Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman today adjusted the bail conditions for US indicted businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed in the ongoing Extradition Committal Proceedings. However, the father and son were cautioned that any breach would result in their bail being forfeited.

The decision was taken in response to complaints by the Prosecution of possible breaches.

The Mohameds were initially required to report to the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday between 13:00hrs and 15:00hrs.

However, after reviewing the station’s diary for the period November 2025 to February 2026 as presented in Court today by the Police, the Principal Magistrate expanded the reporting period.

The Mohameds are now required to report to the Officer in Charge at the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday, between 00:00hrs and 23:59hrs, starting March 20.

According to the Court, the Mohameds must sign the time of their reporting in the official station diary during the specified reporting period.

In the case of a national holiday, they are mandated to report to the station on the Thursday immediately before the Friday, and in the case of an illness, they will have to submit a medical certificate to the police, and produce it for inspection by the Court.

Magistrate Latchman cautioned the Mohameds that the orders of the Court must be followed.

“I must take this opportunity to let you know that it is crucial, it is important that you follow the court’s orders. You are to follow orders. You are to report when you have to report – that is accountability and that is being responsible citizens. You must endeavor to do your best. You must seek perfection of character at some point in time,” the Principal Magistrate urged.

Special Prosecutor, Glenn Hanoman had complained to the Court that the father and son had breached their conditions of bail.

Today, he called on the Court to not only reprimand the Mohameds but to revoke their bail on the grounds that Azruddin Mohamed was absent on three occasions while Nazar Mohamed was absent on one occasion.

Alluding to the station diary presented to Court, Hanoman contended that Azruddin Mohamed was absent on January 2, 2026. He said the accused was also absent on January 16, 2026 and February 13, 2026, however, he reported a day or two later on those occasions.

In the case of Nazar Mohamed, Hanoman contended that he too was absent on February 13, 2026, but reported to the station two days later. The men were also accused of reporting outside of the reporting period, in some cases reporting to the station much earlier, or late in the evening.

Hanoman told the Court that the father and son are in a fortunate position having secured bail in an Extradition Case, and are therefore obligated to adhere to the orders of the court, and the conditions of their bail.

“I think the fugitive offenders need to understand that the orders of the court have to be complied with or else it would be contempt of the court’s orders. Second of all they need to understand that their liberty is conditional on strict reporting, and there is reason for the strict reporting – the police need to monitor them,” the Special Prosecutor told the Court.

Telling the court that there are more breaches than compliance with the Court’s order, Hanoman said the Mohameds must understand that they cannot report to the station as they see fit.

“The story that we can gather here is that the fugitive offenders feel that they can go when they feel like, not in the timeframe ordered by the Court,” he said.

Called on by the Court, the father and son apologized. However, the elder Mohamed explained that he was ill on February 13, and was unable to report to the station that day. He said despite his illness, he made an effort to report to the police subsequently.  

The younger Mohamed rejected the claim that he was absent on January 2, but explained that he was sick on February 13 but reported subsequently.

Their Attorneys – Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Siand Dhurjon – said Hanoman’s position is reflective of his personal interest in the matter, and renewed their call for him to be barred from the case.

“This, we say, only fortify our application that Mr. Hanoman has a personal interest in this matter, an improper interest and he ought to be barred from any further participation in these proceedings,” Dhurjon told the Court.

He said contrary to the arguments put forward by Hanoman, Nazar Mohamed reported to the police station, in keeping with the Court’s orders, 17 times. However, he said due to illness, the elderly man was unable to report to the station on February 13, but reported to the police subsequently.

Forde to the Court that Hanoman’s application should be rejected for insufficient evidence.

In turn, he submitted that the reporting requirements should be relaxed to twice monthly on the grounds that the accused have been reporting to both the Court and the Police on the required days.

It was after listening to the arguments that Magistrate Latchman adjusted the reporting requirements and issued the warning to the Mohameds.

Related posts:

Police to provide station diaries as Prosecution claim breaches of bail conditions by Mohameds Court of Appeal rejects request to halt Magistrate Court’s hearing as it reviews High Court ruling in Mohameds’ extradition matter Foreign Affairs PS grilled on handling of extradition requests in Mohameds’ extradition hearing Prosecutors now seeking earlier date initially rejected by them in Mohameds’ extradition hearing