Today’s cross-examination of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sharon Roopchand, in the ongoing Mohameds’ extradition case, centered around a Diplomatic note that was dispatched by the Government of Guyana to the US Government, seeking assurances that US indicted businessmen, Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed will not be extradited to a third state without the consent of the Guyanese Government.

As the case continued in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, Defense Attorney Roysdale Forde grilled Roopchand on Note Verbale No. 1680/2025 that was dispatched by the Government of Guyana through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the US Government on December 3, 2025 – more than a month after the extradition hearings had commenced in the Courts.

Under oath, Roopchand told the Court that the Diplomatic note was drafted by the Head of the Ministry’s Legal Department in consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hugh Todd.

She said once the note was drafted and finalized, she caused it to be dispatched to the US Embassy.

Seniot Counsel Forde suggested that in the note, the Government of Guyana did not seek any assurances from the US Government in relation to the father and son. But when she responded in the affirmative, Forde then sought to ascertain whether the Guyanese Government sought an undertaking from the US.

The question was met with an objection from Special Prosecutor Herbert McKenzie, who told the Court that the question was asked and answered.

McKenzie argued that “assurances” and “undertaking” are one of the same.

Magistrate Latchman, however, permitted the question, but Roopchand, in response, maintained that “expressed assurances were sought.”

Pressed on the issue by Forde, Roopchand opted to read a section of the note that was eventually tendered into evidence.

Quoting a section of the Note Verbale, Roopchand said “the Government of Guyana request confirmation from the Government of the United States that this provision will be upheld, should the aforementioned individuals be extradited into the United States. While the Government of Guyana is assured of the strong commitment of the Government of the United States to honor its obligations under the treaty and its general obligations under international law, this request is made as a precaution to ensure that should the issue be raised during the proceedings, expressed assurances from the Government of the United States can be produced to the court without delay.”

It was explained that “provision” alluded to in the note relates to the provisions under the Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the Fugitive Offenders Act.

Roopchand further testified that the US later responded to the Diplomatic note.

Outside the courtroom, the Defense Attorney told reporters that based on the evidence before the Court and Roopchand’s testimony, the Government of Guyana did not satisfy the conditions set out in Section 8 of the Fugitive Offenders Act for the accused businessmen to be extradited.   

“The question of assurance is at the center of this matter. It forms one of the safeguards that are specifically required in Section 8 of the Fugitive Offenders Act. It is our opinion that what would have transpired between the Government and the United States did not satisfy the statutory conditions necessary for a precondition and it cannot be satisfied in the manner in which the government purported to do it,” he told reporters.

But Prosecuting Attorney, Glenn Hanoman said the Government of Guyana not only sought, as a precaution, assurances from the US that the accused men will not be re-extradited to a third country without the consent of the Minister, but also received that assurance from the US.

“Just as a precaution, in this particular case, they were given an assurance for the Mohameds that they were not going to be extradited to a third country for any other offense. The law speaks about arrangements between countries for this not to happen, so that would be an example of one such arrangement,” Hanoman said.

He said the Diplomatic note was an attempt by the Government of Guyana to protect the Mohameds from re-extradition.

Hanoman today again complained that the Attorneys for the Mohameds are deploying a number of tactics to delay the case. At today’s hearing, the Special Prosecutor pushed for hearings to take place on Thursday and Friday.

However, the Defense Attorney indicated that he would be unavailable Thursday due to another Court case. He also submitted to the Court that the Mohameds are Muslims and would be observing Eid-ul-Fitr on Thursday or Friday once the moon is sighted.

Both Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed told the Court that as lifelong muslims, the day is of great significance to them.

Hanoman, however, contended that it is not a not a national holiday, but Magistrate Latchman said the court must respect people’s religious belief.

“It is clear for everyone to see that this is their strategy, every single maneuver that they make is to effect this purpose. I think it is very clear, they have filed applications for stays in the High Court, in the Court of Appeal, and all of those courts have found that there are no grounds for these proceedings to be stayed. They have asked the Magistrate to stay the proceedings, she has previously refused to stay the proceedings, and they continue to try and obtain delay in this case,” Hanoman said.

The case has been adjourned to Tuesday, March 24, 2026.

Related posts:

Court adjusts reporting time for Mohameds at Police station as extradition hearing continues Foreign Affairs PS grilled on handling of extradition requests in Mohameds’ extradition hearing Foreign Affairs Permanent Secretary testifies of receiving extradition request for Mohameds from US Government Attorneys for US Government present key documents to Court in Mohameds extradition case