GEORGETOWN, Guyana, CMC – Lawyers representing the Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed, and his billionaire businessman father, Nazar Mohamed, have objected to a proposal by the prosecution for the committal proceedings in the ongoing extradition matter to be done now by paper committal, and not by a preliminary inquiry (PI).
Last October, a US Federal Grand Jury unsealed an 11-count indictment on the Mohameds for alleged wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. Subsequently, the US requested their extradition to face trial for those alleged crimes. The extradition matter is now before the local courts.
On Wednesday, when the matter resumed before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, attorney Glen Hanoman, supported by the Jamaican-born lead prosecutor, Terrence Williams, proposed that the matter proceed through paper committal.
Their proposal comes four months after the extradition hearing commenced in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before Latchman, and more than a month after the first witness was called.
Williams told the Court that the Criminal Law Procedure (Paper Committal) Act 2024 abolished oral preliminary inquiries in favour of “paper committal” and, as a result, sought to apply the legislation to the extradition proceedings, currently being heard under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
“The old oral preliminary inquiry has been abolished and has been replaced with preliminary inquiry on paper, and as such, it would seem that the proceedings which ought to follow should be on paper,” Williams argued.
But the Magistrate questioned Williams on the nexus between the Criminal Law Procedure (Paper Committal) Act and the Extradition Case, pointing out that the defendants would have to be charged with a criminal offence.
“What would be the criminal offence in this matter? That’s one…and paper committal applies where there is a criminal offence. When a magistrate conducts a paper committal, there is absolutely no cross-examination.
“Cross-examination takes place in the High Court before a judge and a jury once you are committed. But isn’t the path to justice lined with examination in chief and cross-examination and re-examination? Isn’t the path to justice lined?” Magistrate Latchman said.
Williams, in response, told the Court that in extradition proceedings, the testing of evidence lies with the requesting state, later acknowledging that the evidence could also be tested by the requested state, which would be Guyana in the current case.
He also submitted that cross-examination is not necessarily the path to be taken.
But defence attorney Siand Dhurjon objected to the proposal, arguing that the Fugitive Offenders Act does not provide for extradition proceedings to be conducted by way of paper committal.
He later told reporters that the prosecution is now attempting to change the course of the proceedings.
“They are asking the Magistrate not to take any further oral evidence, but just to admit all of the documents and decide whether or not to extradite the defendants without any question being asked from a single witness.
“This is indisputable evidence that the prosecution is scattered now. They are trying to abort our efforts at cross-examination, they are trying to cancel the cross-examination process because they see where it is going, they see what we are unearthing, what is being revealed, and they probably well know what will be revealed soon, and so, they are asking the Magistrate to stop taking oral evidence,” Dhurjon told reporters.
He said the prosecution’s arguments, in support of paper committal, are deeply flawed, adding it would be an error of law for the Magistrate to allow the proceedings to be done via paper committal.
“The Fugitive Offenders Act, which is the Act that sets out how the extradition process ought to unfold, in minuscule detail, sets out that there ought to be a preliminary inquiry. This is a term of art, a PI is a common law process developed hundreds of years ago, and there must be cross-examination, there must be what you call viva voce or oral evidence under the Preliminary Inquiry process,” he said.
Another of Mohamed’s lawyers, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, said the Fugitive Offenders Act is clear.
“There is no basis in law at this stage for the Court to even apply the paper committal. There are two different regimes, two different processes would have been enacted in the two different acts.
“In relation to the Criminal Law Offences Act, which basically deals with indictable offences, it contemplates ultimately a trial in the High Court in the local country, which is Guyana. In relation to the Fugitive Offenders Act, it contemplates a preliminary enquiry and if a case is made out for extradition abroad,” Forde said.
He said the application of the paper committal in an extradition case would deprive the accused persons of the right to cross-examine the evidence.
The Court has asked the prosecution to submit their arguments in writing no later than February 26, when the matter resumes.
and then 