strike out large portions of his mother’s affidavit, while the substantive hearing challenging the refusal of bail has been fixed for November 23. The development came during yesterday’s proceedings before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif, where attorneys Roysdale Forde SC and Siand Dhurjon challenged the Attorney General’s objections to the affidavit filed by Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, and secured permission for the Opposition Leader to personally provide additional sworn evidence. The Court ordered that Mohamed’s affidavit be filed by 6 p.m. yesterday and directed the Guyana Prison Service to facilitate access by his attorneys to allow the document to be prepared and executed. The defence has until November 6 to respond to the Attorney General’s Notice of Application, while Nandlall has until November 10 to file a response, if necessary. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 12, ahead of the Court’s ruling on November 13. The proceedings also brought renewed attention to Mohamed’s conditions of detention, with Justice Chandra-Hanif expressing concern over allegations that he is being subjected to approximately 23 hours of artificial lighting daily inside his prison cell. The Judge indicated that such prolonged lighting was unacceptable and made it clear that while security arrangements may be necessary, Mohamed must not be detained under circumstances that are oppressive. During the hearing, Nandlall presented a photograph purporting to show Mohamed’s cell at the Lusignan Prison. However, Justice Chandra-Hanif, who indicated that she had not personally visited the prison in some time, requested that the defence also provide photographic evidence of the cell for comparison. The request came amid conflicting accounts of the conditions under which the Opposition Leader is being held, with his family alleging that he is being subjected to solitary confinement, extreme heat and prolonged artificial lighting. Speaking to reporters following the hearing, Forde accused the Attorney General of attempting to delay the determination of Mohamed’s bail challenge by filing a Notice of Application seeking to strike out portions of Bonita Mohamed’s supporting affidavit. “He [the Attorney General] has sought to circumvent our application by filing a NOA challenging what Mrs. Mohamed would have said as hearsay,” Forde said. “Now this is a court, lawyers have tactics, Mr. Nandlall is entitled to take those tactics to seek to delay the matter. He is entitled to do so and we have taken our position that we do not agree that the matter is hearsay,” the Senior Counsel added. Forde maintained that the Civil Procedure Rules empower the Court to administer justice by examining the substance of a dispute rather than allowing procedural objections to prevent the matter from being heard. He explained that the defence had offered to have Mohamed personally swear to an affidavit addressing the issues raised in the proceedings, even while maintaining that his mother’s original affidavit was admissible. “So, in the event Mrs. Mohamed’s Affidavit constitutes hearsay, we have told the Court that by today, we will have an Affidavit, which will be unobjectionable by Mr. Azruddin Mohamed,” Forde stated. Both Forde and Dhurjon informed the Court that they were prepared to respond to the Attorney General’s application within 24 hours and indicated that Mohamed could personally provide evidence concerning matters within his knowledge. Justice Chandra-Hanif subsequently granted leave for the Opposition Leader to file the additional affidavit and directed prison authorities to facilitate access by his attorneys. The Attorney General has strongly criticised the affidavit sworn by Bonita Mohamed, describing it as fundamentally defective and arguing that it contains extensive hearsay, legal opinions and allegations unsupported by firsthand knowledge. Nandlall said the affidavit contains 146 paragraphs, but in his assessment, only approximately six comply with the rules governing admissible affidavit evidence. “The affidavit has 146 paragraphs. Maybe six is proper. 140 will go,” he declared. Nandlall explained that affidavits must contain admissible factual evidence upon which a court can act, rather than legal conclusions, unsupported assertions or matters outside the personal knowledge of the person swearing the document. “A court can only act on evidence. And act on legal principles,” he said. The Attorney General argued that Bonita Mohamed had acknowledged receiving much of the information from her son, raising questions about whether she could personally attest to the matters contained in the affidavit.

Albert Baldeo Found Guilty For Obstructing Justice

observer.com, Aug 11, 2014

Albert Baldeo, a former Democratic district leader and candidate for city and state office, was found guilty of obstructing justice today, though he was acquitted of mail and wire fraud charges. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara indicted Mr. Baldeo two years ago for orchestrating a straw donor scheme to funnel illegal contributions to his 2010 campaign for City Council. Mr. Baldeo, Mr. Bharara alleged at the time, also asked his straw donors to lie to federal investigators once he learned the feds were probing the alleged scheme. Mr. Baldeo, a Richmond Hill attorney who also nearly unseated a Republican state senator in 2006, faced 10 charges and was acquitted on all three related to mail and wire fraud, according to court documents. He was found guilty on the seven other charges related to conspiracy and obstructing justice, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bharara confirmed. The fact that Albert Baldeo lost his election does not excuse his corrupt conduct. With today’s verdict of guilty, an impartial federal jury has found that Mr. Baldeo lied and instructed others to lie to law enforcement agents investigating the source of his campaign contributions, and threatened and intimidated others in order to conceal the truth,” Mr. Bharara said in a statement. “These practices have no place in our politics or our justice system, and there should be no doubt that this Office will prosecute such conduct while it continues to vigorously investigate and prosecute political corruption in New York City and New York State.” Each of the seven charges carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Source

Baldeo’s argument already plays out in court in Guyana Chronicle, November 8, 2026