The extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, continued Tuesday with the defence maintaining its examination of the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the handling of police records and the circumstances surrounding the men’s arrests.
Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, Head of the Guyana Police Force Special Branch, remained under cross-examination by defence attorney Siand Dhurjon, who questioned him about the October 31, 2025 arrests, the preservation of police records and whether information relevant to the case was properly documented.
Narine denied receiving political instructions concerning the arrests and rejected suggestions that his actions were influenced by public statements made by senior government officials. He also denied being instructed to destroy records concerning the Mohameds or to remove communications involving senior officials from his telephone.
Destroyed working notes under scrutiny
One of the central issues raised by the defence has been Narine’s admission that three working books connected to his duties were destroyed in January 2026.
Narine testified that he shredded and burned the books and said he had not informed the police legal adviser, prosecutor or prosecution team before disposing of them. He explained that he believed his obligations under the Official Secrets Act permitted or required the destruction of material containing sensitive information.
During cross-examination, Narine acknowledged that information concerning an interaction between the Mohameds and US federal official Sandy Rao following their arrests may have been contained in one of the books.
He also confirmed that the interaction was not recorded in the Brickdam Police Station diary and was not included in his written police statement. Those admissions have provided the defence with an opportunity to question whether the official record fully captures the circumstances surrounding the arrests.
The Guyana Police Force has rejected any suggestion that evidentiary material was destroyed. The Force has said the material consisted of working notes and maintained that information of evidential value was reflected in official statements and other records presented to the court.
Police statement draws defence objection
The handling of the issue also produced a dispute outside the witness box after the Police Force issued a public statement seeking to clarify reports about Narine’s testimony.
The defence argued that the statement mischaracterised evidence given by the witness while he remained under cross-examination and could influence public perceptions of the proceedings.
Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman declined to examine the police statement, making clear that her determination would be based on evidence properly placed before the court rather than reports appearing in the media or on social media.
The decision keeps the focus on testimony and documents formally admitted into evidence rather than competing public accounts of what occurred during the hearing.
Defence tests police procedures
Dhurjon has also questioned Narine about police standing orders governing the retention and destruction of officers’ notebooks.
Narine acknowledged that Standing Order 288 provides for the retention of pocketbooks for three years before destruction, although he indicated that an amendment may have affected the applicable requirements. He also agreed that maintaining secrecy and destroying information were separate issues.
Narine further acknowledged receiving legal advice before and during his testimony regarding questions that could potentially expose him to criminal liability. Some questions were therefore not answered on the basis of that advice.
The line of questioning has allowed the defence to focus attention on both the substance of the prosecution’s evidence and the procedures used to create, retain and preserve records surrounding the arrests.
More witnesses expected
The prosecution has indicated that its case is not yet complete.
Among the witnesses expected to be called are Detective Superintendent Rodwell Sarrabo, who was involved in executing the arrest warrants, and Foreign Affairs Minister Hugh Todd, whose signature appears on extradition-related documents.
Foreign Affairs Permanent Secretary Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, the prosecution’s first witness, has also not completed her cross-examination. Her evidence concerns the receipt and handling of the United States extradition request and related diplomatic documentation.
The proceedings are also subject to a legal restriction imposed by the Court of Appeal. While the extradition hearing can continue, Chief Magistrate Latchman cannot make a final determination until the constitutional challenge brought by the Mohameds is resolved. The appeal is scheduled for October 13, 2026.
The Mohameds are wanted in the United States under an 11-count federal indictment alleging offences including wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. The allegations remain unproven unless and until determined by a competent court.
With further prosecution witnesses expected and the constitutional appeal pending, the next phase of the case is likely to remain focused on the evidence surrounding the arrests, the handling of police records and the legal requirements governing the extradition request.
