Retired senior police officer Paul Slowe has called for scrutiny of the Guyana Police Force’s handling of surveillance footage of the October 12 shooting involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, alleging that investigators withheld material favourable to the defence while pursuing its disclosure.
Speaking on his Facebook programme, Speaking Out: Exposing Corruption and Incompetence, Slowe also questioned security arrangements at the Force’s Command Centre following allegations that a 20-year-old constable downloaded the footage and supplied it to Mohamed for $800,000.
Slowe argued that the recordings raised questions about the police and government accounts of the shooting outside the residence of Special Branch Head, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine.
The criminal charges against Mohamed and two employees are before the court.
Slowe recalled that the police’s initial statement said CCTV footage would be reviewed alongside ballistic examinations of a firearm, ammunition and spent shells.
He questioned what investigators had done with the recordings before Mohamed publicly presented them at his October 26 press conference.
“They have evidence that was favourable to the Leader of the Opposition,” Slowe alleged, arguing that withholding such material, rather than its disclosure, should be examined as possible interference with justice.
He challenged suggestions that providing the recording to Mohamed necessarily amounted to perverting the course of justice, contending that its contents could assist the defence.
That position contrasts with Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s remarks on Issues in the News, where he argued that Mohamed should have sought relevant evidence through disclosure in the criminal proceedings. Nandlall said the alleged payment to obtain the footage raised separate questions about bribery and interference with evidence.
Police issued two statements within minutes of each other on October 26 concerning the constable, who is stationed at the Command Centre.
The first said investigators were examining allegations that the rank downloaded the recording without authorisation on October 23 and provided it to Mohamed the following day for $800,000.
The second asserted that the constable admitted acting on Mohamed’s instructions and accepting payment at his Houston, East Bank Demerara residence. Police further alleged that he spent part of the money and handed the remainder to his mother.
Those alleged admissions were recounted by police. Neither statement announced charges against the constable or Mohamed.
Mohamed has given a different account, saying members of the Special Branch supplied the footage because they disagreed with the incident. He maintains that the recording supports his allegation of an assassination attempt.
Emphasis
Slowe questioned the Force’s emphasis on investigating the disclosure without publicly addressing the questions raised by the recording.
He also asked how a junior constable could access and copy the material, what training Command Centre personnel received and what safeguards governed the handling of surveillance information.
“What type of protocols you have there? What type of SOP (Standard Operating Procedures), if any at all, we have?” he asked.
“Who were the supervisors? Where were the supervisors?”
Slowe questioned whether the footage had been formally classified and called for the rules governing access, copying and disclosure to be identified. He also asked how investigators had singled out the constable.
The police statements supplied no details of the Command Centre’s access controls or the evidence used to identify the rank.
Turning to the shooting, Slowe challenged the reported sequence in which Narine allegedly heard a shot, took cover and fired towards the vehicle as it passed his residence for a second time.
He argued that the location of damage to the vehicle required explanation and questioned the interval before a police vehicle moved off in pursuit.
He also questioned the circumstances surrounding the reported discovery of a .22 pistol in the vehicle, alleging that the available evidence suggested it had been planted.
Police have said a search at Kitty Police Station uncovered the firearm and ammunition. Mohamed’s office disputes that account and has called for an independent investigation.
Slowe further criticised the conduct of the interception at Vlissengen Road and Sandy Babb Street, questioning why passing traffic was not brought under control while officers confronted the occupants.
He described the operation as dangerously reckless, arguing that scene management should have protected other road users.
Mohamed and employees Mario Mohamed and Eugene Thorne were charged following the October 12 incident and granted bail of $750,000 each on October 16. They face allegations of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Narine is also a witness in the separate extradition proceedings against Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. Mohamed has said he was near Narine’s residence to document what he considered the misuse of police personnel and vehicles.
Discussion