Attorneys for Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed have demanded that the Guyana Police Force (GPF) withdraw a September 11 public statement concerning evidence in the men’s extradition proceedings, accusing the Force of publicly contradicting the sworn evidence of its own witness while he remains under cross-examination.
In a letter dated September 18 to Police Commissioner Clifton Hicken, the attorneys said they require the withdrawal of the statement by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, September 21, along with answers about who drafted and authorised it and the sources for assertions contained in it.
The lawyers further warned that, whether or not the demands are met, they intend to apply to Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman for witness summonses requiring the author of the GPF statement and the officer who authorised it to attend court and produce relevant documents.
The dispute centres on the September 11 GPF statement, titled “GPF Clarifies Media Reports on Records in Mohameds’ Extradition Proceedings.”
According to the defence letter, that statement said Detective Senior Superintendent Prem Narine had testified that notes relating to the extradition matter were disposed of in the official incinerator at Special Branch, in keeping with procedures for destroying sensitive working documents no longer required.
The GPF statement also said the notes contained no information of evidential value to the committal proceedings, that the relevant information had already been incorporated into Narine’s statement, and that he had produced and tendered the relevant Station Diary record.
The defence attorneys strongly dispute that account.
They said Narine, the Requesting State’s witness in the extradition proceedings, did not give that evidence in court.
Instead, the lawyers point to testimony given during his cross-examination by attorney-at-law Siand Dhurjon on September 4 and September 10.
Bundle
On September 4, Narine was questioned about the time he collected the extradition bundle of documents from the Attorney General’s Chambers on October 31, 2025.
When asked how he could be certain that he collected the documents at about 9:15 a.m., rather than before 9:00 a.m., Narine reportedly replied:
“Because I made a record of that time, I am certain about that time.”
According to the letter, Narine initially identified several possible places where the record could have been made, before clarifying that he was referring to his personal diary.
When the court sought to establish whether the records still existed, Narine said the three books he had identified were no longer available.
“No sir because of intelligence we cannot keep such records,” he told the court.
The defence then questioned whether the records had been disposed of because of what they might contain.
After the court instructed him to answer the question, Narine responded:
“Yes madam.”
The issue resurfaced during proceedings on September 10, when Narine was shown Brickdam Police Station diary entry No. 13 concerning the events of October 31, 2025.
The lawyers said Narine confirmed that the Station Diary contained no entry about his collection of the extradition bundle from the Attorney General’s Chambers or an interaction involving United States Marshal Sandy Rao and the defendants. He also confirmed that the interaction was not mentioned in his police statement.
When asked whether he had made a note elsewhere concerning the interaction between Rao and the defendants, Narine answered: “I think I did.”
Three books
Asked which of the three books contained the note, he said:
“I can’t recall which one but I would have made it in one of them.”
The defence said Narine subsequently testified that he disposed of the three books sometime in early January 2026, explaining that he shredded and then burned them himself.
According to the letter, he described placing the shredded documents in an area next to a condemned furnace at the Special Branch compound, lighting them and keeping them under observation until he was satisfied they were completely destroyed.
When asked whether a written policy or standing order required him to burn such records, Narine said:
“As a result of me being a signatory to the secret act of Guyana anything I consider that is a secret and should be destroyed I do that.”
The defence attorneys said this evidence differs materially from the account presented in the September 11 GPF statement.
They specifically objected to the Force’s reported assertion that Narine had testified that his working notes “contained no information of evidential value to the committal proceedings.”
The lawyers said that assertion was “at odds with the evidence the witness gave”, pointing in particular to his evidence that he believed he had made a note of the interaction involving Rao and the defendants.
They also argued that determining what is of evidential value in the proceedings is a matter for the court, rather than the witness or the Police Force.
The attorneys described the publication of the GPF statement while Narine’s evidence remained incomplete as “a matter of the utmost seriousness.”
Narine gave evidence on September 3, 4, 7 and 10 and, according to the letter, remains under cross-examination. His cross-examination was adjourned on September 10 at his request so that he could obtain legal advice on answering questions being put to him by Dhurjon.
The defence is demanding that the GPF:
• withdraw the September 11 statement in the same manner in which it was published;
• identify the officer who drafted it and the officer who authorised it;
• identify the source of each assertion in the statement, including whether any came from Narine;
• preserve and produce, if requested or summoned, all drafts, instructions, communications and records relating to the statement and the January 2026 destruction of records at Special Branch; and
• confirm that no further public statement will be issued by the Force concerning evidence in the pending proceedings.
The lawyers said compliance would be taken into account but would not dispose of the matter, arguing that any later retraction would not undo the effect of the publication on proceedings in which their clients’ liberty is at stake.
They expressly reserved their clients’ position regarding possible remedies, including an application to the High Court concerning publication about a pending proceeding, an application to the Chief Magistrate arising from the conduct of the Requesting State and the Force, and any referral.
The letter states that the defence intends to place the GPF statement before the Chief Magistrate and seek summonses for its author and the officer who authorised it, together with the production of the identified documents.
Discussion