An application was made on Monday before Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty seeking to have an arrest warrant recalled that had earlier been issued for US-indicted businessman Azruddin Mohamed at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
The warrant was issued at around 09:05hrs by Magistrate Judy Latchman after Mohamed failed to appear in court for the continuation of the US extradition case against him.
Mohamed, however, arrived at court at approximately 09:35hrs, prompting his attorneys to move urgently before the Chief Magistrate requesting that the warrant be withdrawn or overturned.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde told the court that Mohamed has no history of being absent or late for court appearances.
According to Forde, his client contacted him earlier indicating that he was unwell. Upon attempting to travel to court, Mohamed reportedly discovered that his vehicle’s tyres had been slashed. Despite this, he made arrangements to attend and arrived roughly 30 minutes after the warrant had already been issued.
Forde emphasised that the date was not set for a substantive hearing but for reporting purposes, specifically to present a medical certificate confirming the illness of Mohamed’s father, Nazar Mohamed.
He maintained there was no attempt to frustrate or obstruct the court process.
Forde further told the Chief Magistrate that after learning of the warrant, he made several attempts through the magistrate’s clerk to inform Magistrate Latchman that Mohamed was present and to request that the warrant be withdrawn. However, he said no audience was granted.
He also indicated that Mohamed and his businesses have recently faced incidents including vehicles being broken into and documents going missing.
State Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman, who appeared virtually, argued that Chief Magistrate McGusty did not have jurisdiction to recall the warrant.
Hanoman contended that the warrant must be addressed by the same magistrate who issued it and that whatever decision Magistrate Latchman made should stand. He maintained that the matter must return before her and that Mohamed should remain before the court until then.
He also suggested that Mohamed had been disrespectful to the court and said he did not support recalling the warrant.
During the exchange, Chief Magistrate McGusty made it clear that magistrates are not to act based on feelings.
She stated that courts operate on law and procedure, not emotion, and expressed surprise at the allegation that the issuing magistrate had refused to exercise her authority to see counsel or even engage in discussion on the issue after Mohamed arrived.
She noted that she did not wish to be involved in the matter but since the application was brought before her, she was required to deal with it.
At one point, she questioned whether any remand order had been signed and whether Mohamed had ever previously appeared before that court.
As conflicting accounts were presented regarding whether Magistrate Latchman had refused to see counsel, Chief Magistrate McGusty adjourned the court for 30 minutes to allow State Prosecutor Hanoman to confirm whether the issuing magistrate had indeed declined to grant an audience or entertain submissions for withdrawal of the warrant.
The matter remains before the court.
Discover more from INews Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
