Head of the Special Branch unit of the Guyana Police Force, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, testified today that he shredded and burnt a notebook containing information that related to events that unfolded on October 31, 2025 when Guyanese businessman Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed were arrested following a request by the United States to have them extradited.

Returning to the stand today, Narine told the Court that the book he destroyed included details of a meeting between a US Marshal and the Mohameds following their arrest on October 31, 2025.

The Senior Police Officer made the disclosure as he was being cross-examined by Defence Attorney Siand Dhurjon.

Pressed to provide details of his destruction of the notebook, the Special Branch Head said he destroyed the book back in January.

The Mohameds’ extradition case has been ongoing since last October.

He explained that the book was first shredded and then burnt in the compound housing the Special Branch, near a condemned furnace in the yard.

The Attorney for the Mohameds questioned whether the now destroyed record was the “true operational record” since it contained information on events that unfolded but were not included in the station diary, which was presented to the Court.

The Special Branch Head disagreed with the Attorney’s suggestion, and explained that as a signatory to the Secrets Act, he said he had the right to destroy anything that he considered a secret, and as such the book was destroyed.

As he was pressed for answers, Narine told the Court that he would need legal advice to determine whether the Secrets Act was a law or simply a police document.

Special Prosecutor Herbert McKenzie told the Court that he did not know what the witness was referring to.

Narine was questioned extensively on the now destroyed notebook after he told the Court that the station diary, which was examined by the Court today, did not include an exchange that took place between the United States Marshal and the Mohameds following their arrest.

According to the station diary, the father and son were arrested at around 11:35am on October 31, 2025 and then taken to the Brickdam Police Station after a wanted bulletin had been issued for their arrest.

However, Dhurjon drew Narine’s attention to the fact that after the entry was made in the station diary that day, the Mohameds were taken to another location to meet with U.S Marshal, Sandy Rao.

It was then that Narine disclosed to the Court that information on that meeting was recorded in another book, which he said was his personal notebook.

He said though he could not clearly hear the conversation between the Mohameds and the U.S Marshall, the meeting took place in his full view.

During his earlier testimony, Narine told the Court that he received instructions to uplift a bundle of documents from the Attorney General’s Chambers, that included two draft arrest warrants. However, he testified that could not recall who issued the instructions to him.

He said he effected the arrest of the father and son based on those documents.

Outside the Courthouse today, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who is also representing the Mohameds in the extradition matter, told reporters that the evidence provided by the Head of the Special Branch supports the Defence team’s contention that they believe the entire case is “politically motivated”.

“Today’s events require me to go back to law, the Latin maxims – res ipsa loquitor – it means “the thing speaks for itself.” I think the evidence of Mr. Narine spoke volume; it indicates the level of potential political involvement. It has concertized in many ways our opinion and our theory of the case and I am grateful for the vigilance that the magistrate would have paid to our submissions,” Forde told reporters.

But Special Prosecutor, Glen Hanoman, told reporters that the Defence was allowed to asked too many questions that he considered irrelevant to the case.

“The view of the prosecution, especially for this particular witness, who is a formal witness, that it is just basically him coming to say what he did with the documents he received. I mean those issues are relevant issues but to ask this police witness about relations between the country of Guyana and the country of the US, he can’t answer these questions. In my view those questions may not be relevant but the defence is allowed to raise it, and of course, when the time for them to lead evidence, they can lead evidence,” Hanoman said.

The Prosecution also rejected the claims that the case is politically motivated, maintaining that the Extradition Request by the US was made based on strong evidence against the Mohameds.

Related posts:

Special Branch Head tells Court he considers Azruddin Mohamed a threat to national security Special Branch Head testifies in Mohameds extradition case; Two Documents Blocked Court adjusts reporting time for Mohameds at Police station as extradition hearing continues Attorneys for US Government present key documents to Court in Mohameds extradition case