Detective Senior Superintendent Prem Narine yesterday acknowledged that he received legal advice on which aspects of his testimony he should answer and which he should not, as his cross-examination in the Mohameds extradition case resumed amid continued scrutiny of his destruction of police notes.
Narine, the head of Special Branch and the Requesting State’s key witness, had previously asked for his testimony to be suspended so he could obtain legal advice before answering further questions from defence attorney Siand Dhurjon.
Under questioning yesterday, Narine confirmed that he had since consulted someone and had received advice concerning his testimony, including which questions to answer and which not to answer.
The admission came as Dhurjon continued challenging Narine’s reliance on the Official Secrets Act to explain why three notebooks containing notes made during his police duties were destroyed.
Narine previously testified that he shredded and burned the books in January 2026.
He told the court that he believed his obligations under the Official Secrets Act required him to destroy documents containing secret information.
But on Monday, the defence pressed him to identify the specific authority under which he believed he was required to destroy the material.
A declaration concerning official secrets, signed by Narine, was produced in court and identified by him through his signature before being tendered as an exhibit.
Asked which provision of the declaration required him to destroy the documents, Narine said his understanding was that all of the provisions in the declaration required him to take care of the information.
Dhurjon then pointed out that the declaration only refers to disposal of secret information or documents in specific circumstances involving directions from a lawful authority or an authorised government department.
Narine responded:
“I am the authorised person to give that decision.”
When the defence put to him that this meant he could destroy Special Branch records if he considered them sufficiently secret to warrant destruction, Narine clarified that he was referring to records held at Special Branch and not every police record.
The defence then questioned why the secret information could not have been preserved while its confidentiality was maintained.
Narine said there were “a lot of reasons” that could prevent Special Branch from maintaining secret records.
Dhurjon also confronted him with provisions of the Official Secrets Act concerning the duty to take reasonable care of secret official information.
Narine acknowledged the relevant wording after being shown the provision.
The defence’s questioning then moved to Police Force Standing Order 28, which governs official police pocketbooks.
Dhurjon put to Narine that the Standing Order requires officers to retain completed pocketbooks for three years before destroying them.
Narine examined the provision but questioned whether the version before the court reflected an amendment made sometime between 2000 and 2003.
The defence also pointed to provisions requiring officers to make contemporaneous notes and prohibiting the erasure or obliteration of entries.
Narine had previously told the court that he believed he had recorded information concerning events surrounding October 31, 2025 in one of the three books he later destroyed.
That included his recollection of the time he collected the extradition bundle from the Attorney General’s Chambers and an interaction involving US Marshal Sandy Rao and the Mohameds.
Narine had testified that he was certain he collected the documents at about 9:15 a.m. because he had made a record of the time, but he could not remember exactly where that record had been made.
He also previously said he thought he had made a note of the interaction involving Rao in one of the books, although he could not recall which book.
The defence pointed out that those details do not appear in Narine’s written police statement or the Brickdam Police Station diary entry relating to the October 31 events.
During yesterday’s hearing, Narine also acknowledged that he had not informed the police legal adviser or prosecution team that he intended to destroy the books before the issue subsequently came to light.
At another point, Narine said he had been legally advised not to answer questions concerning a destruction register or record because he understood that doing so could expose him to criminal charges.
Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman ultimately indicated that she would not permit questions concerning a destruction register.
The cross-examination was later deferred as the defence continued probing Narine’s obligations under the Official Secrets Act and the Police Force’s rules governing the preservation of official notebooks.
The evidence forms part of the ongoing committal proceedings under the Fugitive Offenders Act involving Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed.
Discussion