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.
Discussion