Latest update May 26th, 2026 12:23 AM
Latest News
Mohameds’ bail reporting under scrutiny
…Magistrate suspends reporting on court days
(Kaieteur News) – Questions surrounding the bail reporting requirements of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed came under scrutiny in court on Friday as prosecutors raised concerns about whether the two men have been strictly complying with the conditions set by the court.
The issue arose during proceedings before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
During the hearing, prosecutor Glenn Hanoman informed the court that records from the Ruimveldt Police Station suggest that the father and son may not have strictly adhered to the bail condition requiring them to report weekly to the police station.
Sanctioned businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed
Bail conditions and extradition matter
Both men were granted bail in the sum of $150,000 each following their arrest in Georgetown on October 31, 2025, after an extradition request was filed by authorities in the United States.
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.
As part of their bail conditions, the two men were required to report weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station.
During Friday’s proceedings, Inspector Hinds appeared in court with the station diary used to record reporting visits by the accused.
However, the officer explained that the diary he brought only contained entries beginning on March 6, 2026. He told the court that the current diary had been opened on March 3 and that the station sergeant responsible for maintaining earlier records was not present in court at the time.
Based on the March 6 entry, the court heard that Nazar Mohamed reported to the station at approximately 10:00 hrs, while Azruddin Mohamed checked in later that day at about 13:14 hrs.
Despite this entry, Hanoman told the magistrate that earlier station diaries he had reviewed suggested several possible breaches of the reporting schedule.
Hanoman told the court that records indicated the father and son failed to report on December 26, 2025, and January 2, 2026. He also claimed that there were other instances where the two men reportedly checked in either before or after the specific dates mandated by the court.
According to the prosecutor, even reporting earlier than the scheduled date could technically constitute a breach of the court’s reporting conditions.
He further alleged that on several occasions the duo reported a day or two late and that at one point they reportedly signed in on the 14th instead of the required 13th in order to maintain a weekly reporting pattern.
“They failed to report within the strict timeline of the court and instead reported when they felt like,” Hanoman said.
In response, defence attorney Siand Dhurjon addressed the issue of reporting dates that coincide with scheduled court appearances.
Dhurjon told the magistrate that when the reporting day falls on a day when the accused are already required to appear in court, it would be unnecessary and burdensome for them to also report to the police station.
“It would be onerous and unnecessary. In fact, today (Friday) they were to report between 13:00 hrs and 15:00 hrs, and that was not possible. So, we asked that they may be excused for the default,” Dhurjon explained.
He added that the purpose of the reporting condition was to ensure that the accused continue to appear before the court when required.
“The whole reason for the reporting conditions is to ensure that they come to court anyway,” he said.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Magistrate Latchman ruled that the reporting requirement would be adjusted in circumstances where the reporting date coincides with a scheduled court hearing.
“The reporting requirement is varied in the following manner: where the reporting day is a court day, the requirement to report to the officer-in-charge at the station is suspended,” the magistrate ruled.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
