Opposition Leader Mohamed Remanded Over CCTV Footage Amid PPP Accountability Concerns
Guyana's opposition leader and two constables have been remanded until November 24 over CCTV footage allegations. Critics question the legal basis and bail refusal for a non-violent offence.
Opposition leader remanded over CCTV footage as governance concerns mount
A letter published by Kaieteur News raises serious legal and political questions about the remand of Guyana's legally mandated opposition leader, Mohamed Azaruddin, along with Constable Ryan Greene and Constable Ashton Chappell, over allegations of soliciting closed-circuit television footage.
The three have been held until November 24 under conditions the letter's author describes as inhumane. In the cases of Mohamed and Greene, the remand was timed immediately before a weekend, a period during which legal counsel could not file an appeal. The letter's author argues this scheduling was deliberate, characterising it as a calculated effort to strip the accused of their right to timely legal recourse — particularly troubling, the author notes, given that the underlying allegations involve a non-violent, bailable offence.
The case stems from an alleged assassination attempt on the opposition leader on 12 October 2026. Mohamed Azaruddin subsequently made accusations against the head of the special branch. According to Kaieteur News, those accusations were not investigated, and no gunpowder residue tests were reportedly conducted following the incident. A police officer, now on close arrest, allegedly copied footage of the incident onto a flash drive and sold it.
The letter raises two distinct legal questions arising from that transaction. First, whether footage obtained in that manner would be admissible as evidence. Second, whether the buyer — in this case a public figure — committed an offence by purchasing it. The author contends that on the facts as reported, the purchaser's stated intent was to place the footage before the public, which he did at a press briefing subsequently broadcast by several media outlets. That motivation, the author argues, does not constitute corrupt intent and therefore does not satisfy the guilty mind required to establish a bribery offence.
Broader governance concerns form the backdrop to these specific legal arguments. The letter's author references what they describe as a pattern of accountability failures under the administration of President Ali and Vice President Jagdeo. Among the specific examples cited: the Public Accounts Committee has allegedly not conducted any audit in three years; state contracts for the Bellvue Pump Station were awarded to entities named as Teipu and Guyana Critic; and state-owned lands were sold to associates at prices the author describes as far below market value, with Pradoville cited as the most prominent case.
The author also raises concerns about the broader trajectory of Guyana's judiciary, pointing to what they describe as a pattern of sentencing inconsistencies in serious criminal cases. As one example, Justice Navindra Singh is cited as having sentenced a killer in the Herstelling murder of a Demerara Harbour Bridge employee to time already served — four years.
The letter stops short of making formal legal accusations but frames the remand of the opposition leader and the constables as part of a wider erosion of legal standards. The author argues that each instance in which the government avoids accountability further weakens the protections available to ordinary citizens and dilutes the application of the country's laws.
No official government response to the claims raised in the letter has been reported by Kaieteur News at the time of publication.
Source: Kaieteur News