The mother of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has moved to the High Court seeking her son’s release from prison on bail in the matter of surveillance footage which he is accused of obtaining by bribery.

In an urgent Fixed Date Application filed yesterday, Bonita Mohamed is asking the High Court to quash Magistrate Abigail Gibbs’ October 30 decision to remand her son to prison and grant him reasonable bail pending the determination of the criminal proceedings against him.

The application names the Director of Public Prosecutions, Magistrate Gibbs and the Attorney General as respondents.

Central to the challenge is an allegation of a connection between Magistrate Gibbs and the Deputy Superintendent of Police Jamine Bacon, who the applicant claims was involved in investigating the October 12 shooting incident outside the Kitty residence of Head of Special Branch, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine. The surveillance footage pertains to this incident.

According to the application, the connection was not disclosed during the bail proceedings, despite what Mohamed’s legal team contends was an apparent conflict of interest.

The applicant argues that the circumstances raise legitimate questions about whether Mohamed received a fair and impartial hearing when his application for bail was considered.

Mohamed and Police Constable Ryan Greene were jointly charged on Friday, October 30, with Unauthorised Giving of Electronic Data, contrary to the Cybercrime Act of 2018.

Both pleaded not guilty when they appeared before Magistrate Gibbs at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court, but were refused bail and remanded to prison until November 24.

The charges arose from an investigation into the alleged unauthorised obtaining and disclosure of surveillance footage relating to the October 12 shooting incident in Kitty, Georgetown, during which Narine fired shots in the direction of Mohamed.

Police have alleged that Greene, who was attached to the Police Command Centre, obtained the recordings without authorisation and supplied them to Mohamed in exchange for $800,000. Mohamed has disputed allegations that he paid for the footage.

The recordings were subsequently presented by Mohamed during an October 26 press conference, where he showed reporters several angles of the shooting incident and maintained that the footage supported his account of what transpired.

Kiskadee Watch previously reported that members of the media were prevented from entering the courtroom during the October 30 proceedings and were therefore unable to independently hear the submissions or the Magistrate’s reasons for refusing bail.

Following the hearing, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who represented Mohamed, strongly criticised the refusal of bail and announced that the defence would approach the High Court.

“There is absolutely no basis for the refusal of bail,” Forde told reporters outside the courthouse.

According to Forde’s account of the ruling, the Magistrate expressed concern that Mohamed was allegedly committing further offences while already on bail.

However, the Senior Counsel challenged that reasoning, arguing that the existence of additional criminal charges could not be treated as proof that an accused person had committed an offence.

The High Court application now advances that challenge, with Mohamed’s legal team, including Forde and attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva, questioning both the legal basis of the cybercrime charge and the circumstances surrounding the refusal of bail.

The applicant contends that Mohamed had lawful justification for receiving and disclosing the surveillance recordings because they were relevant to his defence against serious criminal allegations arising from the October 12 incident.

His attorneys further argue that the prosecution has failed to establish sufficient admissible evidence linking him to the alleged offence and question whether the provision of the Cybercrime Act relied upon by the prosecution applies to his alleged conduct.

The application also challenges the period of remand from October 30 to November 24, which the defence contends exceeds the statutory limit applicable under the Criminal Law Procedure (Paper Committals) Act 2024.

Additionally, the applicant argues that insufficient consideration was given to Mohamed’s previous compliance with bail conditions, his lack of criminal convictions, family responsibilities, established ties to Guyana and his constitutional responsibilities as the elected Leader of the Opposition.

Beyond the refusal of bail, the application raises concerns about the conditions under which Mohamed is being held at the Lusignan Prison.

In her sworn affidavit, Bonita Mohamed alleges that her son is being kept in solitary confinement in a poorly ventilated cell, exposed to extreme heat and smoke and fumes from a nearby dumpsite, while facing severe restrictions on human interaction.

She contends that the conditions are cruel, inhumane and detrimental to his mental well-being.

