Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman issued a caution directly to prosecutor Glenn Hanoman yesterday during continued hearings before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court in extradition proceedings involving businessman Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed. Prosecution and defence attorneys exchanged submissions concerning alleged political interference.
Defence attorney Siand Dhurjon raised questions about the possible impact of political considerations on the extradition matter. He argued that Guyana was effectively the true requesting state, and said the proceedings were being advanced in the interests of the United States. He maintained that Section 8 creates a jurisdictional bar which prevents the court from making a committal order in the circumstances he was arguing.
Dhurjon submitted that Nazar Mohamed is a substantial sponsor of WIN. He said Nazar Mohamed has publicly expressed views in support of his son, and has been critical of the Government and its positions concerning him and his family. According to Dhurjon, the defence has more than a dozen recordings of Government leaders making critical and derogatory comments about Nazar Mohamed, and he argued the defence should be allowed to investigate those recordings through cross-examination to test impartiality. He pointed to what he described as circumstantial evidence of political opinion. Witness Sharon Roopchand-Edwards had stated she was aware that Nazar Mohamed was an outspoken critic.
Hanoman questioned whether the defence was suggesting that evidence in the extradition bundle had been fabricated by the United States. Dhurjon said he was satisfied the point had been raised but said it was neither necessary nor appropriate at this stage for the court to determine whether the contents of the bundle were fact or fiction.
Hanoman argued that if sufficient evidence established a real case against the defendants, the existence of a political interest would not necessarily prevent extradition. He questioned the need for potentially endless cross-examination of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine; the proposed cross-examination concerned the relationship between Guyana and the United States. Hanoman’s position was that even if political evidence were found, extradition should still proceed if evidential requirements for an extraditable offence were satisfied.
The Chief Magistrate asked the parties what would happen if the evidence established an extraditable offence but political motivation was also established. She questioned whether the prosecution’s position was that extradition should nevertheless proceed in those circumstances.
Herbert McKenzie is another prosecutor involved in the case and is representing United States interests.
