标签： Guyana

Georgetown, Guyana – October 30, 2026: The A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) coalition issued a carefully calibrated public statement late Friday evening expressing profound concern over the recent prison remand of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, who was taken into custody following a string of new arrests and formal charges filed against him in recent weeks. The statement, released hours after Mohamed was ordered detained pending trial, avoided explicit condemnation of ongoing prosecution efforts, even as it highlighted the unusual frequency of detentions targeting the sitting head of the parliamentary opposition. The governing coalition’s largest affiliate, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), joined APNU in framing its position around upholding the rule of law, noting that no individual in Guyana, regardless of public office, personal affluence or social standing, is exempt from legal accountability. The party clarified it does not endorse any violation of national statutes, and that all formal allegations must be adjudicated fairly in a court of law, with full legal penalties applied if wrongdoing is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Court documents confirm Mohamed faces a sprawling slate of charges spanning multiple alleged offenses: operating a vessel without valid personal and maritime permits, flying an unregistered drone over President Irfaan Ali’s private residential compound in Leonora, West Coast Demerara, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, and attempting to obstruct the course of justice by discharging a firearm in close proximity to a witness involved in an active extradition case. A separate high-profile charge relates to alleged breaches of Guyana’s Cybercrime Act, stemming from a police surveillance video Mohamed played publicly during a press conference earlier this week. Notably, APNU’s official statement made no reference to 20-year-old police constable Ryan Greene, who was jointly charged alongside Mohamed and also remanded to prison; authorities allege Greene illegally downloaded the restricted surveillance footage and sold it to the opposition leader for GY$800,000. On the specific question of bail eligibility, APNU emphasized that the Cybercrime Act offense Mohamed faces is classified as non-violent, and his legal counsel maintains the charge qualifies for bail under existing national statutes. The coalition called on the High Court to base its upcoming review of Mohamed’s bail application exclusively on admissible evidence, in strict compliance with the country’s Bail Act, which stipulates that bail may only be refused if the court finds credible, evidence-backed reason to believe the defendant will commit additional offenses while awaiting trial. APNU stressed that unproven allegations do not equal criminal convictions, and the longstanding legal principle of the presumption of innocence must be upheld for all defendants. The coalition added that fundamental legal safeguards including due process and the right to a fair public hearing are enshrined for every Guyanese citizen, and the party will not remain passive if these protected freedoms are systematically eroded. The political context of the dispute carries significant weight: during the September 2025 general and regional elections, Mohamed’s political movement “We Invest in Nationhood (WIN)” made unprecedented inroads into APNU/PNCR’s traditional long-term support base, securing 16 parliamentary seats to claim the position of official main opposition, while APNU secured only 12 seats, marking a historic shift in Guyana’s parliamentary political landscape.

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.

On the afternoon of October 29, 2026, near the historic Burnham basketball court at the intersection of Middle and Carmichael Streets in central Georgetown, a tense standoff unfolded between local law enforcement officers and a female demonstrator affiliated with the anti-We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) movement, only to be interrupted by an unexpected intervention from sitting government minister Kwame Mc Coy. As uniformed officers had surrounded the woman’s personal vehicle and were in the process of issuing directives to her regarding the audio system playing recorded news reports from her car, Minister Mc Coy approached the scene and made a public, on-the-record statement directly to the protester, explicitly informing her she held full permission to raise the volume of her car’s audio equipment. The minister’s public declaration immediately prompted the assembled police detail to step back from the vehicle and abandon their prior engagement with the woman. Mc Coy went on to contextualize his directive, arguing that if organizers and attendees of the unapproved anti-WIN demonstration had been granted de facto permission to assemble in a public space without facing immediate dispersal or arrest, the female demonstrator held equal right to operate her car’s audio system to broadcast news content without police interference. The scene shifted dramatically shortly after Minister Mc Coy departed the site to travel to State House, where he was required to attend a formal official reception hosted by President Irfaan Ali for visiting British monarch King Charles III. With the minister no longer present to act as a buffer, the demonstrator followed through on the earlier guidance she had received and turned her car audio system’s volume to a significantly higher level. Within minutes, the same lead police officer who had initially engaged the woman arrived back at the scene accompanied by a team of subordinate officers, and issued a formal, mandatory order for her to power off the entire car audio system. The demonstrator, facing no further political intervention, complied with the police order without additional public pushback.

