—Deputy DPP cites witness interference as trio receive $750,000 bail each on firearm, ammunition, obstruction of justice charges

OPPOSITION Leader Azruddin Mohamed and two members of his staff were, on Friday, granted bail of $750,000 each, despite strong objections from Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Diana O’Brien.

She argued that their release could pose a risk to a police witness in the ongoing extradition proceedings against Azruddin and his father, Nazar Mohamed.

Azruddin, 39, a businessman, of 19 Houston, East Bank Demerara (EBD); his driver, Eugene Thorne, 35, of 346 Timehri Hill Top, EBD; and videographer Mario Mohamed, 21, of Alliance Road, Timehri, EBD, all pleaded not guilty to the three charges.

The three men appeared before Principal Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts, where they faced three charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and attempting to obstruct the course of justice.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, assisted by attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva, appeared on behalf of the three accused.

The defence attorneys urged the court to grant bail, citing what they described as special reasons in support of their application.

They argued that the issue of multiple occupancy was a relevant consideration in assessing the allegations against the three men and challenged the prosecution’s position on the strength of the evidence linking them to the alleged offences.

The defence argued that the firearm was not found during the initial searches of the vehicle but appeared only during a subsequent search at the Kitty Police Station, raising suspicions that it had been planted.

The attorneys also maintained that their clients were not flight risks and would comply with any conditions imposed by the court.

They further highlighted that the accused had no previous convictions, arguing that their personal circumstances supported their release on bail pending the determination of the charges.

O’Brien urged the court to deny bail, arguing that the allegations raised serious concerns about possible interference with prosecution witness, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, Head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch Unit.

The obstruction charge alleged that on October 12 at Barr Street, Kitty, the men willfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice by discharging a firearm at or in the vicinity of the home of Narine, a witness in the extradition proceedings against the Mohameds, initiated at the request of the United States.

The other two charges alleged that on October 13 at Alexander Street, Kitty, the men had a .32 Taurus pistol and three rounds of .32 ammunition in their possession without being the holders of valid firearm licences.

In opposing bail, O’Brien relied on Section 7 of the Bail Act 2022, arguing that the court could refuse bail where there was a substantial likelihood that an accused would interfere with witnesses, tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

She highlighted that Azruddin was already on bail in the extradition proceedings when the alleged obstruction occurred.

“We respectfully contend that on that basis, having been charged with an offence of this nature while on bail for previous court proceedings, that on that basis bail ought to be refused,” O’Brien submitted.

The prosecutor argued that the allegation was particularly serious because it concerned a witness involved in proceedings that were already before the court.

She also referred to allegations that Narine had received threats and feared for his life, telling the court that the witness had made allegations concerning threats allegedly linked to Azruddin Mohamed and members of his family.

O’Brien further questioned whether the court could rely on assurances from the accused that they would comply with bail conditions, pointing to what she described as a history between Azruddin and Narine.

She argued that the circumstances warranted caution, given the potential consequences of interference with a witness in ongoing legal proceedings.

O’Brien also addressed challenges raised by the defence concerning the firearm discharge and the circumstances in which the weapon was found.

She maintained that the prosecution did not need direct evidence of every alleged act, arguing that circumstantial evidence could support the case.

She told the court, “There is nothing wrong with a circumstantial case being based on inferences.”

The prosecutor also invoked the principle of joint enterprise, submitting that where persons were acting together, the actions of one could be attributed to the others.

“The act of one is the act of all,” O’Brien said.

She argued that it was premature to assess the strength of the prosecution’s case before the evidence had been presented and tested.

O’Brien also rejected suggestions that the prosecution was withholding potentially useful material from the defence, assuring the court that disclosure would be made.

She further informed the court that investigations were still ongoing and that the prosecution required additional time to complete its work.

In delivering her ruling, Magistrate McGusty noted that the prosecution had been unable to provide CCTV footage to establish that the suspected gunshot heard near the home of Narine had come from the vehicle occupied by the accused.

She noted that the footage was expected to assist in establishing whether the sound heard was a gunshot and whether it originated from the particular vehicle.

“What I’ve heard is that the explosion came from the vicinity of the vehicle,” McGusty said.

The magistrate also referred to issues raised by the defence concerning the searches conducted during the investigation and the circumstances in which the firearm and ammunition were allegedly found.

In addressing the prosecution’s position that the three men had been jointly charged, McGusty indicated that she did not agree that the court should disregard the implications of that fact when considering bail.

McGusty also took into account that Mohamed was already on bail in the extradition proceedings involving him and his father, who are wanted in the United States to answer criminal charges.

The magistrate noted that, based on reports before her, Azruddin had been attending the police station in keeping with the conditions imposed in those proceedings.

She said the prosecution had not presented anything to suggest that the three accused would fail to comply with bail conditions imposed by the court.

She said, “I know nothing about these gentlemen, but I have heard nothing from the prosecution that suggests that these gentlemen would not abide by those conditions if they are set by the court.”

McGusty said that, having considered the issues raised by the defence and the matters outlined in her ruling, she was satisfied that bail could be granted at that stage.

In granting bail, McGusty imposed several conditions aimed at ensuring the accused attend court and do not interfere with the proceedings.

The three men are required to attend every court hearing and reside at the addresses provided to the court. Any change of address must be communicated to the court, and they must provide updated contact details.

They were also ordered to surrender their passports and other travel documents and must inform the court before applying for replacement passports or travel documents.

Additionally, the accused must remain away from Narine’s residence and refrain from traversing Barr Street between Vlissengen Road and Alexander Street.

They are prohibited from directly or indirectly contacting, threatening, intimidating or attempting to influence any prosecution witness, as well as obstructing or interfering with the work of the prosecution.

The bail conditions also prohibit contact with Narine or his immediate family. Bail was set at $250,000 for each of the three charges, bringing the total to $750,000 for each accused.

The three men are expected to return to court on November 6.

The police investigation centres on an alleged firearm discharge near the home of Narine on Barr Street, Kitty, on the night of October 12.

In an account of the incident, police said Narine noticed a black Toyota Allion moving slowly along the street before it passed his home and later returned. He heard a sound resembling a gunshot as the car approached for a second time, prompting him to take cover and fire several rounds from his service weapon towards the vehicle.

The car left the area but was later intercepted by police at the intersection of Vlissengen Road and Sandy Babb Street. Azruddin, his driver Eugene Thorne and videographer Mario Mohamed were identified as the occupants.

A subsequent search of the vehicle in the early hours of October 13 uncovered a .32 Taurus pistol with its serial number removed and three live rounds of ammunition.

Investigators also recovered spent shells, which, along with the firearm and ammunition, were lodged for ballistic examination. Police said CCTV footage from the area would also be examined.

The case comes amid separate extradition proceedings against Azruddin Mohamed and his father, following a request by the United States for them to face criminal charges there.

Those proceedings are distinct from the charges arising out of the Kitty incident.

The extradition matter is scheduled to resume on October 21 and 22 before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.