Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 October 2026, 20:15 by Written By Denis Chabrol
The Guyana Police Force on Wednesday said another policeman has been fingered in connection with the alleged downloading of a national surveillance video recording of an incident involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and providing him with it.
“Based upon credible information received, the police verily believe that there is still yet another member of the Police Force stationed at the Command Center who is also implicated in the unlawful downloading and removal of the data from the Command Center,” Cadet Officer Stephan Hinds of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) said in an affidavit in reply to a fixed date application for the High Court to order the release of a policeman and his mother in connection with the same matter..
Randy Greene has applied to the High Court for the release of his son 20-year old constable Ryan Greene and his wife Nikita Greene in connection with the same occurrence.
Mr Hinds alleged that the constable Greene admitted to downloading the video in exchange for GY$800,000, being proceeds of crime, that was handed over by Mr Mohamed’s driver, Eugene Thorne on October 24. The Cadet Officer said Ms Thorne’s mother corroborated that she received money and, at the police request, she handed over GY$300,000 to investigators.
The detective said in the affidavit that after the investigations are concluded, the file would be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for advice. He noted that already the Police Legal Adviser (DPP) has found that “several serious criminal offences may have been committed” by Ryan Greene and Nikita Greene.
Stating that Ryan Greene and his mother, Nikita Greene, “remain in lawful custody pending ongoing investigations,” the CID investigator said the habeas corpus application was “premature and wholly without merit” because they were “arrested upon sufficient reasonable grounds and their detention is authorised by Article 139 of the Constitution of Guyana. In the circumstances, the issue of unlawful detention or wrongful imprisonment does not arise.”
“I am further advised by the Deputy Solicitor-General (Shoshanna Lall) and do verily believe that all allegations of law made and contained in the Affidavit of Randy Greene are specious, unmeritorious, and that the Fixed Date Application filed herein should be dismissed with costs,” he said.
The investigation was triggered after the Opposition Leader on Monday played the more than 20-minute long video in his effort to debunk claims by the police force that gun was fired outside the Barr Street, Kitty residence of the Head of Special Branch, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine on the night of October 12. The video also shows Mr Narine firing shots at the car in which Mr Mohamed and two of his employees were travelling. The trio has been charged with being in possession of a handgun and ammunition and attempting to pervert the course of justice because Mr Narine is a witness in the hearing of the US extradition request for Mr Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed to face trial for alleged money laundering and other financial crimes.
The elder Greene wants his son and wife to be produced in the High Court, an order that they be released immediately from police custody or be released on conditions, if any, that the court sees fit; a declaration that the detention of Ryan Greene and Nikita Greene for “conspiracy to commit felony”, without the identification of any felony known to the law of Guyana, is not authorised by law and contravenes Article 139(1) of the Constitution; a declaration that the failure of the police force to inform Ryan Greene and Nikita Greene of the true reasons for their arrest and detention contravenes Article 139(3) of the Constitution; a declaration that the arrest and detention of Ryan Greene upon the allegation that he copied and communicated surveillance footage which records the conduct of members of the Guyana Police Force on 12 October 2026, and which is material to pending criminal proceedings, contravenes Articles 139, 144 and 146 of the Constitution; and a declaration that the publication by the police force on 26 October 2026 of the purported admissions of Ryan Greene, before any charge was laid, is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the protection of the law secured by Article 144 of the Constitution. The Greenes’ lawyer Darren Wade said a conspiracy to commit felony has no legal content unless the felony is identified.
Concerning Nikita Greene, the High Court is being asked to consider that nothing is alleged against her beyond the receipt of money from her son, which is not admitted. “Even if it were established, the receipt of money from one’s son is not an offence. There is no allegation that she knew or suspected the source of any money, or that she was party to any agreement concerning the footage,” also states the applicant for the habeas corpus, Randy Greene.
On the issue of whether Ryan Greene should have disclosed the footage, which is not admitted, his father states that his son’s action was not unlawful and was justified, and he would have had lawful excuse or justification, because the footage was material evidence in pending criminal proceedings. The State, as prosecutor, was obliged to disclose it to the accused persons so as to afford them adequate facilities for their defence under Article 144(2)(c) of the Constitution. “Surveillance footage of a public street, recording an encounter between the Police and a political figure, does not “relate to the national security of the State” within section 9(1)(b). National security cannot be invoked to conceal evidence of unlawful conduct by agents of the State,” states the application.
|
The policeman’s father said the allegation that money was paid rests solely on a purported admission. That admission was said to have been made by a 20-year old constable while under arrest, and was published by the Guyana Police Force before any charge. The elder Greene does not accept that any such admission was made or, if made, that it was voluntarily made or is reliable. “The receipt of any money is not admitted. In any event any bribery or corruption offence is a misdemeanour, not a felony; such an allegation cannot ground detention for “conspiracy to commit felony”; and the police release itself discloses that the continued detention is directed at retrieving money. That is not a purpose for which Article 139(1) permits any person to be deprived of liberty,” states the court papers.
