United States attorney Glenn Hanoman has indicated that the prosecution will challenge Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman’s decision to maintain Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s bail, arguing that the ruling warrants scrutiny by a higher court and sets a “bad precedent” for the administration of bail.
Hanoman, who had applied to have Mohamed’s bail in the extradition proceedings revoked, argued that the politician’s alleged interference with a prosecution witness provided sufficient grounds for his detention.
He also pointed to the additional serious criminal charges brought against Mohamed while he was on bail, maintaining that these further offences justified revoking his release.
Speaking to reporters after Tuesday’s ruling at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts, Hanoman said he had offered to present evidence to substantiate the prosecution’s application, but the Chief Magistrate was not inclined to receive it.
He argued that the decision sent the wrong message about the consequences of conduct occurring after an accused person has been granted bail.
“I think it sets a bad precedent for the country,” Hanoman said.
“The message being sent is that it doesn’t matter what you do after you are granted bail. It doesn’t matter how many times you are charged for other offences.”
He maintained that, in his interpretation of the law, interference with witnesses and the institution of serious criminal charges against an accused person while already on bail were established grounds for revocation.
“My interpretation of the law is once you interfere with witnesses, and you are charged for serious matters while on bail, those are classic grounds for revocation of bail,” he said.
The prosecution has since indicated its intention to challenge the decision by way of judicial review before the High Court.
Among the concerns raised by Hanoman in court was Mohamed’s alleged conduct towards Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine, head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch Unit and a key prosecution witness in the extradition proceedings.
Hanoman told the court that within hours of bail conditions being imposed by another court, including a prohibition against interfering with prosecution witnesses, Mohamed appeared outside the United States Embassy and publicly targeted Narine.
According to the attorney, Mohamed described the senior police officer as a murderer and an assassin, called for his deportation and the revocation of his visa, and declared that he would no longer be able to hold people back if the demands were not met.
Hanoman argued that the statements amounted to a threat against public order and demonstrated disregard for the conditions imposed by the court.
The attorney also raised the possibility of further criminal charges arising from the alleged unauthorised acquisition, release and manipulation of footage from the Safe Country surveillance system.
He alleged that Mohamed facilitated police officers providing him with access to CCTV recordings from the Police Command Centre and argued that his role as the recipient of the footage did not absolve him of responsibility if he had facilitated its release.
Hanoman further alleged that the recordings were subsequently edited and circulated in a manner intended to distort the events captured.
He told the court that portions of the footage were slowed down to make it appear as though an individual was fleeing the scene, while other sections were clipped and accompanied by what he described as false narration.
The attorney argued that the alleged conduct could attract additional charges, including offences relating to the unauthorised release and possession of the recordings, as well as the manipulation of evidence and obstruction of justice.
The attorney told the court that statements obtained from an alleged co-conspirator provided compelling evidence to support such a charge.
“I happen to note that there is strong and compelling evidence that supports a murder charge against Mohamed,” Hanoman submitted.
“So, there is strong and compelling evidence to support the offence of murder,” he further stated, adding that Mohamed was likely to be charged.
Despite the prosecution’s arguments, Latchman refused to revoke Mohamed’s bail, ruling that the existence of multiple criminal charges against him was insufficient, without supporting evidence, to establish that he had committed further offences or was likely to commit another offence.
“However, charges by themselves without more do not satisfy the court that Mr. Mohamed has committed an offence or is likely to commit an offence,” the Chief Magistrate ruled.
She further explained that the court required substantial evidence to justify such a decision.
She said, “There must be something substantial that elevates a charge to satisfy the court that the defendant has committed an offence or is likely to commit an offence.”
Addressing allegations that Mohamed had breached his bail conditions, Latchman stressed that such breaches had to be established by evidence.
“Breaches must be proven. Breaches have not been established,” she held.
The magistrate also rejected the prosecution’s concerns that Mohamed was a flight risk or had misrepresented his residential address.
“There is no evidence that Mr. Azruddin Mohamed is a flight risk,” she said, adding that there was no solid evidence that he did not reside at the address he had provided to the court or that he had supplied a false address.
“In these circumstances, bail is maintained,” Latchman ruled.
The extradition case is expected to continue on Monday, November 23, when Senior Superintendent Prem Narine is scheduled to face further cross-examination.
Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, were each granted $150,000 bail on October 31, 2025, following their arrest on a United States extradition request. Their bail conditions included surrendering their passports and reporting weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station.
While awaiting the outcome of the extradition proceedings, Azruddin Mohamed has faced a series of additional criminal charges in Guyana.
On October 16, he appeared in court alongside his driver, Eugene Thorne, and videographer, Mario Mohamed, where they were charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, as well as attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
The charges stemmed from an October 12 incident outside the residence of Narine.
All three pleaded not guilty and were granted $750,000 bail each.
Two weeks later, on October 30, Azruddin Mohamed was charged alongside Police Constable Ryan Greene over the alleged unauthorised transfer of footage from the Safe Country surveillance system, reportedly in exchange for $800,000. Another police officer, Ashton Chappelle, was subsequently charged in connection with the alleged leak.
Mohamed, Greene and Chappelle were denied bail and remanded to prison on the indictable charge.
The United States sanctioned Azruddin Mohamed, his father Nazar Mohamed and their associated businesses in June 2024 over an alleged gold-export tax evasion scheme.
The US is seeking their extradition to face an 11-count federal indictment in Florida, while a separate indictment accused Azruddin of undervaluing a Lamborghini import to evade more than US$1 million in taxes.
Discover more from INews Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
