Chief Magistrate upholds bail for opposition leader as extradition hearing resumes

Nov 03, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman on Monday ruled that past conduct without a conviction or a pending conviction does not constitute sufficient grounds to revoke the bail granted to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed in his ongoing extradition proceedings.

The ruling came in response to an application submitted by the prosecution seeking the revocation of Mohamed’s bail, following his recent remand to prison in connection to an unrelated cybercrime charge. Refusing the prosecution’s application, Chief Magistrate Latchman ordered that Mohamed’s bail conditions in the extradition matter remain fully intact. The court proceedings subsequently resumed at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts and will continue today at 9am.

During the session, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, representing the defence, cross-examined head of the Special Branch, Prem Narine, scrutinising the procedures surrounding the surveillance of the accused, police record-keeping, and the chain of custody for legal documents received from the Ministry of Legal Affairs.

 Opening his line of questioning regarding official responsibilities, Senior Counsel Forde asked Prem Narine about his scope of duties. Narine stated that he was given general directives regarding his responsibilities as head of Special Branch, explaining that as issues arise, those specific responsibilities fall into place.

Forde questioned whether Narine had obtained permission from the Commissioner of Police in July 2024 to conduct surveillance. Narine confirmed that he did receive permission in 2024. When asked if the Mohameds were under surveillance when they were first brought to court, Narine affirmed that they were, and confirmed that the surveillance was carried out directly by the Special Branch.

Forde then asked if the Special Branch knew where Azruddin Mohamed was on the morning of October 31, 2025, to which Narine answered affirmatively. Addressing earlier testimony, Forde asked Narine to clarify what he meant when he previously informed cross-examiner Siand Dhurjon that he had to check several locations. Narine explained that upon receiving the arrest warrants, he dispatched a surveillance team to make checks, which is how the authorities determined the exact location of the Mohameds.

Forde followed up by asking if the subjects were under surveillance prior to the issuance of the warrants. Narine replied that they were not. Forde then asked if it was his evidence that surveillance commenced on that day only after obtaining the warrants, which Narine confirmed to be correct. When Forde asked if Azruddin Mohamed was therefore not continuously under surveillance, Narine agreed that he was not continuously under surveillance.

Inquiring into how Narine received the operational information regarding their location, Narine stated it was communicated via cellular phone calls. When asked by Forde if this occurred on his personal cell phone, Narine confirmed it did. Forde then asked if, as part of the official record, Narine had made a written note of the call at the time it was received, to which Narine replied that he made no record. Forde further asked whether Narine had instructed anyone else to make such a note or record, and Narine stated that he had not. 

The cross-examination shifted to the handling of extradition documentation collected from the Ministry of Legal Affairs. Forde asked where inside the ministry building Narine received the package. The relevance of the question was raised by the court before Forde proceeded to ask how long Narine had to wait upon arrival at the ministry before receiving the package. The issue of relevance was again noted.

Forde asked if, upon arriving at the ministry, Narine was required to identify himself to the person handing over the package, to which Narine answered yes. Forde then asked if Narine brought a document for the individual to sign acknowledging receipt of the package, and Narine stated he did not. When asked if the person requested that he sign to confirm collection, Narine responded that he could not recall at this time whether he had signed.

Forde asked if Narine would have retained a copy of the document had he signed one, to which Narine replied, “Not that I can recall.” Forde asked if Narine possessed any receipt or written proof confirming he signed for the documents, and Narine answered no. Forde then asked if there was any log or entry recorded regarding his movements that morning in relation to the vehicle used. Narine stated that he could not recall making any entry or causing any entry to be made regarding that event.

Forde asked Narine to describe the individual he met at the Ministry of Legal Affairs, specifically asking if it was a male or female. Narine answered that it was a female. Asked for a physical description, Narine detailed that she was about his height, 55 inches tall, of medium build, and fair in complexion, adding that he could not recall her race and that this was as much detail as he could provide.

When asked by Forde if he knew where the Office of the Attorney General was located within the building, Narine answered no. Forde asked if Narine had ever been to the Office of the Attorney General in that building, and Narine confirmed he had never gone to the Office of the Attorney General in that building up to this date. 

Forde inquired whether Narine knew what specific documents he was going to collect prior to arriving at the Ministry. Narine answered that he knew they were documents related to extradition, but did not know the exact documents at that time. When asked if he knew who the documents pertained to, Narine answered yes. Forde noted that Narine had no idea what the documents were or how many there were to collect, which Narine confirmed was correct.

