A senior Guyanese law enforcement official has categorically dismissed allegations in court that the country's president orchestrated his involvement in a high-profile extradition case. Testifying during ongoing extradition hearings, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Special Branch, denied that President Irfaan Ali issued directives regarding the arrests of Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed.

Narine's evidence forms part of a wider legal battle over the circumstances surrounding the arrests, which have drawn sustained public and political attention in Guyana since they took place last year.

Under cross-examination by the defence, the origins of the extradition documents and the jurisdiction of the Special Branch were heavily scrutinised. Defence counsel probed how paperwork from various ministries ended up at the Attorney General's Chambers. The line of questioning suggested that the Special Branch traditionally holds no purview over extradition matters, raising doubts about the legal basis for Narine's role in the operation.

Narine admitted he could not recall the specific individual who gave him his initial instructions on the morning of the arrests. He rejected, however, suggestions from the defence that this lapse reflected dishonesty or a convenient memory. He told the court that his authority came strictly from the lawful arrest warrants issued to him, and that the source of his initial instruction had no bearing on the legality of the arrests themselves.

The court also heard allegations that the arrests were politically timed. The defence pointed to the fact that the operations, carried out on 31 October 2025, preceded the convening of Parliament on 3 November by only a few days. Narine dismissed the suggestion of a deliberate link between the two dates, describing it as coincidental. He testified that he had received no politically motivated instructions from any source and stated plainly that police officers are not obliged to follow unlawful orders, regardless of who issues them.

Proceedings briefly turned to questions of public sentiment and national security. The defence sought to introduce alleged public comments made by senior government officials, including the president, describing Azruddin Mohamed as a threat to the state. Narine said he was not aware of any specific remarks made publicly by the president on this point. He did, however, confirm to the court that he personally regards the younger Mohamed as a national security threat, a view he said was based on intelligence available to him in his capacity as head of the Special Branch.

That admission drew further questions from the defence about the extent to which such assessments may have influenced the timing and conduct of the arrests, though Narine maintained that his professional judgement on security matters was separate from any political consideration.

The final stretch of the day's hearing centred on procedure rather than substance. Defence questioning on the interpretation of Police Standing Orders, and on the legal relevance of public statements made by government officials, prompted repeated objections from the prosecution. Prosecutors argued that Narine, who is not a legal professional, should not be asked to offer interpretations of the legal weight carried by standing orders. They contended that such matters were for the court, not a witness, to determine.

Following extended legal argument, the court agreed to defer further cross-examination on these points. Both sides have been given time to prepare and present legal precedents relevant to the disputed questions before proceedings resume. Narine is expected to return to the stand in the coming days to continue his testimony, with the outcome of the procedural dispute likely to shape how much further the defence can press him on the political dimensions of the case.

The extradition hearings continue amid close scrutiny from observers who see the case as a test of the boundaries between executive authority and law enforcement independence in Guyana.

‍