Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman has declined to revoke the bail granted to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, ruling that pending criminal charges, without more, was insufficient to justify revoking his bail in the ongoing extradition proceedings.
The ruling was handed down yesterday morning following submissions by the defence, which argued that the prosecution could not rely solely on allegations or outstanding charges to establish that Mohamed had breached his bail conditions.
Earlier, the magistrate had ordered that Mohamed, who was on remand at the Lusignan Prison, appear before her for the extradition proceedings. When he appeared 30 minutes later he declared that the “demonic PPP government wants to kill me before the next elections”. He also said that he was in solitary confinement and suffering “maximum punishment”. He added that he had been on a lockdown for 23 hours and 50 minutes and the place was like a “furnace”.
In delivering her decision, Magistrate Latchman distinguished between pending criminal charges and conduct that could justify the revocation of bail, stating that the mere existence of charges did not automatically establish grounds for such an order.
She further said that if Mohamed were convicted of an offence while the extradition proceedings remained ongoing, that conviction could have a bearing on any subsequent application for revocation.
However, she did not consider the circumstances presently before the court sufficient to warrant revoking his bail.
The decision followed arguments challenging the prosecution’s reliance on separate criminal proceedings involving the Opposition Leader.
During submissions, defence counsel maintained that the court’s jurisdiction to revoke bail must be exercised within the statutory framework governing bail conditions and could not be extended merely because fresh allegations had been made against an accused person.
Counsel argued that the filing of charges was not equivalent to a finding of guilt and that the responsibility for determining whether those allegations were supported by sufficient evidence rested with the courts hearing the respective criminal matters.
The defence warned that allowing pending charges alone to justify revocation would create a situation in which allegations, regardless of their eventual outcome, could be used to interfere with an individual’s existing bail arrangements.
Counsel also referred to an earlier bail hearing on October 16, during which another Magistrate considered the circumstances surrounding the separate charges and granted bail after finding that special reasons existed.
The defence contended that the earlier decision was significant, particularly since the court had already considered the circumstances surrounding those allegations before allowing Mohamed’s release on bail.
It was further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a meaningful basis for revoking bail and that the allegations should be tested in the criminal proceedings in which they were brought.
The defence maintained that the existence of separate charges did not, by itself, demonstrate that Mohamed had violated any condition imposed by the court in the extradition matter.
In her ruling, Magistrate Latchman declined the application for revocation, while leaving open the possibility that a subsequent conviction could be relevant to a future application.
The ruling means that Mohamed’s bail in the extradition proceedings remains in place, subject to the existing conditions.
Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, are facing extradition proceedings arising from a request by the United States.
The proceedings remain before Chief Magistrate Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.
Discussion