Standing order violations exposed as Head of Special Branch admits burning investigation notes

September 21 2026

Revelations rocked the Magistrates’ Court today during the ongoing extradition proceedings for the Mohamed family, as Head of Special Branch Senior Superintendent Prem Narine admitted directly breaching long-standing Guyana Police Force protocols.

Police witness Narine faced questioning from defense counsel Siand Dhurjon regarding the whereabouts of original contemporaneous notes recorded on October 31, 2025. Under oath, Narine conceded that he personally destroyed three official books containing notes relative to the operation by shredding and subsequently burning them in early January 2026.

The defense immediately confronted Narine with Police Standing Order 28, which strictly governs the handling and retention of official police pocketbooks and memorandum logs. Specifically, defense counsel highlighted Standing Order 28.4, which strictly prohibits the erasure, obliteration, or removal of entries at any time, and Standing Order 28.8, which mandates that every completed memorandum book must be retained by the officer for a minimum of three years before destruction is ever permitted.

When pressed on how he could unilaterally destroy the documents years ahead of the statutory requirement, Narine claimed he acted as the “authorized person” to determine their disposal. He asserted that the books contained secret intelligence rather than standard records and claimed the material failed to meet his personal “threshold of saving.”

However, defense counsel brought to light several contradictions in the witness’s actions. Narine acknowledged that when he destroyed the books in January 2026, he was fully aware that extradition proceedings were active and that he would serve as a material witness testifying to arrests, timelines, and the transmission of documents. Furthermore, the court heard that specific details, including precise timings of visits to the Attorney General’s Chambers and interactions involving the defendants, were recorded in the destroyed books but omitted from Narine’s formal written police statement.

Narine also admitted that he never sought permission from, nor notified, the Police Legal Advisor or the prosecution team before or after destroying the books. The witness confirmed he took no photographs or photocopies of the destroyed entries prior to burning them, claiming instead to have transcribed select details onto the back of arrest warrants.

Counsel further questioned whether an official destruction register or record was maintained to document the disposal. Narine refused to answer, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination on legal advice. “I was legally advised not to answer any question that would allow me to face criminal charges,” Narine stated.

While defense counsel argued that a sworn witness cannot shield relevant facts behind a self-incrimination claim without judicial review, Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman ruled against pursuing questions on a destruction register, noting that the physical destruction of the books was already established on the court record.

The hearing has been adjourned as cross-examination into the destruction of the evidence continues tomorrow at 9am.