The allegations follow concerns raised publicly over the weekend by Mohamed’s family.

Kiskadee Watch previously reported that his sister, Hana Khamelia, alleged that the Opposition Leader was being held in a windowless cell with a bright light operating continuously, affecting his ability to sleep.

His father, Nazar Mohamed, also alleged that his son was being confined to a small room, subjected to uncomfortable restraints and denied access to home-cooked meals.

The Guyana Prison Service has since denied allegations that Mohamed is being treated inhumanely, although questions surrounding the specific conditions of his confinement remain disputed.

The latest High Court challenge comes against the backdrop of several criminal and extradition proceedings involving Mohamed.

On October 16, Mohamed, his driver Eugene Thorne and videographer Mario Mohamed were granted bail of $750,000 each after pleading not guilty to firearm, ammunition and attempting to obstruct the course of justice charges arising from the October 12 incident.

The shooting incident has remained a subject of controversy, particularly after Mohamed publicly released surveillance recordings which he said supported his version of events.

Meanwhile, Police Constable Greene’s arrest had already been challenged before the High Court.

On October 29, Justice Christel Lambert ruled that police had reasonable grounds to suspect Greene’s involvement in the alleged unauthorised disclosure of the recordings and declined to order his release.

However, the Judge ordered the release of his mother, Nikita Greene, finding that the authorities had failed to establish reasonable grounds to suspect her of criminal wrongdoing merely because she had received money from her son.

That ruling concerned the legality of the arrests and detention, rather than whether the alleged offences had been committed.

Mohamed and his father are also facing separate extradition proceedings arising from a request by the United States.

Through the latest application, Bonita Mohamed is seeking High Court intervention to overturn the October 30 remand decision and secure her son’s release on reasonable bail while the cybercrime proceedings continue.

Source: Kiskadee Watch

After days of silence, the BK Group says a contracted diver who died during salvage operations apparently had pre-existing medical conditions and suffered a heart attack, according to reports from a doctor aboard the operation.

The account was contained in a press release signed by Brian Tiwarie, Executive Chairman of the BK Group of Companies, following the death of Venezuelan diver Luis Martinez during work at the MV Barima wreck site.

The company said the licensed diver was contracted through Salvamentos del Caribe C.A. and that a resident, full-time doctor was aboard during the operations.

“According to reports from the Resident full-time doctor on board during the operations, the diver apparently had pre-existing medical issues and therefore suffered a heart attack,” the release stated.

The statement did not include a medical report or post-mortem findings supporting that account.

Questions will likely be raised as to what BK is doing with a billion-dollar salvaging contract when an apparently ill 66-year-old Venezuelan was diving in what are likely difficult conditions at sea.

BK said relatives had been notified and assistance would be provided to transport the body to the diver’s home in Venezuela.

The company also maintained that every aspect of the salvage operation was being conducted with strict adherence to the safety and well-being of all personnel involved.

Its release described the death as having occurred “over the weekend”. However, according to the police account previously reported by Kiskadee Watch, Martinez, 66, became unresponsive during diving operations on Wednesday, October 28, approximately 10 nautical miles off Anna Regina. Police publicly disclosed the incident on November 1.

Police said Martinez entered the water but had not resurfaced after approximately 20 minutes. Crew members pulled him up using a rope attached to his body and found him motionless and frothing at the mouth. He was transported to the Transport and Harbours Department wharf at Stabroek, Georgetown, where a doctor pronounced him dead at approximately 2.30 am on October 29. His body was taken to Memorial Gardens Funeral Home pending a post-mortem examination. 

The police statement did not identify his employer, detail the emergency assistance available at the diving site or explain what occurred between his retrieval from the water and arrival in Georgetown. BK’s release identifies the contracting company and says a doctor was aboard, but does not describe the treatment administered or the emergency evacuation arrangements. 

The PNCR/APNU had called for an independent investigation into Martinez’s death, questioning the emergency arrangements and the decision to transport him to Georgetown rather than seek medical assistance in Region Two. The party also sought disclosure of the contractors involved, safety requirements, operational plan and monitoring arrangements. 

