Magistrate blocks new evidence in Mohameds’ extradition

Mar 13, 2026 News

---

– tells prosecution justice is not measured by length of case

By Shania Williams

(Kaieteur News) – The extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, continued on Thursday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where the presiding magistrate made it clear that the length of the matter should not influence how justice is administered.

The case resumed before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman with continued testimony from Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards.

During the proceedings, Magistrate Latchman stated that she does not need to be reminded of how long the case has been ongoing, stressing that the duration of a matter has no bearing on ensuring that justice is properly executed.

Her remarks came after defence attorney Siand Dhurjon made an application seeking to introduce copies of documents from the United States relating to lobbying firms allegedly paid by the Government of Guyana.

Dhurjon argued that the documents relate to U.S. lobby firms hired by the government  targeting the Mohameds and would support the defence’s claim that the extradition proceedings are politically motivated. “The Guyanese government went as far as spending hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars,” Dhurjon told the court. “It is this office holder who would have taken the necessary steps to facilitate these payments during her tenure as Permanent Secretary within the ministry. The documents we seek to introduce speak to the political prosecution abuse which has triggered the extradition.”

The defence’s request came after the magistrate had already ruled during a previous hearing that no further disclosure of documents would be allowed, as both the prosecution and defence had been given time to submit all documents before witnesses began their testimony.

Prosecutor Herbert McKenzie objected to the request, emphasising that the court had already ruled on the issue and that the U.S. documents were irrelevant to the extradition proceedings. “All these things are completely irrelevant; they have no bearing,” McKenzie argued. “You can’t fish for evidence to support your case. These extradition proceedings have been going on for quite some time now, for days.”

In response, Magistrate Latchman spoke firmly about the prosecution’s repeated references to the length of the proceedings. Prosecutors have, since the start of the case, expressed their desire for a speedy hearing with minimal delays. However, the magistrate cautioned that the pace of the proceedings must never take precedence over justice.

“Counsel, justice has nothing to do with that,” the magistrate said. “The length of the case is the length of the case. It must never be sacrificed to alter the speed. You need to stop fishing for that line. Stop letting others know how long the matter has been going on for. I do not need to be reminded of the length of time. It is unnecessary for you to remind the court about how long the matter has been before the court.” After hearing arguments from both sides, Magistrate Latchman maintained her earlier ruling and denied the defence’s request to submit any additional documents.

Speaking with the media after the hearing, prosecutor Glenn Hanoman said the case appears to be progressing steadily. “I think the matter has to take its course,” Hanoman said. “I’m happy to report today that the matter seems to be moving apace. Mr. Dhurjon has finally completed his cross-examination, so we are moving.”

When asked how long the case might take to conclude, Hanoman said it is difficult to predict. “It is so hard to predict,” he explained. “The defence has demonstrated various filings in the superior courts. Their intention really is to try to delay the matter as far as possible. I see their strategy. But I think having run out of High Court applications, they have resorted to non-legal reasons for delay.”

He added that prosecutors remain alert to any developments that could cause further delays. “I am looking to see what occurrences might take place that could occasion further delays. We are looking out for them. We have enough court sessions over the next four days to complete all the evidence in this case,” Hanoman said.

Meanwhile, the remainder of the proceedings focused on the continued cross-examination of Roopchand-Edwards. Much of the questioning centered on contracts between the Government of Guyana and two United States-based lobbying firms — Continental Strategy LLC and DR Consulting.

During cross-examination, the Permanent Secretary confirmed the names of two lobby firms which previously reported, spent  a combined US$90,000 per month to represent its interests abroad. When asked whether her office signed the contract with Continental Strategy LLC, Roopchand-Edwards clarified that the contract was signed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Dhurjon then questioned whether she facilitated payments to the firms in her capacity as the accounting officer and Permanent Secretary of the ministry. She confirmed that she did.

However, when Dhurjon attempted to ask whether hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars had been paid to the firms during her tenure as Permanent Secretary, the magistrate disallowed the question.

Roopchand-Edwards acknowledged that she is privy to the contracts involving Continental Strategy LLC and DR Consulting. When asked whether she was only aware of the contracts themselves, she explained that the contracts are accompanied by requests for payment, which she signs off on in her role as Permanent Secretary. “The contracts come with requests for payment, which I sign off on,” she told the court. However, she stated that she is not privy to communications exchanged between the government and the lobbying firms.

When Dhurjon asked who communicates with the firms, prosecutor McKenzie objected, arguing that the witness’s role as Permanent Secretary does not necessarily mean she would be aware of such details.

The magistrate allowed the question, and Roopchand-Edwards responded that she was not aware of who communicates directly with the firms. She also told the court that from time to time she raises financial matters with the minister regarding the reasons funds are being disbursed. Dhurjon further questioned whether she was aware of the circumstances surrounding the government’s agreement with the lobbying firms. She responded that her knowledge relates primarily to the contracts themselves.

Additional questions were posed about her awareness of the operations of the lobbying firms and whether they are run by American agents who act on instructions, as well as documents she received from the United States Embassy.

However, several questions were disallowed by the magistrate, who ruled that they were irrelevant to the proceedings. Among the questions not allowed were those relating to whether there had been any disclosure of statements from individuals who could support her testimony regarding the receipt of the extradition request documents.

Roopchand-Edwards was also asked about how the extradition request documents were delivered to her office. She explained that the envelope containing the documents was opened by a U.S. Marshal in her presence before it was handed over to her.

She admitted that upon receiving the document she did not mark it and further acknowledged that she has not seen the document since handing it over to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Cross-examination later continued with defence attorney Roysdale Forde, SC, who questioned the witness about the statement she provided in relation to the case against the Mohameds. Forde’s questions focused on how the statement was made, when she was contacted to provide it, and whether she consulted with anyone before giving the statement.

The matter is expected to continue on Friday. Prosecutors indicated that at most two additional witnesses remain to be called before the court, as the extradition case continues.

---

• Evidence, Judy Latchman, Mohameds’ extradition, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards

---