Defence challenges witness over omissions in statement during Mohameds’ extradition hearing

Mar 14, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Cross-examination intensified on Friday in the ongoing extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed, as Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde pressed the witness on omissions and inconsistencies in a written statement submitted as evidence in the matter.

The proceedings continued before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where the court heard testimony from Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

During the hearing, Forde continued a detailed cross-examination that began on Thursday, directing several questions at Roopchand-Edwards regarding a statement she prepared on November 27, 2025. The statement relates to documents reportedly received by the ministry from the United States Embassy.

The defence attorney questioned the witness extensively about the process through which the statement was prepared. He asked how she was first contacted to compile the document, whether she had consulted anyone prior to drafting it, and what steps she took before ultimately signing the statement that was later presented to the court as evidence.

Throughout the cross-examination, Forde sought to determine whether the statement represented a full and accurate account of the events surrounding the receipt of the documents.

Under questioning, Roopchand-Edwards acknowledged that some of the information she provided while giving evidence in court had not been included in the written statement.

“It is a complete summary and I acted on advice,” she told the court, while maintaining that she stands by the document.

She explained that the statement was not intended to capture every detail but rather to provide a summary of the events as she understood them.

During the course of her testimony, Roopchand-Edwards revealed additional details that were not contained in the statement itself.

Among these were explanations about how the package was handled after arriving at the ministry. She indicated that the folder containing the documents was opened in the presence of the courier who delivered it and that the package had initially been received by members of staff attached to her office before being brought to her attention.

These disclosures prompted further questioning from the defence, which sought to highlight the absence of such details from the written statement submitted to the court.

Forde repeatedly suggested that the omissions could affect how the document is interpreted, particularly in a matter as significant as an extradition hearing.

As the questioning continued, several of Forde’s inquiries were met with objections from prosecutor Herbert McKenzie.

McKenzie argued that some of the questions posed by the defence were either irrelevant to the extradition proceedings or had already been addressed earlier in the hearing.

At multiple points throughout the proceedings, Magistrate Latchman upheld the prosecution’s objections, ruling that certain lines of questioning would not be allowed.

The rulings prompted exchanges between the attorneys as the defence attempted to explore further details surrounding the preparation and contents of the statement.

Among the matters raised by the defence were the identity of the courier who delivered the package from the United States Embassy, how long the courier remained at the ministry, and who was present in the office when the package was opened.

Forde also questioned whether the format used to prepare the statement could have been accessed electronically and whether any other person may have assisted in drafting or editing the document.

Another point of contention arose when Forde asked the witness whether she agreed that her statement did not capture every action she took in relation to the matter.

Before the witness could respond fully, McKenzie objected, stating that the issue had already been addressed during earlier questioning.

Although Forde argued that a summary was not the same as a detailed statement and that the distinction was important to the defence’s case, Magistrate Latchman sustained the objection and the question was disallowed.

The defence attorney maintained that establishing the extent of the omissions was relevant to assessing the weight that should be given to the document.

The hearing took another turn when Forde questioned Roopchand-Edwards about consultations she had with the ministry’s legal counsel prior to finalising the statement.

When asked whether she made any notes during those discussions, the witness responded that she had indeed recorded notes in a notebook kept in her office.

Following that admission, Forde applied to the court for the notebook to be produced as part of the proceedings.

Magistrate Latchman granted the application and instructed that the witness return with the notebook when the court resumed at approximately 13:30 hrs.

However, when the hearing reconvened later in the day, Roopchand-Edwards informed the court that she had been unable to locate the notebook.

She clarified that the notes she had taken were not directly related to drafting the statement but were instead made during consultations regarding court procedures.

“I jotted court proceedings and how it goes,” she told the court.

The hearing was eventually adjourned and is expected to continue on Monday, when cross-examination of the witness may resume.

The extradition proceedings stem from criminal charges filed against the Mohamed family in a United States federal court in Miami, Florida.

According to a 25-page indictment unsealed on October 2, 2025, prosecutors allege that the Mohameds orchestrated a large-scale scheme involving fraudulent gold exports, customs violations, bribery, and the evasion of millions of dollars in taxes and royalties owed to Guyana.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, extradition, Judy Latchman, Mohameds

---