‘Strongest Grounds in 30 Years’: Special Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman Weighs Appeal Over Magistrate Latchman’s Refusal to Revoke Azruddin Mohamed’s Extradition Bail

By Travis Chase | HGP News |

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Senior attorney-at-law and special prosecutor Glenn Hanoman has expressed astonishment over Senior Magistrate Judy Latchman’s repeated refusal to revoke the pretrial bail granted to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed in his ongoing United States extradition proceedings, warning that the prosecution is actively preparing to appeal the magistrate’s decision in the High Court.

Speaking to reporters outside the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court following Tuesday’s committal hearing, Hanoman—who appears alongside King’s Counsel Terrence Williams and attorney Herbert McKenzie on behalf of the requesting state—asserted that the legal grounds presented to the court were among the most compelling for bail revocation he has encountered in more than three decades of active criminal practice.

The magistrate’s refusal to revoke bail comes despite prosecutors submitting evidence of fresh indictable charges involving alleged witness intimidation, firearms offenses outside the home of Special Branch Head Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, and an alleged falsified residential address submitted to the court by the defense.

The Grounds: Alleged Witness Interference and a Contested Address

Arguing before the extradition court, Hanoman contended that the statutory threshold under the Bail Act had been firmly met to justify canceling Mohamed’s bail bond:

• Interference with the Administration of Justice: Hanoman argued that when an accused person on bail faces subsequent charges concerning witness intimidation and attempts to compromise state evidence—specifically the October 12 confrontation involving lead prosecution witness Prem Narine—the court has a duty to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
• Contested Residential Address: The prosecutor revealed that police intelligence indicates Mohamed does not reside at the formal address provided to the court when bail was originally fixed, maintaining that supplying misleading residence details to a judicial officer is sufficient grounds on its own to revoke or refuse bail.
• Review of Investigative Files: Hanoman confirmed he has requisitioned and reviewed witness statements from the new criminal dockets, arguing that the documented conduct while on bail directly undermines the conditions of his recognizance.

“In my long history of active practice for the last 30 years, I have never come across a case in which there are such strong grounds for the revocation.” — Glenn Hanoman, Special Prosecutor

“If you give a false address about where is your residence, that is enough grounds for bail to be revoked or refused.”

Prosecution Weighs High Court Review and Appeal

Stressing that the magistrate’s determination could establish a troubling precedent for the wider administration of criminal justice, Hanoman indicated that the state will not let the matter rest:

• Awaiting Written Reasons: The prosecution team has formally requested Magistrate Latchman’s detailed written reasons for maintaining bail despite the fresh allegations.
• High Court Appeal: Hanoman indicated that once the written ruling is handed down, the prosecution will move to review or appeal the refusal before the Full Court or the Bail Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
• Preserving Judicial Integrity: The prosecution maintained that permitting an accused facing international rendition on wire fraud, mail fraud, and gold-smuggling charges to retain bail under these circumstances risks undermining public confidence in judicial oversight.

“Once those reasons are provided to us, I think there is a strong possibility that we may review or appeal the magistrate’s refusal to revoke.”

Mohamed Remains Behind Bars Under Cybercrime Remand

While Magistrate Latchman declined to revoke the extradition bail bond, the ruling does not grant Mohamed his freedom:

• Remand Order Active: Mohamed remains incarcerated in the custody of the Guyana Prison Service pursuant to an October 30 remand warrant issued by Magistrate Abigail Gibbs at the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court.
• Cybercrime Indictment: That separate remand relates to charges under Section 9 of the Cybercrime Act 2018, where Mohamed and Police Constable Ryan Greene are accused of corruptly obtaining and disseminating classified surveillance files from the National Data Centre / Police Command Centre for $800,000.
• Parallel High Court Maneuvers: Mohamed’s defense counsel, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Darren Wade, are continuing their efforts in the High Court to overturn the Sparendaam remand order, even as the prosecution prepares its own challenge to Magistrate Latchman’s decision.

The substantive extradition proceedings remain scheduled to continue before Magistrate Latchman.