Spy Chief tells court he directed surveillance of Mohamed without higher orders

(Kaieteur News) – Head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch, Prem Narine, conceded in court that he unilaterally initiated surveillance on Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed without instructions from political superiors, amidst intense cross-examination during ongoing extradition proceedings at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman.

The revelation emerged during a line of questioning by defense counsel Siand Dhurjon, who accused the intelligence chief of deploying state resources to monitor and frame Mohamed long before the official extradition request arrived from the United States.

The proceedings took a turn when defence counsel pressed Narine on whether he had caused Mohamed to be under frequent surveillance. Narine initially refused to answer, citing statutory constraints. “As a result of the secret act that I signed the declaration, I don’t think I can answer that question,” Narine stated. Defence counsel immediately challenged the refusal, asking the presiding magistrate to compel an answer on the grounds that the Official Secrets Act contains no provision shielding a witness from testifying in a judicial inquiry. Following guidance from the court, Narine admitted under oath that he had indeed caused Mohamed to be monitored.

Reportedly Special Branch vehicle parked by the Mohameds’- PAC 2716, PAC 3139, PAG 3188

When asked whether this surveillance had begun long before the extradition request was submitted, Narine testified that he could not recall. Defense counsel argued that the special branch resources were heavily redirected starting in early 2024 to monitor Mohamed, his family, and his associates as part of a concerted effort to suppress political opposition.

“It is our case that Mr. Narine is a tool to frame the Mohameds… to transmit this request through illegal methods,” counsel argued, adding that the defence aimed to uncover “how far our leaders in government have gone to suppress the Mohameds and their political opinions.”

The prosecution objected, characterising the line of questioning as an irrelevant “fishing expedition” that wasted judicial time, noting that Narine’s role under Section 77 was limited to collecting the extradition documents, obtaining the warrant, and executing the arrest.

Overruling the prosecution’s objection, the magistrate allowed the questioning. Narine rejected defense suggestions that the surveillance was directed by high-ranking political figures, insisting that the operation was conducted entirely on his own initiative without reporting his findings to superiors. “Who instructed you to keep Mr. Azruddin Mohamed under surveillance?” defence counsel pressed. “No one instructed me,” Narine responded. “You just did it because you wanted to do it?”

“No, I had a reason for doing it,” the special branch chief replied, though he did not elaborate further on his motives before the court. When asked whether he submitted surveillance or monitoring reports detailing his findings to higher authorities, Narine testified, “I never did.”

Narine rejected suggestions that the president or members of the Cabinet had ordered the operation, maintaining that no one had recommended or suggested the monitoring to him.

The defence presented specific instances and vehicle registration numbers allegedly linked to special branch monitoring during Mohamed’s political outreaches throughout 2025, including visits to Pomeroon, Rimo village in the Rupununi River, the Berbice coast, and the Essequibo coast.

Defence counsel put it to Narine that a white Allion (licence plate PAK 1033) and three other Ministry of Home Affairs vehicles (PAC 2716, PAG 3188, and PAC 3139) were deployed to track Mohamed’s movements prior to his arrest.

Narine repeatedly answered that he could not recall or was unaware of the specific vehicles and locations, prompting defence counsel to accuse the special branch chief of “selective amnesia.” Narine denied knowledge of the specified license plates or causing those specific vehicles to monitor the opposition leader.

Questioning then turned to the events of October 31, 2025, the day Mohamed was taken into custody. Narine acknowledged that both Mohamed and his father were under special branch surveillance on that date.

Addressing how officers located Mohamed shortly after the arrest warrant was issued at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, Narine testified that he did not physically check multiple locations himself, but made phone calls to ranks after learning a court matter involving Mohamed had been stood down.

“One of the ranks that I told to look for him observed him in that area,” Narine testified, explaining that a field officer spotted Mohamed on Smythe Street proceeding north. Narine stated that this phone call directly prompted him to leave the court premises and execute the arrest.

Narine denied or could not recall defence assertions that a heavily tinted silver Allion had been stationed outside Mohamed’s Houston, East Bank Demerara residence earlier that morning to track his movements directly to the court and Smythe Street.

The extradition proceedings continue before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.

Source: Kaieteur News