On the afternoon of Thursday, 29 October 2026, a tense standoff unfolded a short distance from Guyana’s State House, where President Irfaan Ali was preparing to welcome United Kingdom’s King Charles III for an official state reception later that same day. The unrest kicked off as hundreds of supporters of the opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WiN) party gathered to stage a demonstration, their chants cutting through the air as uniformed police officers maintained a visible perimeter around the protest site. The demonstration was sparked by the arrest of WiN party leader Azruddin Mohamed the previous day, on allegations that he had paid a police officer GY$800,000 to obtain restricted police surveillance footage. Protesters repeatedly shouted rallying cries demanding his immediate release, with slogans including “Free our leader now. Freedom now. Hands off our leader. Hands off him now.” Earlier that day, law enforcement had attempted to take Hana Mohamed, sister of the detained opposition leader, into custody, a move that further galvanized the crowd’s anger. Moments after the WiN supporters’ chants reached a crescendo, a separate contingent of demonstrators opposed to Azruddin Mohamed arrived on the scene, carrying placards emblazoned with messages that read “Give the people back their wealth”, “Extradite Mohamed now”, and “Mohamed tell us what happened to Paper Shorts”. To prevent violent clashes between the two rival groups, police units quickly formed a physical barrier to keep the opposing factions separated, ensuring no direct confrontations broke out in the lead-up to King Charles’ scheduled state reception at the heavily secured State House compound.

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados – In a landmark shift for Caribbean regional diplomacy, Trinidad and Tobago has become the first Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member state in decades to cast a direct vote against a long-running United Nations resolution demanding an end to the United States’ decades-old trade, economic and commercial embargo on Cuba, as regional governments showed unprecedented division on the longstanding global advocacy issue during the October 28, 2026 General Assembly vote. The final tally marked a sharp reversal of recent years’ overwhelming support for the anti-embargo measure: the resolution passed by 130 votes in favor, 17 opposed, and 25 abstentions, a steep decline from the 2025 outcome that saw 165 supporting votes, just 7 opposing ballots, and only 12 abstentions. Beyond the Caribbean, Havana lost significant traditional backing across both Western Hemisphere and European nations in the latest procedural round. Of the CARICOM delegations present for the preceding Wednesday’s assembly debate, Jamaica, Haiti and Guyana opted to abstain, while The Bahamas, Belize, Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Suriname maintained their traditional supportive stance for the resolution. Three CARICOM states – Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, and St. Lucia – were recorded as absent when the vote was called. Jamaica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Kamina Johnson-Smith laid out Kingston’s rationale for its historic abstention during a post-vote press briefing, framing the decision as a deliberate, months-long policy shift rather than an impulsive break from regional norms. Johnson-Smith noted that Prime Minister Andrew Holness first flagged deepening regional concern over Cuba’s worsening humanitarian crisis during a CARICOM summit hosted in St. Kitts and Nevis earlier in 2026, where he reaffirmed Jamaica’s enduring solidarity with the Cuban people but called for structured U.S.-Cuba dialogue to de-escalate tensions and improve living conditions for ordinary citizens, and suggested CARICOM could play a neutral, constructive mediating role to advance that goal. The foreign minister added that she formally articulated this revised national position during her address to the 2026 UN General Assembly in New York, restating that Jamaica remained deeply troubled by widespread Cuban shortages of food, life-saving medications, energy and other critical essentials, but that the annual UN resolution’s narrow framing no longer aligned with Kingston’s broader policy priorities. She explained that the Jamaican parliament had formally tabled a bipartisan motion just one day prior to the UN vote, which moved beyond the longstanding regional demand for a simple end to the embargo to explicitly call for accelerated Cuban domestic economic and institutional reform, full respect for fundamental universal human rights, and structured, mutually respectful bilateral engagement between Havana and Washington to reduce trade and financial barriers and facilitate Cuba’s gradual, supported integration into the global economic system. Johnson-Smith emphasized that the existing text of the UN resolution did not incorporate any of these additional priority elements, and that no amendments to the document were permitted ahead of the vote. “We did not vote against the measure, because we remain opposed to all unilateral coercive measures that violate the UN Charter, but we also could not vote in favor of a resolution that we now recognize has been reintroduced year after year with zero meaningful progress to ease Cuban suffering, and in fact has coincided with a deepening humanitarian crisis for ordinary Cubans,” she told reporters. The minister added that the revised stance also aligned with Jamaica’s broader commitment to advancing meaningful reform of global multilateral institutions, to ensure existing frameworks can deliver on the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda for all nations rather than remaining stuck in repetitive, ineffective procedural cycles. She reaffirmed that Jamaica’s longstanding warm bilateral ties with Cuba, rooted in geographic proximity, shared historical heritage and mutual respect for national sovereignty, remained fully intact, and that Kingston would continue to advocate for balanced solutions that address both the harms of the U.S. embargo and domestic structural constraints that have limited Cuban productivity, foreign investment and broad-based economic opportunity for its population.