This will be classed as another worksite death that the Ministry of Labour will have to investigate. The Labour Ministry has been largely silent on these cases and the Ministry has said nothing on this one. 

BK International was awarded a $1.034 billion contract on October 6 to salvage the MV Barima off Devonshire Castle Flats, Essequibo Coast, on a “no cure, no pay” basis. The published award record did not specify a mobilisation or recovery deadline, the approved salvage method or detailed conditions for determining successful completion.

The families of the victims of the MV Barima disaster have expressed outrage over the failure to refloat the vessel up to now and have expressed a lack of confidence in BK’s ability to do the job.

Source: Kiskadee Watch

Dear Editor,

During Guyana’s review at the 140th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee (Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), which took place from March 18 to March 20, 2024, the Government was asked why the Protected Disclosures Act of 2018 was still not brought into operation by the Ministry of Legal Affairs. Their answer was that they had been unable to implement the Act due to “issues with the wording” [https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4046144?v=pdf].

I was a member of Transparency Institute Guyana Inc (TIGI) at the time Parliament passed the Act and I remember that though the Bills being introduced had good intentions, our general concern was that they were accumulating too many discretionary powers to Ministers. Our submissions to the Ministry of Legal Affairs were routinely ignored.

Here is an extract from the official good intention of the Protected Disclosures Act of 2018. “An Act to combat corruption and other wrongdoings by encouraging and facilitating disclosures of improper conduct in the private and public sectors, to protect persons making those disclosures from detrimental action, …”.

Here are two examples of ministerial control. The first and most blatant is that there is no time limit to when the minister must bring the Act into operation. There is good reason for giving this responsibility to the minister, because the Protected Disclosures Commission has to be established and constituted. But no time limit is licence to get away with executive corruption and oppression of whistleblowers for as long as any government feels like.

The second is that although Section 4(4) of the Act states that the Commission shall not be subject to the direction and control of any other authority, S.4(5) makes the minister the exception. Eight years and three governments later, the Act is still not operational.

Despite acknowledging that the Act (commonly known as the Whistleblower Act) and the accompanying Witness Protection Act 2018 had not yet been formally operationalized, the 2024 government delegation asserted to the UN Human Rights Committee that even though the specific legislative framework was not fully functional, the Guyana Police Force provides direct protection to whistleblowers in practice!!!

Current police actions continue to expose this assertion as a lie. And the “wording” has little chance of being changed by a Parliament that hardly works, because its sittings are controlled by a partisan Speaker. Democracy requires integrity and dedicated, responsible work, but our ruling politicians have developed a scheme to live a cushy life supported by sycophants at the expense of ordinary hard-working people.

              Yours sincerely,

              Alfred Bhulai

Source: Kiskadee Watch

Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman has declined to revoke the bail granted to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, ruling that pending criminal charges, without more, was insufficient to justify revoking his bail in the ongoing extradition proceedings.

The ruling was handed down yesterday morning following submissions by the defence, which argued that the prosecution could not rely solely on allegations or outstanding charges to establish that Mohamed had breached his bail conditions.

Earlier, the magistrate had ordered that Mohamed, who was on remand at the Lusignan Prison, appear before her for the extradition proceedings. When he appeared 30 minutes later he declared that the “demonic PPP government wants to kill me before the next elections”. He also said that he was in solitary confinement and suffering “maximum punishment”. He added that he had been on a lockdown for 23 hours and 50 minutes and the place was like a “furnace”.

In delivering her decision, Magistrate Latchman distinguished between pending criminal charges and conduct that could justify the revocation of bail, stating that the mere existence of charges did not automatically establish grounds for such an order.

She further said that if Mohamed were convicted of an offence while the extradition proceedings remained ongoing, that conviction could have a bearing on any subsequent application for revocation.

However, she did not consider the circumstances presently before the court sufficient to warrant revoking his bail.

