Mohameds’ legal team raises Police press release issue; Chief Magistrate stands firm on Court evidence

September 21 2026

Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman moments ago instructed defense counsel representing the Mohameds that they are free to pursue necessary legal remedies as they see fit, emphasizing that the court remains strictly sequestered from public media commentary and social media reports.

The exchange arose after Defense Counsel Siand Dhurjon brought to the court’s attention a press release issued by the Guyana Police Force on September 11, 2026. Dhurjon argued that the police force, acting as the employer of a key witness, Special Branch Head, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, had misquoted and “mischaracterized” the evidence presented in court. He contended that the publication amounted to an impermissible attempt to prejudice the public, the court and post-justify witness testimony while cross-examination was still underway. This follows an official public clarification posted to the Joint Services media group at 4:57 p.m. by the Director of the GPF Corporate Communications Unit. Titled “GPF Clarifies Media Reports on Records in Mohameds’ Extradition Proceedings,” the police release sought to counter media coverage surrounding destroyed records referenced during the committal hearing before Chief Magistrate Her Worship Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.

In its release, the GPF rejected “any suggestion that documents of evidential value relating to the proceedings were destroyed.” The Force claimed that its lead witness, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, testified that his personal working notes “had been disposed of in the official incinerator at Special Branch in keeping with established procedures for the disposal of sensitive working documents that were no longer required.” The release added that Narine “testified that the working notes contained no information of evidential value to the committal proceedings and that the relevant information had already been incorporated into his statement.”

Chief Magistrate Latchman today declined to review the document or any associated media footage, making it clear that external publications hold no sway over the court’s deliberations. She stated that she concentrates exclusively on formal exhibits and oral evidence presented directly from the witness box. “If you saw something and it is of real concern to the defense… you can take necessary action as you then see fit,” Chief Magistrate Latchman told counsel, stating to the defense that external reports would not affect the court’s independent judgment.

Dhurjon further brought it to the attention of the court that previously when Prosecutor Glenn Hanoman complained about Facebook posts made by Hana Mohamed, the court then reprimanded Mohamed in open court and ordered her to apologize.

Proceedings were further delayed as the defense asked for the disclosure of the confidentiality and authorization documents, the “Secrets Act” referenced during Narine’s previous testimony. Chief Magistrate asked if it is a “secrets act” being requested. Prosecution Counsel Herbert McKenzie, in what could be described as a laugh, stated that the witness was referring to a declaration of confidentiality or a “confidential secrecy instruction document.” Defense Counsel Dhurjon then responded that they don’t share their learned friend’s “amusement towards his own witness” and regrets that prosecution tried to gloss over or characterize the witness’s testimony as a mistake. After about 15 minutes, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine presented a signed excerpt of the Secrets Act of 1911. The Defense Counsel then requested for an adjournment until 1:30pm to review and verify the document.