Magistrate Judy Latchman on Monday warned U.S.-indicted businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed to strictly comply with their bail reporting conditions but stopped short of revoking their bail and instead modified the order governing their weekly police check-ins.
The warning came after Police records were examined in court following claims by prosecutor Glen Hanoman that the two men repeatedly breached a key condition of their bail by failing to report to the Ruimveldt Police Station within the stipulated timeframe.
Station Sergeant Tobin appeared before the court on Monday and was asked whether the father and son had been reporting every Friday between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., as initially ordered.
“On some occasions,” Tobin responded.
Reviewing records covering the period between November 7 and February 20, Tobin said there were days when the men did not report within the specified timeframe, while on other occasions they reported earlier than ordered.
When questioned about December 26, when no entry appeared in the station diary, Tobin noted that the date was a public holiday.
The magistrate pointed out that the original reporting order exempted holidays.
“With respect to your analysis, they were not absent,” Magistrate Latchman then asked Hanoman, noting that the issue appeared to involve early or late reporting rather than complete failure to report.
Hanoman insisted that, based on the records discussed in court, Azruddin Mohamed would have been absent on four occasions if December 26 was included, but three times if that date was excluded.
Hanoman further argued that there was one specific instance of absence for Nazar Mohamed, who failed to report on February 13, 2026. He said the businessman reported the following day, on February 14.
When asked by the court what application he was making, Hanoman said he believed it was his duty as prosecutor to inform the court of the alleged breaches.
Hanoman argued that persons granted bail must strictly comply with court orders.
“The liberty they enjoy is linked to strict reporting,” he told the court.
He said police must be able to account for persons on bail and argued that if they fail to report within the required timeframe, officers should check on them in case they intend to flee.
Hanoman further contended that the records showed a pattern.
“There are more breaches than compliance with the court order,” he said.
“I think it’s contempt for the court order,” he said, adding that persons involved in extradition matters are not usually granted bail and the accused were fortunate to have received it.
Hanoman outlined several options for the court, including forfeiture of bail, issuing notice to the bailor that the bail could be escheated, revoking bail entirely, or imposing stricter reporting conditions.
However, defence attorney Siand Dhurjon strongly rejected the claims, saying he was “appalled” by Hanoman’s submissions and arguing they suggested the prosecutor had a personal interest in the matter.
“These are extraordinary claims to say there were more breaches than compliance,” Dhurjon said.
He told the court that Nazar Mohamed had been required to report on 18 occasions and complied each time except February 13, when he later reported.
Dhurjon said Nazar Mohamed suffers from a medical condition that prevented him from reporting punctually on that occasion and that the police station was contacted and permission was given for him to report later.
He also challenged the accuracy of the police records regarding Azruddin Mohamed, arguing they did not account for a report made on January 2.
“An earlier reporting cannot be seen as a breach,” he said.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde also urged the court to reject Hanoman’s request entirely.
“There was substantial compliance and no flagrant or contemptuous disregard for the order,” Forde said.
The magistrate then invited the accused men to address the court.
Nazar Mohamed apologised for reporting outside the specified hours but said he had been told by Police that arriving at the exact time was not necessary.
“I made the effort regardless of how sick I am,” he told the court, adding that he had not clearly understood that the reporting time had to be strictly between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Azruddin Mohamed said he reported every week to the Ruimveldt Police Station and explained that the only occasion he was late occurred when he had to attend proceedings at the Whim Magistrate’s Court.
In her ruling, Magistrate Latchman warned both men that it was “crucial and important” that they follow the orders of the court.
“That is accountability,” she said.
She told the accused that they must make every effort to comply fully with the reporting requirement.
The magistrate then modified the reporting order, directing that Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed must report and sign the official station book at the Ruimveldt Police Station at any time between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. on Fridays.
If a Friday falls on a public holiday, they must report on the Thursday before the holiday within the same 24-hour period.
The court also ordered that if illness prevents reporting, a medical certificate must be provided.
Additionally, the men will not be required to report when their reporting day coincides with a scheduled court appearance.
Nearly the first hour of Monday’s hearing was consumed by arguments over compliance with the reporting condition.
The post Magistrate warns Mohameds to strictly follow reporting order, declines to revoke bail appeared first on News Room Guyana.
