Extradition proceedings involving businessman Nazar ‘Shell’ Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed moved ahead on Thursday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court after Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman rejected the defence request to postpone the matter.
In refusing the application, Latchman urged that the court press forward, telling the parties: “Yesterday is gone, tomorrow is yet to come. Let us proceed.”
The adjournment request was made by defence attorney Siand Dhurjon, who said Mohamed has been deeply involved in the ongoing National Assembly debates on Budget 2026, often working late into the night and expected to continue during the upcoming consideration of estimates.
Dhurjon contended that Mohamed’s opposition role carries a constitutional responsibility to meaningfully engage in the budget process, reviewing presentations, listening to lengthy contributions, identifying key issues, and crafting detailed responses, rather than simply reading a prepared statement.
He argued that the schedule was unreasonable, saying it would be “excessive” for Mohamed to spend long hours in Parliament, ending around midnight and then be expected to attend court the following morning for extended proceedings.
The lawyer also told the court that Mohamed was experiencing a migraine and was on medication, adding that the request was made in what he described as the public interest.
Dhurjon further referenced related High Court proceedings, noting that while the court did not grant stays of the magistrate’s court matter, one ruling is expected on February 16, and another application had only been decided the day before.
State Prosecutor Terrence Williams opposed the application, arguing that delays have become routine and that the extradition case is approaching completion.
Williams maintained there was no conflict between morning court hearings and Mohamed’s parliamentary obligations, pointing out that Mohamed was slated to speak in the National Assembly on Friday afternoon, outside court hours.
He also told the court that parliamentary business does not take priority over criminal court proceedings, and said even if Parliament were sitting at the same time as the court, Mohamed would still be required to attend, particularly in light of the recognisance terms attached to his bail.
After hearing both sides, Magistrate Latchman refused the defence request and directed that the extradition proceedings continue.
Thursday’s development came one day after acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh dismissed a High Court challenge filed by Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, in which they alleged political bias by the Government and senior officials in the extradition process.
In that ruling, the court found that the Minister of Home Affairs acted lawfully in issuing the Authority to Proceed under the Fugitive Offenders Act, rejected the bias claims, refused to halt the magistrate’s court matter, and awarded $500,000 in costs to each respondent.
A separate constitutional challenge regarding amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act remains before the court, but the extradition hearing in the magistrate’s court continues.
