Senior Superintendent Prem Narine yesterday maintained that businessman Azruddin Mohamed poses a threat to national security, telling the court that his assessment is based on information he says links Mohamed to alleged murders, torture, execution-style killings, the beating of employees and bribery.
Narine made the claim while being cross-examined by attorney Siand Dhurjon during the ongoing extradition proceedings involving Mohamed and his father.
Asked directly whether he believed Mohamed was a threat to national security, Narine responded: “Yes, I do believe so,” saying he had information suggesting Mohamed was involved in the alleged offences.
He testified that Special Branch has information concerning the allegations and that the information is also held by certain “responsible persons” within the Guyana Police Force.
Narine said he began learning information concerning Mohamed around 2011, when he was attached to the Criminal Investigation Department.
He told the court that the alleged execution-style killings occurred on more than one occasion, placing one incident around 2011 or earlier and referring to other incidents around 2020 and 2021.
According to Narine, one incident involved information that a group of men planned to rob the Mohameds’ boat transporting gold from Portugal, after which “all the men were executed.”
He identified one person he said survived two attempts on his life while saying he could not recall the name of another person who died.
Narine also referred to an explosion involving a boat or French ship in which three people died.
He said he could recall about six people in connection with what he described as execution-style killings.
However, Narine acknowledged that he was not present when the alleged murders, torture or beatings occurred. He explained that his certainty came from information gathered from sources.
When Dhurjon put to him the conventional understanding of an execution-style killing—someone being restrained or forced to kneel before being shot at close range—Narine disagreed.
He said his understanding was that an execution-style killing occurs when there is a plan to execute someone and that plan is subsequently carried out, regardless of the method used.
Narine further acknowledged that no charges were ever laid against Mohamed for the alleged murders, torture, execution-style killings, beating of employees or bribery.
He also said he was not aware of any finding of wrongdoing against Mohamed by a court in relation to those allegations.
Asked whether his belief that Mohamed was guilty of those offences was what motivated his view that he was a national security threat, Narine said: “That and the fact that my information is supported.”
At one point, the court intervened when Dhurjon questioned Narine about the absence of charges, adjudication or a finding of guilt in relation to the allegations.
The court noted that there had been no charges, adjudication or finding of guilt and questioned the relevance of pursuing that line of questioning.
Political videos under scrutiny
Dhurjon also questioned Narine about Mohamed’s political views and videos critical of the government.
Narine repeatedly said he was not aware of Mohamed accusing the President or Vice President of corruption, nor was he aware of videos in which Mohamed expressed political opinions critical of the government.
He said he had heard about a video involving the President’s farm but did not know its contents.
Narine also said he was not aware of videos concerning the homes or wealth of government ministers, including videos referenced in court involving Minister Susan Rodrigues and Minister Zulfikar Mustapha.
Asked whether such videos should concern Special Branch if they involved someone he considered a national security threat, Narine said he did not know about the videos but maintained that Mohamed’s alleged threat to national security concerned him.
He also denied being aware of the political opinions of Mohamed and his father being contrary to the interests of the sitting government, as well as public statements by senior government officials concerning the Mohameds.
Magistrate intervenes during arrest questioning
The October 31, 2025 events surrounding the Mohameds’ arrest warrants also came under intense questioning.
Dhurjon suggested that Special Branch officers had closed the courtroom door and prevented members of the public, media and attorneys from entering, with the intention of preventing the Mohameds from surrendering and creating a public spectacle around their arrest.
Narine denied the suggestion.
He said he had no control over who entered the courtroom and denied recalling an interaction in which Dhurjon and attorney Damien Da Silva sought to enter the courtroom and questioned him about whether warrants were being issued.
When counsel continued questioning Narine about what occurred inside and outside the courtroom that morning, the Magistrate again raised the issue of relevance.
Narine maintained that he was inside the witness box at the time and therefore had no control over access to the courtroom.
He also denied that he deliberately concealed information about the warrants to prevent the Mohameds from surrendering peacefully.
Narine said the first place he checked for Mohamed was the court because he had information that Mohamed had another matter before the Magistrates’ Court.
He denied knowing that the matter had been adjourned without Mohamed being required to attend.
Cross-examination was deferred until September 28 at 9 a.m.
Discussion