Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman on Monday said the court will not suppress valid questions in the extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, as defence attorney Siand Dhurjon continued pressing Special Branch head Prem Narine over surveillance, the circumstances of Mohamed’s arrest and the police investigation.
Latchman made the point after the morning session of cross-examination, when prosecutors Terrence Williams and Herbert McKenzie sought clarity on when Dhurjon expected to conclude his questioning of Narine.
Dhurjon indicated that he expects to finish by the end of Tuesday, while cautioning that objections, arguments and other issues arising during the proceedings could affect that timeline.
The Magistrate said that while the court has been managing the cross-examination, legitimate questions would not be suppressed simply to bring the hearing to an earlier end, stressing that the evidence being tested could have consequences “for generations to come.”
Dhurjon continued his questioning in the afternoon, focusing heavily on how police located Mohamed shortly before his arrest and what information led Narine to the area where he was eventually detained.
Narine testified that after obtaining warrants, he had several locations checked because Mohamed was not at the locations initially being monitored.
Dhurjon questioned him about how he came to know that Mohamed was on Smyth Street and suggested that a Special Branch vehicle had followed Mohamed after he left his home.
Narine said he recalled having someone stationed at Mohamed’s home after receiving information about where he was expected to be, but indicated that the matter had been stood down.
He said he subsequently caused a search to be made for Mohamed and confirmed that he had been informed that Mohamed was on Smyth Street before he went to effect the arrest.
Dhurjon also questioned Narine about what he knew concerning the extradition request before Mohamed’s arrest.
He suggested that the police activity surrounding Mohamed had intensified from the night before October 1 and that government agencies had been working together in connection with the proceedings.
Narine rejected the suggestion that he had been aware of an extradition request the night before Mohamed’s arrest.
The defence also sought to establish whether Special Branch officers had previously arrested anyone in connection with extradition proceedings in Guyana.
Narine said he could neither agree nor disagree when asked whether he was aware of former Special Branch officers having carried out such arrests.
Dhurjon then turned to the circumstances surrounding Mohamed’s arrest, suggesting that the deployment of multiple police vehicles and heavily armed officers created a public spectacle.
The prosecution objected to those questions, and the Magistrate ruled that she did not see their relevance to the proceedings and would not allow the line of questioning to continue.
Earlier in the day, Dhurjon had questioned Narine about alleged Special Branch surveillance of Mohamed, his family and associates.
Narine acknowledged that surveillance of Mohamed had begun before the extradition request, with his recollection placing its start in early 2024.
He rejected the suggestion that anyone had instructed him to surveil Mohamed, including President Irfaan Ali.
Dhurjon had also questioned Narine about his contact with Ali at police functions and at a mosque, as well as Mohamed’s reported difficulties renewing mining rights covering more than 80,000 acres and issues surrounding licences for his vessels.
The Magistrate earlier ruled that questions concerning Narine’s professional promotions and career progression were irrelevant to the extradition proceedings.
The cross-examination was ultimately deferred, with the matter adjourned until 9 a.m. Tuesday.
Source: NEW ROOMS SITE
