US-sanctioned Azruddin Mohamed a threat to national security – witness tells court

Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine, Head of the Guyana Police Force’s (GPF) Special Branch Unit, has rejected a suggestion that President Dr Irfaan Ali directed his involvement in the extradition case against United States (US) sanctioned and indicted, Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. Narine told the court that, based on information available to him, he considers Azruddin Mohamed a threat to both society, and national security.
The evidence came Monday during continued cross-examination of Narine in the extradition proceedings before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts. Defence counsel, Siand Dhurjon was probing whether political considerations had influenced Narine’s involvement in the matter and the circumstances surrounding the Mohameds’ arrests on Friday, October 31, 2025.
Dhurjon suggested that President Ali had instructed Narine to become involved in the case. Narine rejected the suggestion emphatically. “Definitely not,” he told the court. Narine said an instruction from the President was something he would remember, describing such a directive as a privilege. “An instruction from the President is a privilege. And it is something that I would remember,” he testified.
When it was suggested that a presidential instruction would be binding on a police officer, Narine disagreed. He said, “That is not true. While it is a privilege for the President to give an instruction, myself or another officer is not bound to follow the instructions if it is illegal.” The defence continued its attempt to establish whether the arrests had been politically motivated, suggesting that the policeman had been specifically instructed to ensure that the Mohameds, particularly Azruddin, were arrested on October 31, 2025, because Parliament was scheduled to convene the following working day, Monday, November 3, 2025. Narine said he could not recall receiving instructions of that nature. The court subsequently sought clarification, prompting a more definitive response from the witness. “To be clear, I did not receive any instructions of that nature,” Narine said. He had previously testified that the Mohameds were arrested in Georgetown on October 31, 2025, pursuant to warrants issued to him and executed by him. He said he recalled receiving “a general instruction” that morning and, as events unfolded, took the necessary action. When asked who gave him that instruction, Narine said he could not recall.
The defence also questioned whether the Government had adopted a particular posture towards the Mohameds before their arrests. Narine said he was not aware of any such posture. Dhurjon then raised public statements allegedly made by President Ali about Azruddin Mohamed, including a statement said to have described the Opposition Leader as a threat to national security and sovereignty.
Narine said he was unaware of the President’s statement. However, that did not prevent him from giving his own assessment of Azruddin Mohamed. Asked whether he therefore did not regard Mohamed as a threat to national security, Narine said, “Based on information that I have, I would consider Azruddin Mohamed a threat to national security.” Narine had earlier said he was aware that Mohamed was “a threat to society.” The defence also sought to explore whether political considerations could have influenced the witness, pointing to the involvement of the Special Branch Unit in the matter. Dhurjon challenged Narine on whether Special Branch typically has a role in extradition proceedings. Narine rejected the suggestion. “That is not correct,” he said. Narine has headed the Special Branch since July 2024 and testified that he was aware of several extradition requests being dealt with during that period. The role of Special Branch was also examined through the police force’s standing orders. The Defence Attorney put to Narine that Standing Order 52 provides that Special Branch should not be charged with the investigation and prosecution of crime. He further put to the witness that evidence concerning the commission of a crime coming to the attention of Special Branch should be handed over to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) headquarters or the senior officer of the relevant division. Narine replied, “I agree, I am aware.”
The defence also pointed to provisions dealing with offences Special Branch is empowered to investigate, including sedition, offences against the Official Secrets Act and narcotics offences threatening the stability of the State. When shown the relevant standing order, Narine agreed that sedition is referred to as a political offence. The questioning also touched on two draft arrest warrants which Narine said he uplifted from the Attorney General’s (AG) Chambers. He said he did not know why the Chambers had a role in transmitting the documents and could not say who prepared them, how they came to be at the Chambers, how long they remained there or who transmitted them. Narine was also challenged over his recollection of the events surrounding the arrests. He acknowledged that he had contemporaneously recorded his actions in a notebook on October 31, 2025, and later provided a written statement detailing what he had done, including the timing of the arrests and his collection of documents from the AG’s Chambers. When Dhurjon suggested that his memory was selective and that he was not being honest with the court, Narine rejected the allegation. He said, “That is not true. The entire suggestion is wrong.” The extradition hearing had been scheduled to continue on Tuesday and Wednesday, September 9.

Contempt proceedings
However, the Mohameds are required to appear before Justice Nigel Niles in the High Court in Demerara on Tuesday for contempt proceedings involving Mikhail Rodrigues, popularly known as the “Guyanese Critic”. Where court dates conflict, proceedings before the High Court take precedence over those before the lower court. The extradition matter also cannot proceed on Wednesday because Chief Magistrate Latchman is scheduled to attend a meeting that day. The proceedings are therefore expected to resume on Thursday, September 10, with further cross-examination of Senior Superintendent Narine. The Mohameds remain on $150,000 bail each, with conditions including the surrender of their passports and weekly reporting to the Ruimveldt Police Station.

Extradition
The US is seeking the extradition of the Mohameds over allegations stemming from a multi-year scheme involving the evasion of taxes and royalties on gold exports, money laundering and wire fraud. US authorities alleged that falsified customs declarations and the reuse of Government export seals were used as part of the scheme, which allegedly resulted in approximately US$50 million in revenue losses to the Government of Guyana. Both father and son were sanctioned by the US Government in 2024 and subsequently indicted in the US in 2025 on criminal charges arising from the alleged gold export and tax-evasion scheme. The Mohameds continue to challenge their extradition under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act on various grounds, including a constitutional challenge to provisions of the legislation that remains before the Court of Appeal of Guyana.