Extradition proceedings involving businessman and Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed resumed on Thursday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, following Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman’s firm refusal to grant a defence request for an adjournment.
Magistrate Latchman addressed the adjournment application with a straightforward remark: “Yesterday is gone, tomorrow is yet to come. Let us proceed.” This statement encapsulated her stance on maintaining momentum in the proceedings.
Defence counsel Siand Dhurjon argued for the adjournment by highlighting Mohamed’s significant involvement in the National Assembly’s budget debates, which frequently extend late into the night. Dhurjon stressed that as Leader of the Opposition, Mohamed has a constitutional obligation to engage fully in parliamentary discussions, including meticulous scrutiny of budget presentations and crafting comprehensive responses. “It would be excessive for Mr. Mohamed to sit in the National Assembly all afternoon and night, finishing around midnight, and then be expected to attend court proceedings throughout the morning,” Dhurjon asserted.
Additionally, Dhurjon informed the court that Mohamed was experiencing a migraine and was on medication, suggesting that the request for an adjournment was made in the public interest. He also mentioned pending High Court matters that could impact the case, noting that a related ruling is scheduled for February 16.
State Prosecutor Terrence Williams opposed the adjournment, arguing that such requests had become overly frequent and that the extradition proceedings were nearing completion. He emphasized that there was no conflict between the morning court sessions and Mohamed’s parliamentary responsibilities, as the Opposition Leader was slated to speak in the National Assembly on Friday afternoon, outside of court hours.
Williams underscored that attending court remains a priority, even amid parliamentary activities, particularly given the conditions of Mohamed’s recognizance when bail was granted. “This matter requires reasonable expedition. Every time we appear, a reason is advanced for adjournment. The State has been put to expense repeatedly,” he noted.
Adding to the atmosphere of urgency, Williams referenced comments made by Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh in a recent ruling dismissing a High Court challenge from Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. The Chief Justice deemed the allegations of political bias in the extradition process unfounded and described the adjournment request as disingenuous, awarding $500,000 in costs to each respondent.
After deliberating on the arguments from both sides, Magistrate Latchman denied the adjournment, ordering that the extradition proceedings continue.
While a broader constitutional challenge regarding amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act is still pending, the court’s decision marks a significant step forward in the ongoing legal saga surrounding Azruddin Mohamed’s extradition.
