Magistrate to review alleged bail breaches by Mohameds
March 16 2026
Questions about whether businessmen Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed may have breached the conditions of their bail surfaced on Friday during the ongoing extradition proceedings at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
The issue was raised by prosecuting attorney Glenn Hanoman, who told the court that records suggest the two men may not have consistently complied with a key bail requirement to report to the Ruimveldt Police Station.
As part of their bail conditions, they were required to surrender their passports and report once weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station while the extradition proceedings remain ongoing before the court.
Hanoman informed the court that the men had, on several occasions, reported earlier than the stipulated time, while on other occasions they arrived late or did not report at all.
As a result, Judy Latchman, the presiding magistrate, ordered that police station diaries be produced so the court could verify the records.
A police officer was summoned and presented a station diary from the Ruimveldt Police Station.
However, the document contained little relevant information since the Mohameds have been on bail since October 2025, while the diary produced only covered entries beginning in March this year.
The police officer told the court that the station sergeant was not present, explaining that the station sergeant is the custodian responsible for maintaining all station records and exhibits, including the older station diaries.
Magistrate Latchman subsequently directed the officer to return to court with older station diaries that may contain entries documenting the men’s reporting at the station.
“I’m going to deal with this on Monday [March 16, 2026] morning,” Magistrate Latchman said as she instructed that the records be brought to court on the next hearing date.
Under the terms of their bail, Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed are required to report once per week to the Ruimveldt Police Station.
A breach of those conditions could potentially result in the revocation of their bail and their remand into custody.
Hanoman told the court that he had reviewed the station records and compiled what he described as a list of alleged breaches.
“I have compiled a list of all the breaches. I personally inspected the station diaries that they have now locked away,” he said.
He explained that some of the irregularities involved Nazar Mohamed arriving earlier than the scheduled time, which he noted could still be considered a violation of the court’s order.
“There were times when I noticed that Mr. Nazar Mohamed had actually been going [to the station] earlier than the appointed time, as he did last Friday. It is technically still a breach,” Hanoman stated.
He further alleged that the men had sometimes reported late.
“There were times when they arrived one day late, two days late…” the prosecutor added.
Hanoman also told the court that Nazar Mohamed failed to report to the police station on December 26, 2025, and January 2, 2026.
According to the prosecutor, the pattern of reporting suggested that the men may have been treating the reporting requirement as optional rather than mandatory.
He said the records suggested the Mohameds appear to believe they can report to the police at their own discretion, instead of strictly following the court’s directive.
The issue arose as the extradition proceedings themselves continue to progress slowly. Hanoman attributed part of the delay to repeated lines of questioning raised by the defence that were ruled irrelevant by the court.
Speaking with reporters after the morning session ended, the prosecutor said several questions asked by defence attorneys had been disallowed.
Representing the Mohameds are Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva.
“By and large, I think of particular note today, is that the court ruled that a number of questions posed by the defence were ruled to be irrelevant,” he said.
Hanoman explained that when objections are raised during proceedings, the witness is often required to leave the courtroom temporarily while legal arguments are heard.
“Unfortunately, that is also a time-consuming process because each time that the prosecution objects, in most cases the witness has to leave the courtroom and then there are discussions on both sides,” he said.
According to him, this procedure has contributed to delays in the case.
“So, if I could put it like this, the number of irrelevant questions asked by the defence are the cause for substantial delays in the matter at the moment,” Hanoman said.
The extradition case arises from a request by the United States, where the Mohameds face allegations including money laundering, wire fraud and mail fraud linked to the illegal gold trade.
The two men are currently contesting the request before the local court while remaining on $150,000 bail each.
The extradition case stems from a 12-count indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The Mohameds face a total of 11 criminal charges. Ten of those counts are jointly brought against both men, while Azruddin Mohamed faces an additional allegation related to the importation of a luxury vehicle.
United States prosecutors allege that the charges stem from a scheme involving wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and customs offences connected to the export of gold from Guyana to the United States.
Investigators claim the operation allowed large quantities of gold to be shipped while avoiding the payment of taxes and royalties owed to the Guyanese state, resulting in losses estimated at approximately US$50 million.
Nazar Mohamed, 72, and his 39-year-old son were arrested in Georgetown on October 31, 2025, one day after the extradition request was transmitted to the Guyanese authorities.
Azruddin currently serves as Leader of the Opposition following the 2025 General and Regional Elections, where his party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), secured the second highest number of votes.
