Chief Magistrate weighs role in Mohamed’s arrest warrant

February 16 2026

Legal arguments over the authority of magistrates took centre stage on Monday after a warrant issued for businessman Azruddin Mohamed at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court was brought before Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty for possible intervention.

The warrant had been signed around 09:05 hrs by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman when Mohamed did not appear at the scheduled time.

He arrived approximately 30 minutes later, at about 09:35 hrs.

His attorneys subsequently approached the Chief Magistrate seeking to have the warrant withdrawn, setting off a jurisdictional dispute between defence and prosecution.

State Prosecutor Glen Hanoman argued that the Chief Magistrate did not possess the authority to overturn the warrant.

According to Hanoman, only the magistrate who issued the warrant could address it. He maintained that the decision of Magistrate Latchman “should stand” and insisted that the matter must return before her.

Hanoman also indicated he did not support recalling the warrant and suggested Mohamed had been disrespectful to the court.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde countered that the law does not restrict consideration of a warrant to the issuing magistrate alone, arguing that any magistrate within the same jurisdiction could address the issue.

Forde told the court that Mohamed has never been absent or late for proceedings in the past. He explained that on Monday morning, his client reported feeling unwell and, upon preparing to leave for court, discovered that his vehicle’s tyres had been slashed.

Despite that setback, Mohamed proceeded to court and arrived shortly after the warrant had already been issued.

Forde further clarified that the date was not set for a substantive hearing but for reporting purposes, specifically to present a medical certificate confirming the illness of Mohamed’s father, Nazar Mohamed.

He said there was no attempt to frustrate the judicial process.

The attorney also informed the court that Mohamed and his businesses have recently experienced incidents including break-ins and missing documents.

In addressing the submissions, Chief Magistrate McGusty stated that courts operate on law and procedure, not emotion.

She remarked that magistrates are not to act based on feelings and expressed surprise at claims that the issuing magistrate declined to see counsel after Mohamed arrived.

“I would hope that is not what my sister is doing,” she said, while noting that if misconduct arises, there is an established process for dealing with it.

McGusty also indicated that she did not seek to involve herself in the dispute but was obliged to address the application since it was properly brought before her.

At one stage, she queried whether any remand order had been signed and whether Mohamed had previously appeared before that court.

With conflicting accounts over whether Magistrate Latchman had refused to grant an audience to counsel, the Chief Magistrate adjourned proceedings for 30 minutes to allow the prosecution to confirm the position.