HGP Nightly News – A significant contradiction has emerged between senior government officials regarding the existence of a second extradition request from the United States, intensifying the legal and political drama surrounding the high-profile case of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed.
The discrepancy became public during court proceedings where the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, testified under cross-examination that a new extradition request for a Guyanese national was received on November 25, 2025. She did not disclose the identity of the individual or whether police had acted on it.
However, in an invited comment reported in Kaieteur News, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd directly denied that a new request exists. “There is no new extradition; it’s a supplemental package concerning the same people,” Minister Todd stated, clarifying that the November correspondence was additional documentation related to the ongoing Mohamed case, forwarded under a diplomatic note.
Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond also expressed uncertainty, telling reporters she would need to check with her office to confirm the date or details of any such request, stating she did not have the information at hand.
The issue was thrust into the parliamentary spotlight by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed himself during his maiden budget speech. He challenged government MPs to release details on the alleged second request, framing the secrecy as a lack of transparency.
In court, the defense has aggressively questioned the integrity of the process. Attorney Siand Dhurjon probed Roopchand-Edwards’ relationship with President Irfaan Ali, suggesting her role in handling the extradition documents was politically influenced. The defense maintains the entire proceeding is politically motivated by both the Guyanese and U.S. governments.
The conflicting statements from a Permanent Secretary and a sitting Cabinet Minister create a cloud of uncertainty over the administrative handling of sensitive international legal requests, fueling opposition claims of opacity and politically charged justice.
