In a heated exchange during the ongoing extradition case involving the Mohamed family, Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman was petitioned to bar Prosecuting Attorney Glen Hanoman from further participation in the proceedings following accusations that he labeled the Mohameds as the “biggest criminals.”
The incident occurred this morning as Defense Attorney Siand Dhurjon cross-examined Sharon Roopchand, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding the protocols for handling extradition requests. During the cross-examination, Hanoman interrupted, making the controversial remark in reference to Azruddin Mohamed.
Dhurjon quickly objected to Hanoman’s outburst and addressed it with the Court. Hanoman acknowledged the comment but claimed it was not intended for public record, stating, “I find it very funny. It wasn’t meant for public consumption. I was speaking to my colleagues at the bar table.”
In comments made afterward to reporters, Hanoman defended his position, citing the serious nature of the charges against the Mohameds. “The reason that I agreed to take on this prosecution is having regard to the evidence in this case, what we are dealing with here is a family that is accused of, and there is compelling evidence to suggest that, they are a criminal network at a large scale and for a long time,” he stated.
Following the incident, Magistrate Latchman cautioned the attorneys regarding courtroom decorum. Nonetheless, Dhurjon filed an application requesting Hanoman’s disqualification from the case, arguing that the Prosecuting Attorney should have maintained a level of professionalism and impartiality.
“Mr. Hanoman is lawfully bound to be impartial…he ought not to form such a view that Azruddin Mohamed is the biggest criminal, let alone act on it, say it out loud…for all and sundry to hear,” Dhurjon asserted, referencing case law that supports the motion for disqualification under such circumstances.
Magistrate Latchman has requested that the Defense submit a written argument in support of their application. In response, Hanoman has vowed to challenge the motion. The case continues to unfold in a charged atmosphere, drawing attention to the complexities of courtroom conduct.
