Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 October 2026, 13:14 by Written By Denis Chabrol
The High Court has been asked to order the release of a 20-year old policeman who the Guyana Police Force has accused of leaking surveillance video to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed in exchange for GY$800,000.
Filed by his father through lawyer Darren Wade, the court action also seeks the police release of the policeman’s mother. The habeas corpus proceedings were brought against Police Commissioner Clifton Hicken and Attorney General Anil Nandlall by Randy Greene on behalf his son Ryan Greene and wife Nikita Greene who were arrested on October 26.
Mr Mohamed 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 court papers seen my Demerara Waves Online News state that the police force’s only reason is “conspiracy to commit felony.” Mr Wade, however, said there was no legal and that amounts to a violation of the Greenes constitutional right “A conspiracy to commit felony has no legal content unless the felony is identified. Article 139(1)(e) of the Constitution permits detention only upon reasonable suspicion of “a criminal offence under the law of Guyana”. Article 139(3) requires that the person detained be informed of the reasons for the detention. The Police cannot satisfy either requirement by naming a category of offence while being unable to identify the offence itself”. Article 139(1) of Guyana’s Constitution protects the right to personal liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty save as may be authorized by law in specific, designated circumstances.
Mr Randy Greene, in the court filings, cites a Guyana Police Force press release issued on October 26, 2026 that states that a 20-year old constable attached to the Command Centre had been arrested in connection with the unauthorised disclosure of surveillance footage and the alleged receipt of $800,000. The court document also states that the press release recited a purported admission by the constable, alleged that he handed part of the money to his mother, stated that detectives were making efforts to retrieve the money, and stated that investigations into “several offences” were continuing but “no offence was named”.
Though not admitting to any misconduct, the court document states that the only conduct against constable Greene was the copying and handing over of the footage and the receipt of money. “None of the offences arguably engaged by that alleged conduct is a felony:.” The document states that sections the Cybercrime Act carry a maximum term of five years’ imprisonment on indictment and are not declared to be felonies, and any bribery or corruption offence is a misdemeanour, not a felony.
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.
