By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News|
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — The high-stakes extradition proceedings against Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed took a dramatic turn on Friday, February 27, 2026, as a heated verbal exchange resulted in a formal application to remove a senior prosecutor from the case. The confrontation has cast a spotlight on prosecutorial conduct and the heightened tension surrounding the international money-laundering and wire-fraud allegations.
The incident occurred during a critical cross-examination session before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.
The “Biggest Criminal” Remark
The flashpoint was reached while defense attorney Siand Dhurjon was questioning Sharon Roopchand, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding the specific protocols used to process the U.S. extradition request.
- The Outburst: During the exchange, Prosecutor Glen Hanoman allegedly heckled from the bar table, referring to Azruddin Mohamed as “the biggest criminal.”
- The Acknowledgment: Hanoman later admitted to making the remark but defended himself by claiming it was a “private” comment not intended for the official record.
- The Immediate Challenge: Attorney Dhurjon swiftly moved to have the comment struck and launched a bid to have Hanoman barred from the case.
Prejudice vs. Private Comment
The defense argued that the remark was more than just a lapse in professional decorum; they contend it reveals a fundamental bias that undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
- Prosecutorial Duty: Dhurjon argued that a prosecutor’s primary duty is to be a “minister of justice,” maintaining fairness and impartiality regardless of the severity of the charges.
- The Disqualification Bid: The defense asserted that Hanoman’s mindset is now demonstrably prejudicial, rendering him unfit to continue in a matter in which the liberty of citizens is at stake.
- The Response: Hanoman has signaled that he will “vigorously oppose” the disqualification, maintaining that the comment does not impact the legal merits of the state’s case.
Magistrate’s Directive
Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman did not rule on the spot but has moved the dispute into a formal written phase.
- Written Submissions: The defense has been directed to submit formal written arguments outlining the legal grounds for Hanoman’s removal.
- Prosecution Reply: The state will then be given the opportunity to file a rebuttal.
- Proceedings on Hold: While the wider committal hearing continues, this “trial within a trial” regarding the prosecutor’s status must be resolved before the matter moves to its final stages.
Case Context: What is at Stake?
The Mohameds are currently fighting a request from the United States Government to be extradited to face charges related to money laundering, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The case has already seen several constitutional challenges reach the High Court, and this latest development adds a new layer of complexity to an already protracted legal battle.
