Last Updated on Thursday, 29 October 2026, 14:15 by Written By Denis Chabrol
High Court Judge Christel Lambert on Thursday ruled that 20-year old constable Ryan Greene, who allegedly sold a national surveillance video recording to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed for GY$800,000, has been properly arrested.
However, the judge found that there was no reasonable suspicion at this time to warrant the continued detention of his mother, Nikita Greene and so the “court orders that she be released forthwith from police custody.”
“In the circumstances, the Court finds that the initial arrest of Ryan Greene was supported by objectively reasonable grounds for suspicion and that the subsequent information obtained during the investigation strengthened the basis for that suspicion.
Subject to the continued existence of lawful authority for his detention and compliance with the constitutional safeguards governing persons arrested or detained, the Court is not satisfied that the circumstances warrant an order for his immediate release. Accordingly, the Court declines to order Ryan Greene’s immediate release,” the judge said.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Anil Nandlall on Thursday told the High Court that a policeman is being investigated for several offences. “So you have corruption, you have interference with the administration of justice, you have witness tampering, you have common law bribery,” he told the court.
Before the judge gave her ruling, Mr Nandlall said Ms Greene could be culpable under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act for allegedly receiving the proceeds of crime knowingly or having reasonable grounds to know. He said that offence carries excess of five years in prison. .
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. “This gentleman’s salary.. He is a constable. A person coming home with a bag of money ought to excite the suspicion of a reasonable person,” he said.
Mr Nandlall also told Justice Lambert that when the 72 hours detention expires later Thursday, police would apply for an extension of their custody to facilitate continuing investigations. After the decision, Mr Nandlall indicated to reporters that the woman would be released from police custody
Defence lawyer Dr Dexter Todd said the detainees ought to be told the offence for which they are held, but the Attorney General countered saying they could only be told the reason and the offence would depend on legal advice.
Justice Lambert said the lawfulness of the arrest and the continuing detention of Ms Greene because she allegedly received GY$300,000 from her son, without more, does not amount to reasonable suspicion of an offence at this time.
The judge said the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General failed to demonstrate objectively reasonable grounds for suspecting Ms Greene of having committed a criminal offence. She said the affidavit does not establish the factual or legal basis upon which her arrest and continued detention were justified. In the circumstances, Justice Lambert found that Nikita Greene’s detention has not been justified under Article 139(1)(e) of the Constitution.” The Court is mindful of the fundamental purpose of the writ of habeas corpus as a safeguard against unlawful deprivation of liberty. Where the detaining authority fails to establish a lawful justification for detention, the Court must give effect to the constitutional protection of personal liberty,” she added.
In reasoning her decision to order the continued detention of constable Greene, Justice Lambert said constable Greene’s arrest did not occur in a “vacuum” but was linked to public disclosure of surveillance footage originating from the police command centre and the police maintained that the footage had been accessed, removed and disseminated without the requisite authorisation. The disclosure of such material, allegedly obtained from a police-controlled electronic system without permission, provided an objective basis for investigating whether criminal offences had been committed, she said while noting that there might be offences under the Cybercrime Act.
“Having considered the evidence in its entirety, the Court is satisfied that Ryan Greene’s arrest was neither arbitrary nor without lawful justification. The public disclosure of surveillance footage alleged to have been removed without authorisation from the Police Command Centre, taken together with the information received by the police concerning Ryan Greene’s suspected involvement in that disclosure, provided an objective basis for suspecting his involvement in conduct capable of constituting a criminal offence under the laws of Guyana. The Court is accordingly satisfied that the reasonable suspicion requirement contemplated by Article 139(1)(e) of the Constitution was met at the time of his arrest,” she said.
Defence lawyer Darren Wade welcomed the judge’s decision as “well-reasoned”.