Forde asked if Narine read the documents before leaving the building. Narine testified that he read some of them. Asked if he could recall which documents he read, Narine stated he could recall several. He specified that he read the Section 638 document signed by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd, as well as the authority to proceed signed by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond. He added that the Section 638 document included a copy of the treaty between the United States and British Guiana.

Narine further testified that there was a thick bundle of documents appearing to be affidavits and indictments, which he did not read in detail, but noted that the document bore the signatures of Marco Rubio, Pam Bondi, and Burgess.

Forde asked what time Narine left the Attorney General’s Chambers. Narine stated he could not recall the exact time at that moment, noting he had mentioned it in his earlier evidence and wished to rely on that testimony.

When asked if he could recall who gave him the instructions to go to the Attorney General’s Chambers, Narine stated he could not recall. Forde asked by what means those instructions were received, and Narine again stated he could not recall. Forde asked if instructions of that nature were usually received by email, but the question was ruled irrelevant.

Forde asked whether Narine had checked his email or phone to verify who might have issued the instructions. Narine answered that he had not. Forde asked if he still maintained the same phone number and email address as he had then, to which Narine answered yes to both. Forde then asked how many days prior he had received the order to go to the Ministry; Narine answered that he received the instructions on the morning of October 31. At this point, Defence Counsel requested that the witness check his email and phone records to verify who gave the instructions to proceed to the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Forde asked if Narine had asked the person from whom he uplifted the package for her name, to which Narine answered he did not. Forde asked if Narine had gone to his office first before heading to the Attorney General’s Chambers, and Narine answered yes. Asked if he recalled whether he first learned of the instructions after arriving at his office, Narine stated he was not sure. Forde asked what time he arrived at his office, and Narine replied between 7:00 AM and 7:30 AM.

 Forde turned his cross-examination to the contents of the extradition treaty itself. Asked if he had read the treaty, Narine stated he read the first page. Defence Counsel Forde requested that the witness be shown Exhibit K. Prosecutor Mr. McKenzie indicated no objections, and Narine was handed Exhibit K containing the treaty.

Forde asked if that was the first page of the treaty he had read, and Narine confirmed it was. Forde asked if Narine had read any of the articles of the treaty, to which Narine replied no. Forde specifically asked if Narine had read Article 2 of the treaty, and Narine confirmed he had not.

Forde then asked, “You cannot say from what you have read whether this treaty applies to British Guiana?”

Prosecutor McKenzie objected, arguing that the question was unfair, unreasonable, and irrelevant, noting that the witness is not a lawyer. Forde countered that it was a question of fact since the witness had read the first page, while the prosecution maintained it was a question of law. The Chief Magistrate disallowed the question.

Forde followed up by asking if Narine saw any reference to Guiana on the first page of the treaty he read. Narine answered yes. Asked to indicate where on the page he saw the reference, Narine looked at the document and stated he saw references to the United Kingdom, noting that Guiana was a colony of the United Kingdom.

Forde then asked, “When did Guiana become independent?”

Prosecutor McKenzie objected immediately, stating, “This is a court of law and not history class. This question is highly irrelevant.”

Forde argued that these were factual and legitimate questions, maintaining it was not about history class. The question was deemed irrelevant by the court.

Forde then asked Narine if he recalled seeing a declaration of succession in relation to the treaty among the bundle he collected. Narine responded that he did not know what counsel would term a declaration, but noted he saw a section attached to the treaty with wording he considered a declaration.

At this stage, the cross-examination of the witness was deferred.

 Speaking to reporters upon his arrival at the courthouse, Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed expressed deep concern over his safety and treatment in custody, accusing the governing party of targeting him politically ahead of the upcoming elections.

Mohamed confirmed he is currently being held in solitary confinement, describing his conditions as “maximum punishment” involving 23 hours and 15 minutes of daily lockdown. He described his cell as being “like a furnace” before concluding his comments to the media.

In a separate statement to reporters outside the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court, Special Branch Head, Prem Narine addressed personal security concerns and public allegations made against him.

Narine told journalists that while he could not comment on active investigations, he is fearful for his life and that his family has been dragged into the situation. He noted that attacks have been directed at his brother, his brother’s business, and himself personally.

When asked about public characterizations referring to him in harsh terms, Narine stated that it was disheartening, emphasizing that he is simply executing his duties as a police officer by effecting an arrest and providing evidence in court. Addressing allegations from the Opposition Leader regarding an alleged assassination plot, Narine stated that the matter is under investigation and that the truth will ultimately be revealed in court.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, bail, conviction, extradition, Judy Latchman, Prem Narine

---