Opposition Leader, policeman remanded to prison on Cybercrime charge over leaked CCTV video

On the evening of October 30, 2026, Guyana’s Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed was formally ordered to be held at the country’s prison facility until November 24 of the same year, following a ruling at the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court related to a charge filed under national cybercrime legislation.
Mohamed was charged alongside 20-year-old serving police constable Ryan Greene, with both individuals accused of violating Section 9 (2)(b) of the Cybercrime Act. The specific legislative provision stipulates that any person who, through either authorized or unauthorized channels, accesses or retrieves electronic data linked to state national security, or data stored on a computer system that is legally protected against unsanctioned access, faces a maximum penalty of a GYD$8 million fine and five years of imprisonment if convicted via indictment.
The case traces back to a public shooting incident that took place on October 12, involving the vehicle carrying Mohamed, his personal driver, and a staff member. Authorities allege the shooting was carried out by Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, the head of the Guyana Police Force’s espionage division. At the time of the new cybercrime charge, Mohamed, his driver, and his staff member were already out on bail, facing separate counts of illegal firearm and ammunition possession, as well as attempted obstruction of justice for allegedly discharging a loaded gun near Narine’s home. Narine is listed as a critical witness in ongoing court proceedings tied to a United States extradition request targeting both Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
According to official police statements, Constable Greene confessed to downloading surveillance footage of the October 12 shooting from a government-operated surveillance network, before selling the 20-plus minute clip to Mohamed for a sum of GYD$800,000. Mohamed later publicly screened the full video during a press conference held the Monday prior to his court appearance.
Presiding Magistrate Abigail Gibbs denied Mohamed’s application for bail during the Friday afternoon hearing, citing concerns that Mohamed had previously been granted bail on multiple occasions and now faced additional new criminal allegations. Mohamed’s lead defence counsel Roysdale Forde immediately announced plans to file sequential appeals across three judicial bodies: the Guyana High Court, the Guyana Court of Appeal, and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), to challenge the bail refusal ruling. Speaking to assembled reporters outside the Sparendaam court building, Forde stated that legal teams would submit an emergency bail application to the High Court without delay, emphasizing that there was no legitimate legal justification for the magistrate’s decision to deny his client bail. Forde further alleged that his client was the target of deliberate political persecution by the current government, and that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove all required elements of the cybercrime offence.
As Forde addressed the press, Mohamed and Constable Greene were swiftly escorted out of the court premises via the eastern gate, and driven away in an unmarked police vehicle. A small gathering of supporters from Mohamed’s We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) political party gathered outside the court, chanting slogans demanding the opposition leader’s immediate release, and voicing their defiance against the remand order.
Representing co-accused Constable Greene, lawyer Darren Wade argued that the entire cybercrime charge against his client was legally unfounded. Wade noted that the footage in question captured public events on Barr Street (near Narine’s residence), Vlissengen Road, and Sandy Babb Street, and contained no content related to national security, dismissing the application of the Cybercrime Act as “nonsensical”.
Multiple members of the local press were barred from entering the courtroom by police personnel during the proceedings. When asked if the defence teams had raised objections to the media exclusion, Forde responded that his legal team had not been made aware that journalists were being denied access to the hearing.