Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman on Wednesday urged a “reset” in the extradition proceedings against United States‑sanctioned businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed, arguing the hearing has been devoting too much time to matters outside the limited remit of the Magistrates’ Court.
Speaking to reporters at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts, Hanoman said the court’s role under the Fugitive Offenders Act is narrowly defined and should be confined to three issues: whether the alleged conduct amounts to an extraditable offence, whether the evidence is sufficient, and whether any political opinion expressed by Azruddin Mohamed could have maliciously prompted the U.S. extradition request. He stressed that broader constitutional questions — including whether the United States gave assurances to Guyana — are matters for the superior courts, not the magistrate.
“The constitutional issues, whether there was an assurance or not, those are issues that can be canvassed in the superior courts and in fact have already been canvassed and rejected by the defence,” Hanoman said, noting that the Court of Appeal has recently resolved several related issues. He said defence counsel are nonetheless revisiting matters that were already decided and which fall outside the magistrate’s statutory function.
Hanoman told reporters that repeated arguments about constitutional claims, alleged ill will by the Guyana Government, and the question of assurances are irrelevant at this stage. He added that although Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman has frequently ruled questions irrelevant, the ensuing back‑and‑forth consumes valuable court time because similarly framed questions keep being re‑asked.
Despite his criticisms of the defence’s focus, Hanoman said he had no complaint with the magistrate’s handling of the proceedings.
The hearing continued on Wednesday with testimony from Sharon Roopchand‑Edwards, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, whose evidence has centred on diplomatic correspondence and internal records related to the October 2025 U.S. extradition request.
The session was disrupted by the absence of two defence attorneys. Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde — representing Azruddin — told the court that Siand Dhurjon, who represents Nazar, was ill and had been advised to submit a medical certificate. Hours later Dhurjon was seen responding by email to the Attorney General on an unrelated work matter. Magistrate Latchman allowed proceedings to continue, with Forde conducting the cross‑examination of the witness; she has warned that no further delays will be tolerated.
