HGP Nightly News – A tense hour-long courtroom debate over whether U.S.-indicted businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son Azruddin complied with their bail conditions ended Monday with a warning from the magistrate, but no revocation of their liberty.
Magistrate Judy Latchman stopped short of canceling bail for the two men, who face extradition to the United States on fraud and money laundering charges. Instead, she modified the order governing their weekly police check-ins after reviewing station records that prosecutor Glen Hanoman argued showed “more breaches than compliance.”
The dispute centered on whether the father and son had been reporting to the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., as originally ordered.
Station Sergeant Tobin was called to testify. His answer when asked if the men had been reporting within that window: “On some occasions.”
Records spanning November 7 to February 20 revealed a mixed picture. Some weeks, the men reported early. Some weeks, late. On December 26, a public holiday, no entry appeared, though the magistrate noted the original order exempted holidays.
Hanoman pressed his case: Azruddin would have been absent on four occasions if December 26 was included, three if excluded. Nazar, he said, failed to report on February 13, reporting instead the following day.
“The liberty they enjoy is linked to strict reporting,” Hanoman argued. “I think it’s contempt for the court order.” He reminded the court that persons in extradition matters are not usually granted bail and that the accused were fortunate to have received it.
He laid out options: forfeiture of bail, notice to the bailor, revocation, or stricter conditions.
Defence attorney Siand Dhurjon was unequivocal in response, saying he was “appalled” by the submissions and accusing the prosecutor of personal interest in the matter. He explained that Nazar’s missed report was due to a medical condition, and that the station had been contacted and permission given to report later.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde backed him, urging the court to reject Hanoman’s request entirely. “There was substantial compliance and no flagrant or contemptuous disregard for the order,” Forde said.
When given the chance to speak, both men addressed the court directly.
Nazar Mohamed apologized for reporting outside the specified hours but said he had been told by police that arriving exactly on time was not necessary. “I made the effort regardless of how sick I am,” he said, adding he hadn’t understood the reporting window was so strictly enforced.
Azruddin explained that the only time he was late occurred when he had to attend proceedings at the Whim Magistrate’s Court.
In her ruling, Magistrate Latchman issued a clear warning: following court orders is “crucial and important.”
“That is accountability,” she said.
