LOO’s surveillance of key witness’s home raises serious questions over bail conditions

Dear Editor,
The reported incident outside the residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, Guyana’s Head of the Special Branch, raises serious questions about the safeguards in place when a person facing extradition proceedings is found near the home of a key prosecution witness.
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed was among three men arrested following the late-night incident in Kitty, Georgetown, on 12 October 2026. Police said the vehicle carrying the men passed Mr Narine’s residence before returning to the area. Mr Narine reportedly heard what appeared to be a gunshot and discharged his service weapon. Police later intercepted the vehicle and reported recovering an unlicensed firearm and ammunition.
Mr Mohamed has acknowledged that he was conducting surveillance. That admission makes it important to establish what was being monitored, why the vehicle returned to the area, and whether the conduct breached any bail conditions or compromised safeguards for a witness.
Mr Narine is not an unrelated member of the public. He has testified in Mr Mohamed’s extradition proceedings and is a key prosecution witness. He also raised safety concerns following the publication of photos of himself and family on the social media pages of the Mohameds, under which threatening comments were made. Mr Narine also testified that the Police intelligence arm, which he heads, is in receipt of information which indicates that Azruddin Mohamed is a threat to national security and has been implicated in six murders. Given all I have outlined above, the reported presence of Mr Mohamed near his home warrants stern action to be taken by the court to ensure his safety.
A defendant involved in ongoing legal proceedings – including the Leader of the Opposition, who has sworn to uphold Guyana’s Constitution – should understand the importance of avoiding conduct that could reasonably raise concerns about interference with witnesses. That standard applies equally, regardless of a person’s wealth, status, or political office.
The prosecution should place any credible evidence of a bail breach or risk of witness interference before the court. If a breach is established, the court should consider the appropriate consequences under the law, including whether continued bail remains justified.
The protection of witnesses is essential to the administration of justice. Their ability to testify freely must not depend on the wealth, status, or political influence of a defendant. The rule of law must apply equally, and accountability cannot be optional.
Magistrate Judy Latchman should ensure that the extradition proceedings advance without unnecessary delay. Prolonged proceedings risk weakening public confidence in the administration of justice and in the equal application of the law.

Yours sincerely,
Andron Pires