The lead investigator in the case against drug-accused, Stephen Vieira, Tazim Gafoor, Nazim Gafoor and Sherwayne De Abreu, on Friday testified that he had been instructed not to pursue charges against prosecution witness Hakeem Mohamed, even with overwhelming evidence against him.
But this was before reneging on the statement, as attorney for Vieira, Latchmie Rahamat, pointed out that the witness had testified to the contrary during a previous court appearance.
The investigator, when he last appeared before the court, had denied offering Mohamed a plea deal.
The five men were charged after CANU conducted a raid and found drugs concealed in dressed lumber on May 12th, 2017. The cocaine was reportedly stashed in lumber at a sawmill at Lookout, East Bank Essequibo, which belonged to Narine Lall, for whom an arrest warrant has been issued.
Mohamed, who has been the prosecution’s key witness, had told the court in his evidence-in-chief that he assisted Tazim with hiding the parcels of cocaine in the wood as it was being prepared to be shipped out of the country. Mohamed had also stated that on the day of the bust by CANU, the truck containing the cocaine-stashed lumber was parked at his residence.
Rahamat had earlier in the week cross-examined the CANU investigator, questioning several aspects of Mohamed’s period in custody. This would include records in the CANU diary which showed that Mohamed, when finally released, was instructed by the officer to return on May 31, 2017.
Due to the absence of a second CANU diary during Tuesday’s court hearing, Rahamat requested that the book be brought to court to allow for further cross-examination of the officer.
With the request having been fulfilled on Friday, the attorney sought to establish from the officer why there were no records in the diary to say whether Mohamed had returned to CANU Headquarters as was previously instructed.
The officer told the court that though Mohamed may have returned, he cannot recall seeing him, adding that the man could have seen someone else and a record not made.
Subsequent to this, Rahamat queried whether any attempts were made to follow-up on the case with regards to Mohamed, considering he was a prisoner who had been released on self-bail on the condition that he return on the given date. To this, the officer said that no attempts were made.
Pressing further, Rahamat questioned why no charges were instituted against Mohamed considering he was found in possession of the truck with the cocaine-laden lumber at his home as well as there being countless statements to support such. The officer, in response, told the court that he made a decision not to charge Mohamed.
This resulted in attempts by Rahamat to establish whether the investigation involving Mohamed was still open. However, the court heard that the investigation had been closed some three to four months ago as a result of a lack of fresh information, a decision the officer said he made. It was also related by the officer that there is no documentation to substantiate this.
It was at this time that the attorney suggested to the officer that the investigation was only closed after Mohamed testified in court as a witness for the prosecution.
Following up on this, the officer was asked to explain why he made such a decision to which he said the matter had already been placed before the courts and that there was no additional evidence to have charges laid against him.
This was followed by a series of questions regarding the decision to not institute charges even though there had been overwhelming evidence. Eventually, the officer told the court that he was instructed not to charge Mohamed.
The attorney, reminding the officer of his earlier testimony where he told the court that he had made the decision not to charge, asked the officer to explain the varying stories.
In response, the officer first told the court that he had not received any instructions from CANU’s legal department to pursue any charges, before changing it to say that he had not received any instructions from Deputy Head of CANU to proceed with charges against Mohamed.
Rahamat then asked if he had made any attempts to seek instructions from the Deputy on the way forward, to which the officer said no.
The case is expected to be recalled on October 19, with further cross-examination of the lead investigator to continue.
