Full force of the law

The reported gunfire incident outside the home of Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine, a key witness in the ongoing extradition proceedings involving United States-sanctioned and indicted Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, raises serious questions about witness safety, respect for the rule of law and the integrity of Guyana’s criminal justice system. Any attempt to intimidate a witness, interfere with judicial proceedings or undermine the administration of justice must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
According to information released by the Government and preliminary findings reported by the Guyana Police Force, Mohamed and two other men were in a vehicle that travelled slowly past Narine’s Barr Street, Kitty, residence shortly before midnight on Monday, October 12. The vehicle reportedly returned to the area before a sound resembling gunfire was heard. Spent shells were subsequently found in proximity to the residence, and Narine discharged rounds from his service firearm in the direction of the vehicle as it drove away. Police later intercepted the car and arrested its three occupants. An unlicensed firearm was reportedly found inside the vehicle.
The presence of Mohamed at the centre of ongoing extradition proceedings makes the incident particularly grave and his position as Opposition Leader it does not place him above the law.
Mohamed has acknowledged that he was filming Narine’s residence and that admission, considered alongside the reported circumstances of the incident, warrants charges. Filming a person’s home in itself does not establish criminal intent, however, when such activity occurs late at night, involves a witness in an active legal proceeding and coincides with a reported gunfire incident, the circumstances cannot reasonably be dismissed as inconsequential.
The most troubling dimension is Narine’s position in the extradition proceedings. He is currently testifying at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts and has expressed under oath fears for his life and the safety of his family, including his minor son. Any conduct that places a witness under pressure, creates a reasonable fear for personal safety.
Witnesses are indispensable to the administration of justice as they must be able to provide evidence without fear of retaliation, intimidation or harassment. If individuals believe that testifying in serious criminal proceedings could expose them and their families to danger, confidence in the judicial process will inevitably suffer. The consequences extend beyond one witness or one case, threatening the willingness of others to come forward and assist law enforcement.
This is why the incident must be treated with the seriousness it deserves. Public office, political influence, wealth and a substantial social media following cannot confer immunity from investigation or prosecution. Nor should political allegiance be permitted to obscure the fundamental principle that everyone is accountable under the law.
The public must be wary of attempts to turn a serious security incident into a contest of political narratives.
Mohamed’s status as an indicted opposition figure makes responsible conduct particularly important. An opposition leader has every right to challenge and criticise public officials and defend himself against allegations. Those rights, however, do not extend to interfering with witnesses or obstructing judicial proceedings. Political opposition is a legitimate feature of democracy; conduct that threatens the rule of law is not.
The extradition proceedings are preliminary to a potential criminal trial in the United States, should extradition be ordered. Any substantiated interference with witnesses could therefore have consequences for proceedings involving two jurisdictions. The State’s obligation to safeguard the process must be discharged diligently.
Guyana cannot afford a climate in which witnesses fear for their lives while fulfilling their civic and legal responsibilities. The protection of witnesses is not a political favour; it is a core obligation of the State. Those entrusted with public leadership should reinforce that principle through their conduct and respect for the institutions charged with upholding the law.
The full force of the law must be applied wherever the evidence establishes criminal wrongdoing, without fear or favour. No individual should be permitted to intimidate witnesses, compromise investigations or undermine the courts. The integrity of Guyana’s justice system depends on that standard being upheld consistently, regardless of the identity, influence or political position of those involved.