The decision followed arguments challenging the prosecution’s reliance on separate criminal proceedings involving the Opposition Leader.

During submissions, defence counsel maintained that the court’s jurisdiction to revoke bail must be exercised within the statutory framework governing bail conditions and could not be extended merely because fresh allegations had been made against an accused person.

Counsel argued that the filing of charges was not equivalent to a finding of guilt and that the responsibility for determining whether those allegations were supported by sufficient evidence rested with the courts hearing the respective criminal matters.

The defence warned that allowing pending charges alone to justify revocation would create a situation in which allegations, regardless of their eventual outcome, could be used to interfere with an individual’s existing bail arrangements.

Counsel also referred to an earlier bail hearing on October 16, during which another Magistrate considered the circumstances surrounding the separate charges and granted bail after finding that special reasons existed.

The defence contended that the earlier decision was significant, particularly since the court had already considered the circumstances surrounding those allegations before allowing Mohamed’s release on bail.

It was further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a meaningful basis for revoking bail and that the allegations should be tested in the criminal proceedings in which they were brought.

The defence maintained that the existence of separate charges did not, by itself, demonstrate that Mohamed had violated any condition imposed by the court in the extradition matter.

In her ruling, Magistrate Latchman declined the application for revocation, while leaving open the possibility that a subsequent conviction could be relevant to a future application.

The ruling means that Mohamed’s bail in the extradition proceedings remains in place, subject to the existing conditions.

Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, are facing extradition proceedings arising from a request by the United States.

The proceedings remain before Chief Magistrate Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.

Source: Kiskadee Watch

-unable to recall who instructed him to collect extradition documents

Senior Superintendent Prem Narine has admitted that he made no written record of telephone calls through which he received information about the whereabouts of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, during a Special Branch surveillance operation on October 31, 2025.

The admission came during continued cross-examination by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde in the extradition proceedings involving the two men, as the senior police officer was also unable to recall who instructed him to collect a package of extradition documents from the Ministry of Legal Affairs that same morning.

Narine, who heads the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch, told the court that surveillance of the Mohameds began only after arrest warrants had been obtained on October 31, despite having received general permission from the Commissioner of Police to conduct surveillance operations when he assumed responsibility for Special Branch in July 2024.

Forde questioned when the surveillance was authorised, how the Mohameds were located and whether any records existed to independently establish the sequence of events leading up to their arrests.

Initially, Narine explained that when he assumed responsibility for Special Branch in July 2024, the Commissioner of Police had given him general directives concerning his responsibilities.

However, the Magistrate sought clarification on whether those directives amounted to permission to conduct surveillance specifically involving the Mohameds.

“Mr. Narine, I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m trying to get some clarity,” the Magistrate remarked while pressing the witness on when permission had been obtained.

After further questioning, Narine confirmed that he received the general permission in July 2024.

He subsequently clarified that the Mohameds were not under continuous surveillance and that the operation targeting them commenced only after the arrest warrants were obtained on October 31, 2025.

“When I got the warrants, I sent out the surveillance team. They made checks. And then is when we knew where the Mohameds were,” Narine testified.

Asked whether the surveillance had begun before the warrants were issued, he answered in the negative.

Narine also confirmed that information about the Mohameds’ locations was communicated to him through telephone calls received on his personal cellular phone.

However, when Forde questioned whether he had documented the time of those calls or the information communicated, Narine acknowledged that he had not.

“I did not make any record,” he told the court.

He further admitted that he had not instructed any other officer to prepare a written record of the information received.

The questioning then shifted to Narine’s movements on October 31 and his collection of extradition documents from the Ministry of Legal Affairs.

Narine testified that he received instructions that morning to collect a package of documents relating to the extradition proceedings.

Although he knew the documents concerned the Mohameds, he said he did not know exactly which documents he would be collecting or how many were included in the package.

Narine was also unable to recall who had instructed him to collect the documents or whether those instructions had been communicated by telephone or email.

