THERE is a point at which the administration of justice begins to test the patience of the people it is supposed to serve. The extradition proceedings involving Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed have reached that point.
Guyana has watched this matter move from the Magistrates’ Court to the High Court, from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the Caribbean Court of Justice(CCJ). The CCJ rejected the Mohameds’ appeal in July, clearing the way for the extradition proceedings to resume after a months-long interruption. The Court of Appeal subsequently ordered that the Magistrates’ Court proceedings continue, although it stayed the Chief Magistrate’s final determination pending the constitutional appeal.
The legal rights of the Mohameds are not in dispute, but what is increasingly in dispute is how long this matter should be allowed to consume the judicial system.
The prosecution should be defended because it has a legitimate responsibility to put its case before the court, challenge irrelevant questioning, object to procedural manoeuvres and resist attempts, whether deliberate or otherwise, to turn a committal hearing into an interminable proceeding.
Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman has repeatedly complained about the pace of the case. On Thursday, he told the court that the United States’ extradition request was supported by “solid evidence” and objected to defence tactics that, in his view, had already consumed substantial court time.
This is not an abuse of power because that is precisely what he is expected to do. If he believes that a procedural manoeuvre is wasting judicial time, he has every right to put that objection on the record. The alternative would be a prosecution sitting silently while proceedings drift indefinitely; and that cannot be what justice requires.
Firstly, this matter has gone on long enough. The substantive hearing began in January and it is now September. The first prosecution witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, legal challenges have consumed months, and the proceedings were suspended for approximately four months, while the Mohameds pursued their appeal before the CCJ.
The public should not be expected to regard this as ordinary judicial business, since there is nothing ordinary about an extradition matter taking this long and generating this level of litigation and public controversy.
No other extradition proceedings in Guyana’s recent history has attracted anything remotely comparable in duration, litigation, public attention and political confrontation.
That should concern everyone, not because due process itself loses public credibility when proceedings appear incapable of reaching an end. The prosecution has even described aspects of the defence cross-examination as a “masterclass in delay.” That is a serious allegation. It should not be dismissed, but should be examined against the record.
For example, the defence reportedly filed more than 300 pages relating to a particular line of questioning involving Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, only to later indicate that it wanted to withdraw that question and pursue another route. Hanoman objected, arguing that substantial court time had already been consumed.
Whatever one’s view of that particular dispute, the public is entitled to ask whether such proceedings are proportionate to the narrow legal question before a committal court.
Similarly, the defence has repeatedly sought to raise issues surrounding alleged political motivation and the actions of the United States and Guyanese authorities. The defence is entitled to pursue relevant issues, but an extradition committal hearing is not a criminal trial determining guilt or innocence on the American charges. The court’s task is to determine whether the legal requirements for extradition have been met.
That distinction matters enormously. A defence cannot be permitted to transform every conceivable factual, political or procedural dispute into a reason to extend proceedings without limit. The court has a responsibility to distinguish legitimate advocacy from procedural excess.
Secondly, the magistrate’s words matter. This is where the conduct and recent remarks of Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman deserve particularly serious scrutiny.
When the prosecution complained about the duration of the matter, the magistrate reportedly warned against “fishing for that line” and objected to repeated references to how long the case had been running. Then, she said, “This court will control its own pace.” The magistrate also reportedly stated that the case would not be rushed and that unnecessary delay would not be tolerated.
The principle that a magistrate controls the proceedings is obvious, but the language matters. So does the context. Judicial independence does not mean that a judicial officer should appear indifferent to legitimate concerns about delay or that a lower court operates outside the judicial hierarchy.
The Court of Appeal and the CCJ have spoken. The superior courts have dealt with substantial legal challenges arising from this matter and have permitted the committal proceedings to continue. The Magistrates’ Court must therefore operate within that legal architecture. No one is suggesting that Chief Magistrate Latchman should surrender judicial independence to the prosecution, the defence, the government or public opinion, but judicial independence is not judicial sovereignty and a magistrate cannot be above scrutiny.
A court cannot become so defensive about criticism that every question concerning efficiency is treated as an attack on the institution. That is dangerous territory.
Thirdly, who is really being served? There is another uncomfortable question.
Would an ordinary Guyanese litigant with modest financial means be able to sustain the same level of prolonged litigation, voluminous submissions, multiple applications and extensive cross-examinations? Would an ordinary defendant be afforded unlimited judicial time?
The answer must be yes if the system is truly equal. If the answer is no, then the judiciary must ask itself whether wealth, political prominence and the ability to deploy a large legal team can unintentionally create a different experience of justice. The Mohameds are entitled to every lawful protection available to them, but they are not entitled to an infinite process. And neither is anyone else.
Finally, the public deserves an ending. This case has already consumed an extraordinary amount of public attention.
The allegations before the court are serious. The implications of the extradition request are serious. The constitutional questions are serious. Additionally, this case is not a licence for endless proceedings. The prosecution should continue presenting its evidence and the defence should continue challenging it where legally justified. The magistrate should exercise much stronger case management.
The public deserves nothing less. If questions are irrelevant, stop them. If submissions are repetitive, limit them. If applications are abusive, reject them and if witnesses have been adequately cross-examined, move on.
It is not rushing but managing justice and there is a world of difference between the two.
The public should also resist the temptation to prejudge the ultimate outcome. The extradition allegations have not been adjudicated by the Guyanese court as findings of guilt. The committal proceedings are concerned with whether the statutory requirements for extradition have been satisfied, but precisely because the outcome remains undecided, the process must be allowed to reach that outcome.
Guyana cannot remain permanently trapped in the preliminary stage. The country has other matters to confront such as crime, the economy and national development. The public should not still be discussing the same preliminary extradition hearing months from now because the proceedings cannot escape procedural quicksand.
The court should therefore use every legitimate case-management tool available to bring the committal proceedings as close to conclusion as the outstanding appellate process permits.
October should be treated as a target for substantial completion of the remaining Magistrates’ Court work, subject, of course, to the Court of Appeal’s constitutional proceedings and any binding legal orders that affect the final determination.
Enough is enough. The prosecution should not be apologising for demanding progress and neither side should be permitted to turn the court into a theatre of perpetual litigation.
After all, the magistrate should remember something equally important: that is, public confidence is not preserved by insisting that the court controls its own pace. It is preserved when citizens can see that the court is controlling the case fairly, firmly, consistently and efficiently.
Judicial authority is strongest when it commands respect. Respect is strengthened, not weakened, when justice is seen to be both meticulous and timely. Guyana needs an answer and the public deserves its day when this case is finally over.
Justice MUST NEVER CRAWL.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.