-alleges continuous lighting and restricted family visits
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has personally sworn to the High Court that he is being held under what he describes as cruel and inhumane conditions at the Lusignan Prison, alleging that he is allowed outside his cell for only 10 minutes daily, subjected to continuous bright lighting and restricted to 20-minute family visits on Saturdays.
The averments are contained in a 43-page affidavit filed on Wednesday, November 4, following directions from High Court Judge Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif that Mohamed personally provide sworn evidence in support of the application filed by his mother, Bonita Mohamed, challenging the refusal of bail in his cybercrime case.
In the affidavit, Mohamed alleges that he is being confined in Building 5 of the Lusignan Prison, where he is the only prisoner on his floor and cannot see other inmates.
He deposed that his cell is poorly ventilated, has no windows for fresh air and is fitted with a large, bright white light that remains on continuously.
According to Mohamed, prison officials informed him that the light could not be switched off.
He further said that he has been denied access to the prison library and reading materials, apart from a copy of the Koran.
The Opposition Leader also attested that smoke and fumes from a nearby burning dumpsite enter the prison facility, causing him to wheeze, experience headaches and feel unwell.
He further said that the prison’s ventilation system is inadequate and that he has been unable to obtain relief from the heat inside his cell.
The Guyana Prison Service has previously rejected claims that Mohamed is being subjected to inhumane treatment.
The affidavit follows Wednesday’s hearing, during which Justice Chandra-Hanif expressed concern over allegations concerning prolonged artificial lighting and stated that Mohamed should not be held under oppressive circumstances.
During those proceedings, Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC presented a photograph purporting to show Mohamed’s prison cell.
The Judge, who indicated that she had not visited the prison in some time, requested comparable photographic evidence from the defence.
The filing of Mohamed’s affidavit came as Nandlall has sought to strike out large portions of the original affidavit sworn by Bonita Mohamed, arguing that it contains inadmissible hearsay and allegations about matters outside her personal knowledge.
The Attorney General has maintained that Mohamed’s mother could not personally attest to the physical conditions inside the prison because she had not visited the cell.
In addition to his detention conditions, the Opposition Leader challenges the circumstances surrounding his arrest, the allegations against him and the decision by Magistrate Abigail Gibbs to refuse bail.
Mohamed maintains that he has never been convicted of a criminal offence and argues that his previous compliance with bail conditions demonstrates that he is not a flight risk.
He stated that he has substantial assets and fixed places of abode in Guyana, as well as family and political responsibilities that require his presence in the country.
The Opposition Leader also pointed to his role as founder and leader of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, which secured 16 seats in the National Assembly following the September 2025 General and Regional Elections.
He argues that his continued detention prevents him from fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities as Leader of the Opposition and carrying out his duties as an elected representative.
Mohamed also disputed the prosecution’s account of the October 12 shooting incident outside the Kitty residence of Head of Special Branch, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine.
In his affidavit, he maintains that he was travelling through the area with his driver and videographer when police officers intercepted their vehicle following gunfire.
He alleges that Narine discharged a firearm in the direction of the vehicle and that police officers subsequently forced the occupants onto the ground.
Evidential
Mohamed further alleges that officers searched the vehicle and initially found nothing of evidential value.
He swore that a firearm was only discovered during a subsequent search at the Kitty Police Station, after he and the other occupants had already been taken into custody.
Mohamed also addressed the surveillance footage that forms the basis of the cybercrime charge against him and Police Constable Ryan Greene.
He maintains that the footage was relevant to defending himself against serious criminal allegations and exposing what he considers misconduct by police officers.
The Opposition Leader denied paying Greene for the footage and stated that his attorneys had previously informed the Magistrate’s Court that he received it without making any payment.
He also argued that footage recorded by cameras monitoring public streets should not automatically be treated as private information.
According to Mohamed, he had lawful justification for receiving and publicly disclosing the recordings because they were relevant to his defence and the public interest.
These are arguments advanced by Mohamed and his legal team; the criminal allegations have not been determined by the Court.
The affidavit also challenges the decision of Magistrate Abigail Gibbs to refuse bail on October 30.
Mohamed states that no witnesses were called and no evidence was formally produced during the bail hearing, with the decision being based on submissions made by the prosecution and defence.
He maintained that the Magistrate did not find that he had breached any existing bail conditions.
The Opposition Leader further points to separate criminal proceedings in which he had previously been granted bail, arguing that his compliance with those conditions should have been considered.
He also refers to the ongoing extradition proceedings involving himself and his father, Nazar Mohamed, arising from a request by the United States.
Mohamed maintains that he has complied with reporting requirements and other conditions imposed in those proceedings.
His affidavit comes amid a procedural dispute over the admissibility of the evidence supporting his mother’s High Court application.
Following Wednesday’s hearing, attorneys Roysdale Forde SC and Siand Dhurjon maintained that they disagreed with the Attorney General’s contention that Bonita Mohamed’s affidavit constituted hearsay.
Nandlall, however, has strongly criticised the original affidavit, describing it as a “legal deformity” and arguing that the majority of its 146 paragraphs should be struck out.
The defence has until November 6 to respond to Nandlall’s Notice of Application, while the Attorney General may file a further response by November 10.
Oral arguments are scheduled for November 12, with Justice Chandra-Hanif expected to rule on the preliminary application on November 13.
The substantive challenge to the refusal of bail is scheduled to be heard on November 23.
Mohamed and Greene were jointly charged on October 30 with offences relating to the alleged unauthorised obtaining and disclosure of surveillance footage connected to the October 12 shooting incident.
Both pleaded not guilty and were remanded to prison until November 24.
Mohamed remains at the Lusignan Prison while the High Court proceedings continue.
Discussion