Defence grills foreign affairs official over ‘fast-tracked’ Mohamed extradition

Feb 27, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, came under intense cross-examination on Thursday as defence attorneys challenged whether proper extradition protocols were followed in the case involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.

Roopchand-Edwards, the prosecution’s first witness, returned to the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman for the continuation of cross-examination in the extradition proceedings.

The Mohamed family is currently facing criminal charges in a United States federal court in Miami, Florida. A 25-page indictment unsealed on October 2, 2025, alleges that they orchestrated a large-scale fraud scheme involving gold exports, customs fraud, bribery, and the evasion of millions of dollars in taxes and royalties owed to Guyana.

Thursday’s proceedings lasted approximately four hours and thirty minutes, with the bulk of the session dedicated to examining how the extradition request was received, processed, and transferred between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Appearing for the defence were Roysdale Forde SC, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva. Representing the prosecution were Glenn Hanoman and Hubert McKenzie.

Defence counsel Siand Dhurjon led much of the cross-examination, focusing on what he described as deviations from established protocol and the unusually swift manner in which the Mohameds were arrested and brought before the court, reportedly within 24 hours of the request being processed.

Dhurjon suggested that the process was handled out of the norm compared to other extradition matters and implied that political considerations influenced the speed at which the matter progressed.

Established protocols examined

During the cross-examination process, Roopchand-Edwards outlined what she described as the established channel for handling extradition requests. According to her testimony, once the Ministry of Foreign Affairs receives such a request, typically through diplomatic channels, it is transmitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs under longstanding procedures.

She confirmed that while these protocols are established practice, they are not formally written. She also stated that since receiving the U.S. request in October, she had been briefed on the applicable procedures within the ministry.

Under questioning, she acknowledged that the Office of the Permanent Secretary is a statutory office that retains institutional records dating back many years. However, she stated she was unaware of any recent changes to the protocols governing extradition matters.

Dhurjon pressed her on whether procedures in place before her tenure would still form part of the ministry’s institutional memory. Prosecutor McKenzie objected to this line of questioning, arguing that the witness had only held the post for a defined period. The court allowed limited questioning before the defence withdrew that specific line of inquiry.

A significant portion of the cross-examination centered on who is authorised to receive and transfer extradition documents.

Roopchand-Edwards testified that when she is available, extradition requests are given directly to her. However, in her absence, the head of the legal department or other competent officers may receive the documents, verify them, and ensure they are transmitted appropriately.

She confirmed that the ministry employs a treaty officer, who assists in facilitating the transfer of documents between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs in extradition and other international matters.

When asked whether clerks, assistants, or drivers could deliver documents, she agreed that competent officers are permitted to transfer documents if she is unavailable. However, she maintained that she is authorised, in her capacity as Permanent Secretary, to deliver extradition documents directly to the Minister of Home Affairs.

Dhurjon challenged this practice, suggesting that bypassing the treaty officer raised concerns about consistency and adherence to protocol.

“You have no business, as a matter of protocol, to take extradition documents directly to the Minister of Home Affairs,” he put to the witness.

Roopchand-Edwards disagreed, asserting that as Permanent Secretary, she is empowered to transfer documents directly to the minister.

When asked what made her “so unique” as to bypass the treaty officer, she responded that her office carries the authority to do so.

The defence further questioned why she personally delivered the request to the Minister of Home Affairs on the very night it was received.

Roopchand-Edwards testified that although she was not strictly required to do so that same evening, she chose to deliver the documents because she was available and the minister was expecting her.

“I had a reason why I took it to her that night,” she told the court.

She denied suggestions that the timing was linked to the parliamentary schedule or that it was done to ensure that a court warrant could be obtained before the end of the working week.

She also acknowledged that on the day the request was received, she anticipated that it related to the Mohameds.

 Comparison with another extradition matter

The defence sought to draw a comparison with another recent extradition matter involving Guyanese national Ronley Floyd Bynoe.

Dhurjon asked whether she was aware that in Bynoe’s case, the authority to proceed was granted approximately three months after the request was received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She responded that she was not aware of that timeline.

Prosecutor McKenzie objected to the relevance of the comparison, arguing that the Bynoe matter was unrelated to the current proceedings. However, the defence maintained that the comparison was necessary to demonstrate what it described as unprecedented speed in the Mohameds’ case.

“This process has been politically motivated. No other extradition matter has been moved at such great speed as this matter,” Dhurjon argued.

Other developments

During the hearing, several additional applications were made by the defence. Counsel expressed concern that certain answers provided by the witness were incomplete and hindered the fairness of cross-examination.

Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman clarified that the State had not applied for the matter to proceed by paper committal. He explained that references to legal provisions were made only in relation to circumstances where proceedings may continue in the absence of an ill defendant with consent. The prosecution later confirmed it is not pursuing paper committal in this matter.

The defence also requested disclosure of communications between the Government of Guyana and U.S.-based lobby firms. That request was denied, with Magistrate Latchman ruling that full disclosure obligations had already been satisfied.

However, the defence indicated that it is currently engaging entities in the United States to obtain those communications independently and requested time to secure the documents.

“We are in the process of engaging entities in the U.S. to assist us in purchasing documents,” counsel told the court.

At the conclusion of Thursday’s proceedings, the matter was adjourned for continued cross-examination and further proceedings on March 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, defence attorneys, Mohamed extradition, Nazar Mohamed, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards

---