Sep 10, 2026
4 min read
Questions surrounding the destruction of a police operational record, including what it may have contained and the legal basis for its disposal, came under scrutiny as extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, continued before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates' Court.
Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Guyana Police Force Special Branch, returned to the witness stand as the prosecution's witness in the proceedings.
Narine, who was the arresting officer, was questioned extensively by defence counsel Siand Dhurjon about an operational record that the officer said he disposed of in early January 2026.
Narine told the court he disposed of an operational record in which he had made a note concerning the interaction between the defendants and Sandy Rao, Senior Inspector at the US Department of Justice.
The defence questioned whether the interaction took place within the witness's view but outside his hearing, and Narine confirmed that it had.
According to Narine, the document was destroyed by him alone and was first shredded using a machine, then subsequently burned at the Special Branch compound near a furnace that had been condemned.
He told the court, "I keep them on observation until I am satisfied that they are completely destroyed and useless." The defence asked, "Until it turned to dust," to which he responded, "You can say that, yes."
The destruction of the record became a major point of questioning during cross-examination, with Dhurjon challenging Narine over what information had been contained in the document and whether it represented the original operational record of events.
Dhurjon suggested to the witness that he had destroyed the only true operational record because it contained information that did not appear in either Narine's written statement or the police station diary.
The defence asked, "You shredded and burnt the only true operational records which used to be in existence," to which Narine responded, "I don't agree with that."
Narine was also questioned about the basis on which he destroyed the documents. Defence counsel asked whether there was a standing policy requiring officers to destroy important records in that manner. Narine responded that the documents were destroyed pursuant to a secret act of Guyana to which he was a signatory.
He said, "Anything I consider that is a secret and for it to remain that way, I destroy it."
The defence then questioned him about the legal authority under which the documents were treated as secret, asking whether the act was statutory legislation or a police document. Narine said he would need legal advice before answering.
When asked whether he was referring to the Official Secrets Act of 1911, Narine did not immediately confirm this, saying he also needed legal advice on the question.
In light of this, the defence requested disclosure of the document he signed that motivated him to destroy the record. Prosecutor and Attorney-at-Law Herbert McKenzie said he was unaware of such a document and would have to speak to the witness about it.
Defence Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde said Narine's evidence "spoke volumes" and, in the defence's view, pointed to potential political involvement in the extradition matter. Forde said the testimony strengthened the defence's theory of the case and welcomed the court's decision to allow the line of questioning to be explored.
Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman, however, questioned the relevance of some of the issues raised by the defence, particularly those concerning political interference. He maintained that the prosecution has compelling evidence already before the court, and said the indictment relates to matters dating back to 2017.
Hanoman also raised concerns about the time being taken up by the proceedings, arguing that the defence had relied on numerous authorities without clearly identifying which portions supported its arguments. He said the prosecution's interest was in having the matter proceed, and suggested these were tactics by the defence to delay the court proceedings.
Chief Magistrate Latchman, addressing concerns about the pace of the proceedings, said the court would not be controlled by any "mortal being" and would move at its own pace. While noting that "justice delayed is justice denied," Latchman cautioned that "rush justice is crushed justice." She stressed that the matter requires time and attention, and that the court's priority is to get it right.
The matter has been adjourned to September 21, 2026.