On the afternoon of Wednesday, October 28, 2026, Guyana’s prominent opposition figure Azruddin Mohamed, head of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) political movement, was taken into police custody at his residential property in Eccles, East Bank Demerara, as law enforcement escalates a wide-ranging investigation into his unauthorized possession of restricted government surveillance footage tied to two alleged shooting incidents that unfolded earlier that month. The arrest was formally confirmed by Deputy Commissioner Wendell Blanhum, who leads the Guyana Police Force’s elite Criminal Investigations Department.

Parallel law enforcement sources have revealed the detention is part of a broader probe into an alleged corrupt quid pro quo arrangement involving a 20-year-old serving police constable. According to official police allegations, the young officer confessed to downloading the sensitive surveillance video onto a portable flash drive before handing the storage device directly to Mohamed, in exchange for a payment of GY$800,000. Both the junior officer and his mother have remained in police custody as of Wednesday, a development that prompted the constable’s father to file an urgent habeas corpus motion in the High Court, seeking an immediate order to either produce the pair before a judicial officer for formal custody review or grant their unconditional or conditional release.

This latest arrest adds a new layer of complexity to a months-long, high-stakes legal saga surrounding the opposition leader, who previously appeared in court alongside his personal driver and a contracted videographer, with all three released on GY$750,000 bail each on joint charges of unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm, illegal ammunition ownership, and attempting to obstruct the course of justice by discharging a weapon in the vicinity of the private residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, the head of the police force’s Special Branch unit. Narine has emerged as a central witness in ongoing extradition proceedings launched by United States authorities, who are seeking to transfer him to face trial on charges of money laundering, wire fraud, and mail fraud linked to his private gold trading operations. Notably, Azruddin Mohamed’s own father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, is also listed as a wanted fugitive by U.S. law enforcement on identical sets of financial crime allegations.

The contested surveillance footage at the heart of the current probe was publicly released by Mohamed during a packed press conference held two days prior, on Monday, October 26. The opposition leader presented the clip as concrete evidence to refute Narine’s official account of the October 12 late-night incident, in which Narine had claimed a shot was fired from the vehicle carrying Mohamed and his two associates while the group was inside the car. Mohamed has repeatedly alleged that Narine himself opened fire on the moving vehicle multiple times in a deliberate assassination attempt that night; no passengers sustained physical injuries in the incident, though multiple bullets struck and damaged the car’s exterior. Mohamed and his legal representative Siand Dhurjon, who were both present at the Kitty Police Station during a formal search of the vehicle in the immediate aftermath of the October 12 encounter, have publicly stated that a handgun mysteriously materialized under the car’s accelerator pedal with no clear chain of custody to link it to the opposition leader or his staff.

Filed on behalf of 20-year-old police constable Ryan Greene and his mother Nikita Greene by Ryan’s father Randy Greene, through prominent local legal representative Darren Wade, a landmark habeas corpus petition has been submitted to Guyana’s High Court, demanding the immediate release of the two detainees who were taken into police custody on October 26, 2026. The legal action names two senior state officials as respondents: Police Commissioner Clifton Hicken and Attorney General Anil Nandlall.

