–rejects defence claims that evidence was fabricated for political purposes
–accuses defence of using repeated applications & other tactics to delay proceedings
United States prosecutor Glenn Hanoman has maintained that there is “compelling evidence” in the documents submitted to the court to support the extradition request for Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed.
He also accused the defence of using various tactics to delay the proceedings.
Speaking to reporters after Thursday’s hearing, Hanoman said the evidence supporting the United States’ request remains the primary issue for the magistrate to determine, despite the defence’s continued questioning of a police witness on matters including Guyana-US relations and alleged political motives.
“As the prosecutor, I can tell you that there is compelling evidence in the body of documents that have already been tendered, and that’s the primary issue for the magistrate to deal with,” Hanoman said.
The prosecution’s position, he explained, is that the particular police witness currently being questioned is a formal witness whose role is essentially to speak to the documents he received, rather than provide evidence on the broader relationship between Guyana and the United States.
The witness is Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, Head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch. He is the second prosecution witness in the Mohameds’ extradition hearing.
Hanoman said, “The view of the prosecution is that, especially for this particular witness, who is a formal witness, who is just basically coming to say what he did in the documents he received, I mean, those issues are relevant issues.”
“But to ask this police witness about relations between the country of Guyana and the country of the USA, he can’t answer these questions.”
Hanoman acknowledged that the defence is entitled to raise political issues, but said such matters could be properly addressed when the defence leads its own evidence.
He pointed to Section 8 of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act, which he said requires the court to consider whether an extradition request is genuinely based on evidence or is instead being pursued for a political purpose.
“If this extradition is not really based on evidence, it’s just disguised as an extradition because there’s some political motive for the person being requested, then that’s not allowed,” Hanoman explained.
However, he questioned the defence’s apparent suggestion that the evidence forming the basis of the US request was fabricated for political reasons.
“I was trying to get the defence to say in court today whether they were saying that this was evidence fabricated by the USA. In effect, I believe that is what they’re saying, but they’re afraid to say it,” he said.
“Basically, they’re saying that this whole thing is fabricated just to achieve a political objective.”
Hanoman argued that the timeline of the allegations undermines that position, noting that the indictment relates to matters dating back to 2017.
“The whole charge, all the evidence that was built in this case goes all the way back to 2017,” he said.
“So, obviously, the evidence that the request is based on could not be political because it relates too far back.”
The prosecutor also criticised the defence’s handling of legal authorities provided to the prosecution, stating lawyers were given a large number of cases without being told which portions were relevant to their arguments.
“Some of these cases are hundreds of pages long,” Hanoman said.
According to him, the prosecution was forced to spend considerable time reviewing material that ultimately did not appear to support the defence’s position.
He said, “What it caused is for us all to do a lot of reading through a lot of irrelevant material, without them, up to now, pinpointing what part of those cases are relevant.”
Hanoman then accused the defence of deliberately attempting to prolong the extradition proceedings.
He also highlighted what he described as various excuses for delays, including defence lawyers suddenly becoming ill, urgent medical matters and religious observances requiring persons to attend the Masjid.
“For me, it’s clear for anybody that can see that everything the defense is doing is to try and delay this process,” he said. “I mean, they’ve made no secret of it.”
He pointed to repeated applications for stays, noting he believed the defence had applied for stays approximately 10 times and that the applications had been refused by the courts.
He also complained about scheduled hearing dates being vacated because of various circumstances involving the defence.
“But as counsel for the U.S., our interest is in expediting matters, and of course, it seems as though the defense’s interest is to delay,” Hanoman said.
While agreeing that the proceedings should not be rushed, he said repeated postponements were frustrating, particularly when U.S. counsel travel long distances for scheduled hearings.
“It’s frustrating when persons like the counsel for the U.S. have to travel from far away, and dates are set only to come all the way here to hear that many of those dates are going to be vacated because something has come up,” he said.
“You know, it’s frustrating, to say the least.”
