Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed is in police custody following a late-night shooting incident outside the Kitty residence of Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine, the head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch, in a case that has raised serious questions about the circumstances of the encounter, the recovery of a firearm and the need for an independently verifiable account of what transpired.
The Guyana Police Force confirmed that Mohamed, his driver and a third man were arrested after the incident, which occurred shortly before midnight on Monday along Barr Street, Kitty.
According to the police account, Narine was at home when he observed a black Toyota Allion, registration number PXX 5300, travelling slowly along the street. The vehicle reportedly passed his residence and returned shortly afterwards.
Police said that when the car approached a second time, Narine heard what appeared to be a gunshot. He took cover and discharged several rounds from his service weapon in the direction of the vehicle, which subsequently drove away.
The vehicle was later intercepted at the junction of Vlissengen Road and Sandy Babb Street, Kitty. Its occupants were identified as Mohamed, 39, of Houston, East Bank Demerara; Mario Mohamed, 25, of Timehri; and Eugene Thorne, 35, also of Timehri.
Police said a search conducted in the presence of the three men uncovered a .32 Taurus pistol without a serial number and three live .32 rounds, allegedly beneath the accelerator pedal. The men were arrested in connection with the alleged possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence.
One spent .32 shell was reportedly recovered on the southern side of Barr Street, opposite Narine’s residence, along with four spent 9mm shells. Police said the firearm, ammunition and recovered shells were lodged for ballistic testing, while CCTV footage from the area would be reviewed.
Mohamed alleges police fired at him and planted gun
Mohamed has strongly disputed the police account and denied knowing anything about the firearm or ammunition. He has alleged that the weapon was planted in his vehicle and accused police of firing at the car.
In a Facebook Live broadcast earlier today, Mohamed alleged officers fired several shots along Barr Street and again near Vlissengen Road. He claimed that the police initially searched the vehicle without finding a weapon, but subsequently produced a firearm from beneath the accelerator.
His attorney, Siand Dhurjon, also questioned how a weapon could have been beneath the accelerator while the vehicle was being driven.
The allegations of planting a firearm and deliberately shooting at Mohamed are serious and have not been independently established. The police have not, in the information available for this report, publicly responded to those specific allegations.
The ballistic examination and CCTV review could prove significant in establishing the sequence of events, including whether the recovered shells correspond to firearms discharged during the encounter and whether available footage corroborates either account.
The central questions are straightforward: What prompted the shooting? Was a firearm recovered from the vehicle, and under what circumstances? What evidence supports the allegation that a shot was fired from the car? And can independent forensic evidence establish what happened?
Incident involves officer at centre of extradition proceedings
The case carries additional significance because Narine is a key police witness in the ongoing United States extradition proceedings involving Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed.
During cross-examination in September, Narine told the court that information available to him suggested Mohamed was connected to several alleged killings and other serious offences. He described the Opposition Leader as a threat to national security.
However, Narine acknowledged during those proceedings that the allegations he outlined had not resulted in charges against Mohamed. He also did not identify any court finding that Mohamed had committed the alleged offences. These claims remain distinct from the current firearm investigation.
The fact that the officer involved in Monday night’s incident is also a witness in Mohamed’s extradition case makes transparency particularly important. It does not, by itself, establish that the two matters are connected or that either party acted improperly.
Mohamed and his father are separately contesting the US extradition proceedings, which arise from allegations of financial crimes in the United States. Those allegations have not been adjudicated in a US criminal trial.
Forensic evidence must settle the dispute
The three men remained in police custody as investigations continued, according to the information provided by the Guyana Police Force.
Given the seriousness of the competing accounts, the investigation must establish the facts through reliable evidence rather than competing assertions. The handling of the recovered firearm, the integrity of the chain of custody, ballistic findings, CCTV footage and statements from witnesses will be critical.
The public is entitled to a clear explanation of what occurred. Mohamed’s position as Opposition Leader does not place him above the law, but neither should his political office or the allegations against him diminish his right to due process.
Until the evidence is examined and the circumstances established, the firearm allegation remains an investigative matter—not proof of guilt.