Forde pressed the witness on whether he had attempted to verify the instructions by examining his telephone or email records.

Narine acknowledged that he had not, despite confirming that he still possessed the same telephone number and email address used at the time.

Counsel subsequently requested that Narine check those records before the continuation of cross-examination to determine who had instructed him to visit the Ministry.

Further questions revealed uncertainty surrounding the documentation of the package’s collection.

Narine said he had identified himself to the person who handed over the documents but could not recall whether he had signed anything acknowledging their receipt. He also testified that he had not retained any receipt or document evidencing the collection.

When asked whether there was a record of his movements or the vehicle used that morning, Narine said he could not recall making such an entry or directing anyone else to do so.

He described the person who handed him the package as a woman approximately five feet five inches tall, of medium build and fair complexion, but said he could not provide further identifying details.

The exchanges were not without interruption, as the Magistrate repeatedly questioned the relevance of several questions concerning precisely where in the Ministry building the package was collected and how long Narine had waited to receive it.

Forde maintained that the questions were relevant to testing the witness’s recollection and the circumstances surrounding the collection of documents central to the extradition proceedings.

The Magistrate, however, ruled certain questions irrelevant and directed counsel to move on.

At one stage, Forde insisted that he was entitled to probe the evidence presented by Narine, particularly since he was representing Azruddin Mohamed and was not conceding the accuracy of the witness’s account.

The questioning later turned to the contents of the extradition package, including a Section 6 Certificate, an Authority to Proceed and a treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom relating to British Guiana.

Narine testified that he had read some of the documents before leaving the Ministry but had not examined the entire bundle in detail.

He identified the Section 6 Certificate and Authority to Proceed among the documents he reviewed, along with other materials that appeared to contain affidavits and details of indictments.

However, when Forde questioned him specifically about the extradition treaty, Narine acknowledged that he had only read its first page.

He admitted that he had not read any of the treaty’s articles, including Article 2.

This prompted a legal exchange between Forde and the prosecution over whether Narine could properly be questioned about the treaty’s applicability to Guyana.

The prosecution objected, arguing that the question concerned a matter of law rather than fact and that Narine was not a lawyer.

Forde disagreed, maintaining that he was not asking the witness to interpret the law but rather to explain the factual basis for his earlier testimony about the document.

The Senior Counsel argued that the defence was entitled to challenge the evidential foundation of documents tendered in support of the extradition proceedings.

When asked whether the first page of the treaty contained any reference to Guyana, Narine said he saw a reference to the United Kingdom and understood Guyana to have been a British colony at the relevant time.

Forde then attempted to question him about the date of Guyana’s independence.

That question drew another objection from the prosecution, which argued that the court was not conducting a history lesson and that the question was irrelevant.

Forde maintained that the issue was directly connected to the witness’s explanation of the treaty and the basis upon which he associated the United Kingdom with British Guiana.

The Magistrate ultimately ruled the question irrelevant.

In further submissions, Forde referred to the King extradition case, arguing that the circumstances in that matter differed from the present proceedings.

He contended that the defence was entitled to examine the documents and challenge the evidence supporting the Section 6 Certificate rather than simply accept the conclusions advanced through Narine’s testimony.

Forde also argued that the defence could not be placed in a position where the prosecution determined which witnesses would be called while restricting questions about documents introduced through the witnesses who did testify.

Before the afternoon’s proceedings concluded, Narine was asked whether he recalled seeing a declaration of succession concerning the treaty among the documents he collected.

He responded that he did not know what counsel would classify as such a declaration but had seen wording in the Section 6 Certificate, attached to the treaty, which he considered to constitute a declaration.

Cross-examination was subsequently deferred, with Narine remaining under oath for its continuation.

The extradition proceedings concern a request by the United States for the surrender of Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. The defence’s questioning has focused, among other issues, on the police’s handling of the arrest process and the documents relied upon in the proceedings.

Source: Kiskadee Watch