Questions over Mohamed near witness’s home

# Opposition leader, two others arrested with illegal firearm following shooting at senior police officer’s home October 13, 2026 Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and two other men were arrested late Monday after police reportedly discovered an illegal firearm and ammunition in their vehicle following a reported shooting outside the home of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, a key witness in Mohamed’s ongoing extradition proceedings. Mohamed, 39, of Houston, East Bank Demerara; Mario Mohamed, 25, of Timehri, East Bank Demerara; and Eugene Thorne, 35, a driver also of Timehri, were taken into custody after police intercepted their vehicle shortly after the incident. Police said the incident occurred at approximately 11:45 p.m. Monday on Barr Street, Kitty, Georgetown, where Narine, who heads the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch, resides. According to preliminary investigations, Narine was at home when he observed a black Toyota Allion, bearing registration number PXX 5300, travelling slowly along Barr Street. The vehicle reportedly passed his residence before returning a short while later. As the car approached his residence a second time, Narine heard what appeared to be a gunshot. He immediately took cover and discharged several rounds from his service firearm in the direction of the vehicle, which subsequently drove away. The vehicle was later intercepted at the junction of Vlissengen Road and Sandy Babb Street, Kitty, with the three men inside. A search conducted in their presence uncovered a .32-caliber Taurus pistol without a serial number and three live rounds of matching ammunition, police said. The occupants were arrested in connection with suspected possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence. The search was livestreamed, including the discovery of the illegal weapon, by Mohamed’s sister Hana. Investigators also recovered one spent .32-caliber shell on the southern side of Barr Street, diagonally opposite Narine’s residence, along with four spent 9mm shells. ... However, police have ... whether the reported shooting ... Narine’s testimony, who allegedly ... or whether the recovered pistol was discharged ... amed and the ... investigations continue. No charges arising from Monday night’s incident have been announced.

Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine Singh, Head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch, testified on Thursday about the events leading to the arrest of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, as extradition proceedings continued at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Singh, testifying before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman, said that on October 1, 2025, he collected a bundle of documents from the chamber of the Attorney General on Carmichael Street. The bundle, he said, included an Authority to Proceed (ATP) signed by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond, a Section 6 certificate under the Fugitive Offenders Act signed by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd, and documents bearing the signatures of U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He said arrest warrants were subsequently issued for Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed. Singh testified that on October 31, 2025, he went to Smyth Street, where he found Mohamed in a vehicle and informed him of the U.S. extradition request, which includes allegations of money laundering, wire fraud and other offences. Mohamed was arrested under the warrant and asked to contact his attorney, Siand Dhurjon, but the call went unanswered, Singh said. The defence objected to the Authority to Proceed being admitted as evidence, arguing that the person who prepared the document was not before the court for cross-examination and that it lacked a unique identifying mark. Latchman declined to admit the document at this stage.

2023, according to his lawyer, the Punjab government opposed Parvinder Singh Jhota's plea for police protection, calling him a habitual offender who faced no genuine threat. On 13 October 2026, he was shot dead outside a chemist's shop in Mansa while streaming the confrontation live on Facebook. The threat the state said did not exist killed him. ✦ Editorial Team | 15 Oct 2026 | Topic 12 of 19 ... That September, by his lawyer's account, the state opposed his plea for protection. The case poses a hard question: should the state protect a citizen who exposes crime but has himself used vigilante methods? The answer this piece defends is that protection must follow the threat, not the person's character. ... anti-drug ... during a live broadcast set off protests, a refusal by his family to cremate the body until demands were met and a call for a Punjab bandh on 15 October 2026. Protesters sought a CBI probe and the resignations of the Chief Minister and DGP. Reports that the state had opposed his 2023 protection plea put its duty of care at the centre of the debate. ... He faces his own case for assault and trespass. He says he is being threatened. The easy answer would be that the law should not shield someone who takes the law into his own hands. That answer feels principled. In Mansa, it may also have been fatal. ### What actually happened By his lawyer's account, the Punjab government opposed Parvinder Singh Jhota's protection plea in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in September 2023. It called him a habitual offender and said there was no genuine threat to his life. On 13 October 2026, Jhota confronted Ashwani Kumar - the same chemist his group had paraded in 2023 - over the alleged sale of synthetic drugs to an elderly man. He was streaming live. Police say Kumar fired a licensed pistol. Jhota was hit three times and declared brought dead; four companions were injured. Bathinda Range DIG Harjeet Singh pointed to old personal enmity. ### Two obligations, both real The duty to protect. The state owes protection to anyone whose life is under credible threat. That duty attaches to the person's risk, not to their virtue. A history of hostility with a particular person is not a reason to deny protection. It is evidence that a threat is real. The duty not to reward vigilantism. In *Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India* (2018), the Supreme Court held that no citizen or group may appoint itself enforcer or punisher. A state that seems to bless vigilante raids invites more of them. That concern is not hypothetical: after the killing, local committees reportedly threatened to conduct their own searches of suspected drug outlets. ... reasoning should land The two duties only seem to collide because "protection" is treated as endorsement. It is not. The state can do both at once: - protect the person, because the threat is assessed as credible; - prosecute his unlawful acts, as it did in 2023; - condition the protection, so that police accompany any complaint but the activist does not conduct raids. What the state cannot do is let its disapproval of the person decide whether he lives. Labelling a threatened man a "habitual offender" answers the question of his conduct; it does not answer the question of his safety - and only the second question was before the court. None of this softens the central fact. The person who fires a gun bears full responsibility for the killing. Provocation on a live stream does not dilute that. For the examiner, the lesson is precise. The rule of law means the state's protection is impartial, especially towards people it finds inconvenient. Condemning vigilantism and protecting the vigilant citizen are not contradictory duties; failing at either one is. ... Anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh alias Jhota, 42, ... shot dead in Mansa, Punjab, on 13 ... while streaming live on Facebook.