“Rushed justice is crushed justice.”
Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman issued the caution directly to prosecutor Glenn Hanoman yesterday as prosecution and defence attorneys sparred over submissions concerning alleged political interference in the extradition proceedings involving businessman Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed.
The exchange came during continued hearings before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court, where defence attorney Siand Dhurjon raised questions about the possible impact of political considerations on the extradition matter and the treatment of Nazar Mohamed, whom the defence described as an outspoken critic of the Government.
Dhurjon submitted that Nazar Mohamed is a substantial sponsor of WIN and has publicly expressed views in support of his son.
At the same time, he said Nazar Mohamed 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 what he described as critical and derogatory comments about Nazar Mohamed.
He argued that, in good faith, the defence should be allowed to investigate that aspect through cross-examination and test the impartiality of the proceedings.
Dhurjon also pointed to what he described as circumstantial evidence of political opinion, noting that witness Sharon Roopchand-Edwards had stated that she was aware Nazar Mohamed was an outspoken critic.
He further argued that, in the extradition matter, Guyana was effectively the true requesting state, despite the proceedings being advanced in the interests of the United States.
Hanoman questioned whether the defence was suggesting that evidence contained in the extradition bundle had been fabricated by the United States.
Dhurjon said he was satisfied that the point had been raised, but maintained that 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 there was sufficient evidence establishing a real case against the defendants, the existence of a political interest would not necessarily prevent extradition.
He questioned the need for what he described as potentially endless cross-examination of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine concerning the relationship between Guyana and the United States.
Hanoman’s position was that even if political evidence were found, extradition should still proceed if the evidential requirements for an extraditable offence were satisfied.
Dhurjon, however, maintained that Section 8 creates a jurisdictional bar which, in the circumstances being argued, prevents the court from making a committal order.
The Chief Magistrate then put the issue directly to the parties, asking what would happen if the evidence established an extraditable offence but political motivation was also established.
She questioned whether, in those circumstances, the prosecution’s position was that extradition should nevertheless proceed.
Herbert McKenzie, another prosecutor involved in the case and representing United States interests, maintained that the issue of political motivation had to be established through evidence.
The submissions became more heated when Hanoman described the defence material as an “information dump” which he said was intended solely to cause delay.
He also suggested that some of the material was AI-generated.
The defence rejected that characterization.
It was argued that Hanoman’s statement should be rejected, with the defence maintaining that the withdrawal of a question did not amount to a withdrawal of its right to cross-examine.
The defence described the move instead as a tactical step in the proceedings.
As the back-and-forth continued, Chief Magistrate Latchman asserted her control over the proceedings and directed her remarks specifically at Hanoman.
She told him that the court would not be controlled by any person and declared:
“This court will never be controlled by any mortal being, only by divine intervention.”
The Chief Magistrate stressed the gravity of the matter, describing it as being of grave national importance.
She then cautioned against rushing the proceedings, telling Hanoman: “Rushed justice is crushed justice.”
Magistrate Latchman further made clear that the court would not take orders from either outside or within the courtroom.
The extradition proceedings involving the Mohameds are continuing.
Discussion