The magistrate presiding over the extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed said on Monday that the court would not suppress valid questions merely to bring the hearing to an earlier close. Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman made the remarks as defence attorney Siand Dhurjon continued his cross-examination of Special Branch head Prem Narine. Cross-examination was deferred and the matter adjourned until 9 a.m. on Tuesday. Prosecutors Terrence Williams and Herbert McKenzie had asked after the morning session when Dhurjon expected to finish. He said he hoped to conclude by the end of Tuesday, but that objections, arguments and other matters arising in court could affect that timeline. The magistrate said the court had been managing the cross-examination, but stressed that the evidence being tested could have consequences "for generations to come." Questions would not be cut short for the sake of speed.
In the afternoon, Dhurjon focused on how police found Mohamed shortly before his arrest. Narine testified that after obtaining warrants, he had several locations checked because Mohamed was not at those first being monitored. Dhurjon asked how Narine knew Mohamed was on Smyth Street and suggested that a Special Branch vehicle had followed him after he left his home. Narine said he recalled having someone stationed at the home after receiving information on where Mohamed was expected to be, but that this arrangement had been stood down. He said he then had a search made for Mohamed and confirmed he was told Mohamed was on Smyth Street before he went to make the arrest.
The defence also asked what Narine knew of the extradition request before the arrest. Dhurjon suggested that police activity around Mohamed had increased from the night before October 1 and that government agencies had been working together on the matter. Narine rejected the suggestion that he was aware of an extradition request the night before the arrest. Dhurjon then asked 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 knew of former Special Branch officers carrying out such arrests.
Earlier in the day, the defence questioned Narine about alleged surveillance of Mohamed, his family and associates. Narine acknowledged that surveillance of Mohamed began before the extradition request, and placed its start in early 2024 from his recollection. He rejected the suggestion that anyone had instructed him to watch Mohamed, including President Irfaan Ali. Dhurjon also asked about Narine's contact with the President at police functions and at a mosque. The defence raised Mohamed's reported difficulties in renewing mining rights covering more than 80,000 acres, along with issues over licences for his vessels.
Dhurjon then turned to the circumstances of the arrest itself. He suggested that the use of several police vehicles and heavily armed officers had created a public spectacle. The prosecution objected to the questions. The magistrate ruled that she did not see their relevance to the proceedings and would not allow that line of questioning to continue. She had ruled earlier that questions about Narine's professional promotions and career progression were irrelevant to the extradition proceedings.
Many of the claims put to Narine during the day were suggestions made by the defence, and the witness either rejected them or said he could not confirm them. The court has not made any finding on the matters raised in cross-examination. The proceedings resume on Tuesday morning, when Dhurjon is expected to continue his questioning of the Special Branch head.
