Magistrate sets new reporting conditions for Mohameds

Mar 17, 2026 News

---

…warns against lapses

(Kaieteur News) – Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman on Monday issued a stern warning to sanctioned businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, after the court was told that the two men were not always reporting to the Ruimveldt Police Station within the stipulated time as required under their bail conditions.

The issue arose during the ongoing extradition proceedings at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.

Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman informed the court that records from the Ruimveldt Police Station suggested that the father and son may not be strictly adhering to the condition which requires them to report every Friday between 13:00 hrs. and 15:00 hrs.

The matter was first raised during a previous hearing and was revisited on Monday when Hanoman reminded the court that the reporting requirement formed part of the men’s bail conditions.

During the hearing, Station Sergeant Tobin of the Ruimveldt Police Station appeared before the court with the station diary documenting the Mohameds’ attendance at the station, including the time they reported.

When asked by the magistrate how often the father and son reported within the specified timeframe, Tobin responded, “On occasions.”

Reviewing the records covering the period between November 7 and February 20, Tobin told the court that while the men did report regularly, there were instances when they reported outside the stipulated hours. According to the records, there were occasions when they reported earlier than ordered, while on other occasions they reported later.

The court also examined an entry for December 26, when no report appeared to have been recorded in the station diary. Tobin explained that the date was a public holiday.

Magistrate Latchman, however, pointed out that the original reporting order exempted public holidays.

“With respect to your analysis, they were not absent,” the magistrate told the prosecutor, noting that the issue appeared to involve early or late reporting rather than a complete failure to report.

Despite this, Hanoman maintained that the reporting deviations still constituted breaches of the bail conditions. He argued that there were occasions when the men did not report on the specified day but instead reported either a day earlier or a day later.

Hanoman told the court that it was his duty as prosecutor to highlight such issues and made an application for the court to either warn the surety that the Mohameds’ bail could be revoked, remand the men, or impose stricter reporting requirements.

He argued that the two men were “fortunate “to have been granted bail despite being classified as “fugitive offenders.”

According to Hanoman, the police must be able to account for individuals who are out on bail, particularly in matters involving extradition.

“I think the fugitive offenders need to understand that the orders of the court have to be complied with or else it would be contempt of the court’s orders,” Hanoman told the court.

“Second of all, they need to understand that their liberty is conditional on strict reporting, and there is reason for the strict reporting – the police need to monitor them.”

He further argued that the station records suggested a pattern of non-compliance. “There are more breaches than compliance with the court order. I think it’s contempt for the court order,” he said.

Hanoman also told the court that the Mohameds could not choose when to report to the station.

“The story that we can gather here is that the fugitive offenders feel that they can go when they feel like, not in the timeframe ordered by the Court,” he said.

However, defence attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Roysdale Forde, S.C., strongly objected to the prosecution’s application.

The defence argued that the Mohameds had been reporting regularly, even if on some occasions the reports were made earlier or later than the precise timeframe ordered by the court.

Dhurjon described the prosecution’s claim that there were more breaches than compliance as unfounded.

“These are extraordinary claims to say there were more breaches than compliance,” Dhurjon told the court.

He explained that Nazar Mohamed had been required to report to the police station on 18 occasions and had complied on each occasion except February 13, when he reported later.

According to Dhurjon, the elderly businessman suffers from a medical condition that prevented him from reporting punctually on that day. He told the court that the police station had been contacted and permission was given for Nazar Mohamed to report later.

Dhurjon also questioned the accuracy of the police records regarding Azruddin Mohamed. He argued that the records did not account for a report that was made on January 2.

“An earlier reporting cannot be seen as a breach,” Dhurjon said.

The defence also asked the court to relax the reporting requirements, arguing that bail conditions are intended to ensure that accused persons remain within the jurisdiction of the court rather than to punish them.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Magistrate Latchman invited the two men to address the court.

Nazar Mohamed apologised for reporting outside the stipulated hours but explained that he had been informed by police that arriving exactly within the timeframe was not necessary.

“I made the effort regardless of how sick I am,” he told the court.

Azruddin Mohamed also addressed the court, stating that he reported every week to the Ruimveldt Police Station. He explained that the only occasion on which he reported late occurred when he had to attend proceedings at the Whim Magistrate’s Court and was ill on the reporting day, resulting in him reporting a day later.

Following their explanations, Magistrate Latchman warned the men to ensure that they strictly comply with the court’s directives.

“It is crucial that you follow the court’s orders. You are to report when you have to report – that is accountability and that is being responsible citizens,” the magistrate told them.

“You must endeavor to do your best. You must seek perfection of character at some point in time.”

The magistrate subsequently adjusted the reporting requirements.

Under the new conditions, the Mohameds must now report to the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday within a 24-hour period, except on Fridays when they are required to attend court.

If a public holiday falls on a Friday, they must report to the station the day before. The revised condition will take effect from March 20, 2026.

Meanwhile, the extradition proceedings continued with the cross-examination of Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards.

During the hearing, defence attorney Roysdale Forde, S.C., continued questioning Roopchand-Edwards regarding her handling of the United States extradition request documents.

Cross-examination is expected to continue on Tuesday.

Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed 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 members of the Mohamed family in a United States federal court in Miami, Florida.

According to a 25-page indictment unsealed on October 2, 2025, U.S. 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.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, bail reporting, Glenn Hanoman, late

---