Senior Superintendent Prem Narine on Monday firmly rejected repeated defence suggestions of political interference in the extradition proceedings against Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, denying that President Irfaan Ali instructed him to become involved in the matter.
Narine, Head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch and a prosecution witness, faced extensive cross-examination from defence attorney Siand Dhurjon over his role in collecting the extradition documents and executing the arrest warrants.
The defence sought to establish how documents originating from different ministries came to be at the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Narine maintained that his role was to collect the documents and warrants and acknowledged that he could not say who transmitted them to the Chambers or how long they had been there.
He also rejected the defence’s suggestion that Special Branch had no role in extradition matters.
Dhurjon subsequently
questioned Narine about the Police Standing Orders governing Special Branch, including provisions dealing with criminal investigations and certain political offences.
When the questioning ventured into the interpretation of the Standing Orders, the prosecution objected, arguing that Narine was not a lawyer and that their legal effect was ultimately a matter for the court.
The defence later focused on who instructed Narine to become involved in the Mohamed matter.
Narine recalled receiving a general instruction that morning but could not remember who gave it.
He maintained, however, that the warrants issued to him provided the authority to execute the arrests.
The defence accused Narine of having a “selective” memory and suggested he was being dishonest with the court. Narine firmly rejected both assertions.
The defence then directly suggested that President Ali instructed Narine to become involved.
“Definitely not,” Narine responded, adding that an instruction from the President would have been significant enough for him to remember.
Narine also made clear that police officers are not bound to carry out an unlawful instruction, regardless of its source.
Another defence suggestion, that the Mohameds were specifically targeted for arrest on October 31, 2025, because Parliament was scheduled to convene on November 3, was also categorically rejected by Narine.
“I did not receive any instructions of that nature,” he told the court.
The defence later attempted to explore alleged public statements by senior government officials about the Mohameds.
Prosecutors challenged the relevance of that line of questioning, resulting in further legal arguments before the court.
Narine said he was unaware of a reported statement by President Ali describing Azruddin Mohamed as a threat to national security.
However, based on information available to him in his capacity as Special Branch Head, Narine said he considers Mohamed a threat to national security.
Further cross-examination on the alleged statements by government officials was deferred, with the court seeking legal authorities on the issue before that line of questioning proceeds.
Narine is expected to return to the witness stand as the prosecution continues to defend the evidential and procedural basis of the extradition proceedings.
