The emergence of new video of the shooting in Kitty on October 12 which has led to the incarceration of the Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed has underlined the importance of this type of evidence and the need for the law enforcement and judicial authorities here to address it in a serious and comprehensive manner
Events separated by thousands of miles can expose a common vulnerability in public life: the danger that arises when those exercising state power also control the evidence by which their conduct must be judged. The connection between the Jamal Khashoggi case and the controversy involving Guyana’s Opposition Leader lies in the struggle between official accounts and independently examinable evidence.
On October 2, 2018, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain documents required for his forthcoming marriage. His fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, waited outside. He never returned. Saudi authorities initially maintained that he had left the building. Surveillance images documenting his arrival became an important part of the evidence against which official explanations were tested. His disappearance ultimately emerged as a killing inside the consulate.
The significance extended beyond the images themselves. Information reaching the public made it possible to challenge an account issued by a powerful state. Without independent reporting, disclosures and sustained scrutiny, official possession of information can become official control over what the public is permitted to believe.
That question is relevant to the October 12, 2026 encounter involving Mohamed and Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch. Mr Mohamed released surveillance recordings which he said contradicted the police account and supported his allegation that an attempt had been made on his life. His interpretation remains contested. The recordings’ completeness, context and significance require independent examination. Their availability nevertheless makes scrutiny possible. The new video yesterday increases the pressure on the authorities for full disclosure and an evaluation of the roles of all the actors.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has described the alleged unauthorised extraction and disclosure of command-centre footage as a serious threat to operational confidentiality. It has called for a review of personnel, access controls, supervision and procedures. Those concerns leave a consequential question unanswered: what safeguards ensure that evidence remains accessible when the conduct under examination is that of the police themselves?
Investigating how footage was obtained does not resolve what it records. Allegations concerning its acquisition must be determined on their evidence. Allegations concerning police conduct require an equally searching investigation. If the disclosure becomes the centre of institutional attention while the conduct disclosed receives less scrutiny, accountability has been displaced.
This is where whistleblowing becomes essential to open democracy. People within institutions sometimes possess evidence that the public cannot obtain and that those in authority have little incentive to release. Their disclosures can expose misconduct, correct misleading accounts and give investigators a starting point. Journalists and media organisations perform a related function by verifying material, seeking responses and bringing matters of public importance before citizens.
That value does not make every unauthorised disclosure legally protected, nor does it establish that any particular accused person qualifies as a whistleblower. Allegations of payment or other unlawful conduct require examination. But the public-interest value of disclosed evidence cannot be extinguished merely by alleging an offence in its acquisition. The authorities must answer what the evidence reveals as well as how it emerged. This is also the case with yesterday’s video.
A surveillance system may contain sensitive information. That fact cannot make every recording within it equally secret or place evidence of possible police misconduct beyond independent examination. Authorities should identify the concrete harm the disclosure allegedly caused and explain what lawful route existed for bringing the underlying concerns to an independent body.
Publicly funded surveillance creates responsibilities to preserve recordings, document access and secure lawful examination by courts, investigators and affected persons.
Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond has in the past praised surveillance cameras. That benefit must apply equally when recordings concern a senior officer and the Leader of the Opposition. Their evidential value cannot depend on whose account they appear to support.
An open democracy depends on citizens being able to test official claims. Whistleblowers, journalists and independent investigators help make that possible. A government that concentrates its energies on controlling disclosure while leaving the disclosed conduct inadequately examined undermines the accountability it claims to defend.
Citizens paid for these cameras to strengthen justice. The state must not turn its custody of their recordings into custody of the truth.
Discussion