-unable to recall who instructed him to collect extradition documents
Senior Superintendent Prem Narine has admitted that he made no written record of telephone calls through which he received information about the whereabouts of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, during a Special Branch surveillance operation on October 31, 2025.
The admission came during continued cross-examination by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde in the extradition proceedings involving the two men, as the senior police officer was also unable to recall who instructed him to collect a package of extradition documents from the Ministry of Legal Affairs that same morning.
Narine, who heads the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch, told the court that surveillance of the Mohameds began only after arrest warrants had been obtained on October 31, despite having received general permission from the Commissioner of Police to conduct surveillance operations when he assumed responsibility for Special Branch in July 2024.
Forde questioned when the surveillance was authorised, how the Mohameds were located and whether any records existed to independently establish the sequence of events leading up to their arrests.
Initially, Narine explained that when he assumed responsibility for Special Branch in July 2024, the Commissioner of Police had given him general directives concerning his responsibilities.
However, the Magistrate sought clarification on whether those directives amounted to permission to conduct surveillance specifically involving the Mohameds.
“Mr. Narine, I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m trying to get some clarity,” the Magistrate remarked while pressing the witness on when permission had been obtained.
After further questioning, Narine confirmed that he received the general permission in July 2024.
He subsequently clarified that the Mohameds were not under continuous surveillance and that the operation targeting them commenced only after the arrest warrants were obtained on October 31, 2025.
“When I got the warrants, I sent out the surveillance team. They made checks. And then is when we knew where the Mohameds were,” Narine testified.
Asked whether the surveillance had begun before the warrants were issued, he answered in the negative.
Narine also confirmed that information about the Mohameds’ locations was communicated to him through telephone calls received on his personal cellular phone.
However, when Forde questioned whether he had documented the time of those calls or the information communicated, Narine acknowledged that he had not.
“I did not make any record,” he told the court.
He further admitted that he had not instructed any other officer to prepare a written record of the information received.
The questioning then shifted to Narine’s movements on October 31 and his collection of extradition documents from the Ministry of Legal Affairs.
Narine testified that he received instructions that morning to collect a package of documents relating to the extradition proceedings.
Although he knew the documents concerned the Mohameds, he said he did not know exactly which documents he would be collecting or how many were included in the package.
Narine was also unable to recall who had instructed him to collect the documents or whether those instructions had been communicated by telephone or email.
Forde pressed the witness on whether he had attempted to verify the instructions by examining his telephone or email records.
Narine acknowledged that he had not, despite confirming that he still possessed the same telephone number and email address used at the time.
Counsel subsequently requested that Narine check those records before the continuation of cross-examination to determine who had instructed him to visit the Ministry.
Further questions revealed uncertainty surrounding the documentation of the package’s collection.
Narine said he had identified himself to the person who handed over the documents but could not recall whether he had signed anything acknowledging their receipt. He also testified that he had not retained any receipt or document evidencing the collection.
When asked whether there was a record of his movements or the vehicle used that morning, Narine said he could not recall making such an entry or directing anyone else to do so.
He described the person who handed him the package as a woman approximately five feet five inches tall, of medium build and fair complexion, but said he could not provide further identifying details.
The exchanges were not without interruption, as the Magistrate repeatedly questioned the relevance of several questions concerning precisely where in the Ministry building the package was collected and how long Narine had waited to receive it.
Forde maintained that the questions were relevant to testing the witness’s recollection and the circumstances surrounding the collection of documents central to the extradition proceedings.
The Magistrate, however, ruled certain questions irrelevant and directed counsel to move on.
At one stage, Forde insisted that he was entitled to probe the evidence presented by Narine, particularly since he was representing Azruddin Mohamed and was not conceding the accuracy of the witness’s account.
The questioning later turned to the contents of the extradition package, including a Section 6 Certificate, an Authority to Proceed and a treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom relating to British Guiana.
Narine testified that he had read some of the documents before leaving the Ministry but had not examined the entire bundle in detail.
He identified the Section 6 Certificate and Authority to Proceed among the documents he reviewed, along with other materials that appeared to contain affidavits and details of indictments.
However, when Forde questioned him specifically about the extradition treaty, Narine acknowledged that he had only read its first page.
He admitted that he had not read any of the treaty’s articles, including Article 2.
This prompted a legal exchange between Forde and the prosecution over whether Narine could properly be questioned about the treaty’s applicability to Guyana.
The prosecution objected, arguing that the question concerned a matter of law rather than fact and that Narine was not a lawyer.
Forde disagreed, maintaining that he was not asking the witness to interpret the law but rather to explain the factual basis for his earlier testimony about the document.
The Senior Counsel argued that the defence was entitled to challenge the evidential foundation of documents tendered in support of the extradition proceedings.
When asked whether the first page of the treaty contained any reference to Guyana, Narine said he saw a reference to the United Kingdom and understood Guyana to have been a British colony at the relevant time.
Forde then attempted to question him about the date of Guyana’s independence.
That question drew another objection from the prosecution, which argued that the court was not conducting a history lesson and that the question was irrelevant.
Forde maintained that the issue was directly connected to the witness’s explanation of the treaty and the basis upon which he associated the United Kingdom with British Guiana.
The Magistrate ultimately ruled the question irrelevant.
In further submissions, Forde referred to the King extradition case, arguing that the circumstances in that matter differed from the present proceedings.
He contended that the defence was entitled to examine the documents and challenge the evidence supporting the Section 6 Certificate rather than simply accept the conclusions advanced through Narine’s testimony.
Forde also argued that the defence could not be placed in a position where the prosecution determined which witnesses would be called while restricting questions about documents introduced through the witnesses who did testify.
Before the afternoon’s proceedings concluded, Narine was asked whether he recalled seeing a declaration of succession concerning the treaty among the documents he collected.
He responded that he did not know what counsel would classify as such a declaration but had seen wording in the Section 6 Certificate, attached to the treaty, which he considered to constitute a declaration.
Cross-examination was subsequently deferred, with Narine remaining under oath for its continuation.
The extradition proceedings concern a request by the United States for the surrender of Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. The defence’s questioning has focused, among other issues, on the police’s handling of the arrest process and the documents relied upon in the proceedings.
Discussion