The case traces its origins to a 22+ minute surveillance clip that Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed publicly screened during a press conference on the preceding Monday. The footage directly contradicts official Guyana Police Force (GPF) claims that an individual opened fire outside the Kitty, Georgetown residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the police Special Branch, on October 12, 2026. Instead, the unedited recording captures Narine discharging multiple rounds directly at the vehicle carrying Mohamed and two of his staff members. Mohamed and the two employees are currently facing criminal charges of illegal firearm and ammunition possession, alongside allegations of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The legal context behind these charges is that Narine is listed as a key witness in ongoing proceedings related to a U.S. extradition request seeking to transfer Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed to face trial on transnational money laundering and associated financial crime accusations.

The GPF has publicly alleged that Constable Greene, assigned to the force’s central command centre, leaked the sensitive surveillance footage to Mohamed in exchange for a payment of GY$800,000, and that he passed a portion of the sum to his mother Nikita. The force’s only formal stated justification for the pair’s detention is the vague charge of “conspiracy to commit felony”, with no specific criminal offence identified in any public statement or detention notice. The GPF also published a purported signed admission from Ryan Greene on the day of his arrest, before any formal charges had been officially laid against him.

The multi-pronged High Court petition outlines sweeping constitutional violations the legal team argues the GPF has committed against the two detainees. First, the application demands that both Ryan and Nikita Greene be physically produced before the High Court at the earliest opportunity, and that they be either unconditionally released from custody immediately or granted bail on any reasonable conditions the judiciary deems appropriate. It further seeks formal judicial declarations that: the detention of both individuals for the undefined “conspiracy to commit felony” is unlawful and directly violates Article 139(1) of Guyana’s Constitution, which enshrines the fundamental right to personal liberty and only permits detention on reasonable suspicion of a clearly defined, existing criminal offence under national law; the GPF’s failure to promptly inform the two detainees of the exact, specific grounds for their arrest breaches Article 139(3) of the Constitution; Ryan Greene’s arrest over the alleged copying and distribution of footage that documents GPF members’ conduct on October 12, 2026 – evidence directly relevant to active pending criminal proceedings – violates three separate constitutional provisions covering personal liberty, protection of the law, and freedom of expression; and the GPF’s pre-charge publication of Ryan Greene’s alleged statement violates the constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence embedded in Article 144.

Lead counsel Darren Wade emphasized that the GPF’s failure to name a specific underlying felony offence renders the entire detention legally void, as a “conspiracy to commit felony” charge has no legal standing if no distinct criminal felony is identified. Court documents reviewed by independent local outlet Demerara Waves note that no offence cited as a potential basis for the alleged conduct qualifies as a felony under Guyanese law: offences under the national Cybercrime Act carry a maximum 5-year custodial sentence on indictment and are not classified as felonies, while any alleged bribery or corruption-related offence is legally categorized as a misdemeanour, not a felony.

For Nikita Greene, the legal filing stresses that no specific unlawful conduct has ever been alleged against her beyond the unproven claim that she received money from her son, a routine familial interaction that is not defined as a criminal offence under any Guyanese statute. There is no evidence or formal allegation that she had any knowledge of the footage leak, the alleged source of the funds, or any agreement related to the distribution of the surveillance recording.

The petition further argues that even if Ryan Greene was confirmed to have shared the footage, his actions were legally justified: the recording constituted critical exculpatory evidence for the three individuals facing criminal charges related to the October 12 incident, and the state as prosecuting authority was legally obligated to disclose all such material to the defence under Article 144(2)(c) of the Constitution to guarantee a fair trial. The filing explicitly rejects any potential state claim that the public street surveillance footage qualifies as protected national security material, noting that national security exemptions cannot be invoked to conceal documented evidence of potential unlawful conduct by state law enforcement agents.

Finally, the application challenges the validity of the purported pre-charge admission published by the GPF, noting that Randy Greene does not accept that any such admission was made voluntarily, or that it is factually reliable. The petition also points out that the GPF’s publicly stated goal of detaining the pair solely to recover the alleged GY$800,000 sum is not a legally permitted purpose for deprivation of personal liberty under the terms of Article 139 of Guyana’s Constitution.