Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine returned to the witness stand this week for further cross-examination in the extradition proceedings against father and son Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed, defending his decision to destroy three official logbooks connected to their arrest.
Appearing before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman, Narine was questioned at length by defence attorney Siand Dhurjon over the circumstances surrounding the disposal of the records, which contained notes made around the time of the defendants' arrest. Narine told the court that he acted under obligations arising from the Official Secrets Act rather than on explicit instruction from senior officers or the prosecution.
Under questioning, Narine confirmed that he was already aware of his status as a material witness in the case before the books were destroyed. He acknowledged that he had not consulted the prosecution team or sought legal advice before disposing of the documents. Dhurjon pressed him repeatedly on this sequence of events, asking why an officer aware of his evidentiary role would proceed to destroy potentially relevant material without first raising the matter with those overseeing the case.
Narine's response centred on his position as head of Special Branch, which he said carried with it the lawful authority to destroy documents containing confidential information. He pointed to secrecy declarations he had signed under the Official Secrets Act of 1911 and 1920, arguing these obligations took precedence over ordinary evidence-handling procedures. A signed extract of the declaration was subsequently entered into evidence, and the prosecution raised no objection to its admission.
The cross-examination also turned to inconsistencies between Narine's written statements and his verbal evidence in court. Dhurjon focused in particular on an alleged statement made by Nazar Mohamed at the time of his arrest, which Narine had previously recorded in a manner the defence argued did not match his oral account. Narine conceded that the statement had been paraphrased rather than transcribed word for word, a point the defence suggested undermined the reliability of the written record.
On the question of what information had been lost with the destroyed logbooks, Narine admitted that specific timelines, including visits to legal chambers, had been logged in the books before they were disposed of. He rejected the defence's broader suggestion that every unrecorded detail from that period amounted to material that should have been preserved as case notes, maintaining that a distinction existed between routine entries and information bearing directly on the charges.
Dhurjon then turned to Police Standing Order 288, which requires that official pocketbooks be retained for a minimum of three years. Narine acknowledged the existence of the order but told the court that subsequent amendments applied, and that the secrecy obligations attached to his specialised role placed him outside the standard retention requirements governing other officers.
The court also heard that Narine had sought advice from police legal counsel specifically in relation to questions that might expose him to self-incrimination. Following this disclosure, the magistrate disallowed a number of questions from the defence concerning the circumstances of the records' destruction, on the basis that they touched on matters covered by that advice.
Cross-examination was adjourned at the close of the session. Narine is expected to return to the witness stand when proceedings resume, with the defence indicating it intends to continue probing the justification offered for the destruction of the logbooks and the extent of the authority Narine claims under the Official Secrets Act.
