Court refuses to revoke Opposition Leader’s bail over ‘unproven’ police claims
September 4 2026
Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman on Friday refused a request by state prosecutors to revoke the bail of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, ruling that judicial decisions must be based on proven facts rather than unverified allegations.
The issue was introduced near the end of Friday’s session during the ongoing extradition committal proceedings involving Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. Shortly before a scheduled noon adjournment for a funeral, Special Prosecutor Glen Hanoman alerted the court to an active police probe into Mohamed’s presence near President Irfaan Ali’s Leonora residence on Thursday night.
Relying on Section 7(c) of the Bail Act, Hanoman noted that police are examining seized mobile phones and investigating whether drone surveillance or other activities occurred near the presidential property. Hanoman raised the potential for serious offenses, including treason, an attempted coup, or an assassination plot, arguing that the court must consider whether Mohamed’s continued liberty aligns with his bail conditions.
However, Chief Magistrate Latchman emphasized that the prosecution failed to submit material evidence proving a breach of bail terms or establishing that formal charges were imminent. Reaffirming that the court cannot interfere with an individual’s liberty based solely on claims, Latchman maintained Mohamed’s existing bail status.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde has strongly condemned the prosecution’s attempt to revoke Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s bail, branding the application “ridiculous, flimsy, and without any substance.”
Speaking to members of the media outside the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Friday, Forde asserted that the State provided zero evidentiary basis to justify placing his client back into custody. He noted that under the Bail Act, a court must be satisfied by clear evidence that serious charges are likely to result before considering any alteration to bail.
Hanoman had argued to the media that a prospective presidential candidate present in an armoured vehicle at night outside the President’s home raised significant concerns, stating it was his duty as a prosecutor to bring potential new investigations to the court’s attention. He added that he had initially sought to raise the matter in camera to avoid media attention.
Rejecting Hanoman’s arguments, Forde stated, “In Guyana, a democratic country, the President is entitled to his safety and protection. But the mere fact that someone is present nearby his home does not result in the initiation or laying of any criminal action.”
Forde explained that Mohamed was in the vicinity of the President’s Leonora residence fulfilling his constitutional duties as Opposition Leader after receiving information regarding the purchase of a land plot adjoining the presidential estate. Attorney-at-law Siand Dhurjon added that the move appeared driven by political motives rather than legal grounds, while Mohamed confirmed that video footage related to the incident would be published shortly.
“In Guyana, a democratic country, the President is entitled to his safety and protection,” Forde stated. “But the mere fact that someone is present nearby his home does not result in the initiation or laying of any criminal action.”
Forde explained that Mohamed was in the vicinity of the President’s Leonora residence fulfilling his constitutional duties as Opposition Leader. According to the defense, Mohamed was acting on information regarding the purchase of a land plot adjoining the presidential estate. Attorney-at-law Siand Dhurjon added that the move to target Mohamed’s bail appeared driven by political motives rather than legal grounds, while Mohamed confirmed that video footage related to the incident would be published shortly.
