Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s attorney, Siand Dhurjon, has questioned the legality of his client’s continued detention, arguing that keeping him in police custody beyond the constitutionally prescribed 72-hour period without proper authorisation would amount to unlawful detention.
Dhurjon spoke on Thursday night outside the Kitty Police Station, where supporters protested the detention of Mohamed, his staff Mario Mohamed and Eugene Thorne.
The three men are expected to appear before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to answer charges of unlawful possession of a firearm without a licence, unlawful possession of ammunition without a licence, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The charges were laid following advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Dhurjon said the 72-hour period was due to expire at midnight and warned that holding Mohamed until Friday morning without a lawful extension could breach his constitutional rights.
“If they intend to charge him in the morning and they do not intend to bail him between 12 and the morning, he would have been in nine hours, minimum, unlawful custody,” he said.
He added that the police had neither applied for an extension nor obtained a court order authorising detention beyond that period.
Article 139(4) of Guyana’s Constitution generally requires a person arrested on reasonable suspicion of committing an offence, and who is not released, to be brought before a court within 72 hours. The law provides for an extension through the High Court in circumstances permitted by the Constitution. Whether Mohamed’s detention breached that requirement depends on the precise timeline and whether any lawful extension or relevant court process applied.
Dhurjon alleges political targeting
The attorney also described the case as an attack on political opposition, urging supporters to stand with Mohamed and arguing that the matter had implications for democratic rights.
“If Azruddin Mohamed goes down, we all go down. The country goes down. He is the strongest among us,” Dhurjon said.
He characterised the incident as an abuse of law enforcement against political opponents and maintained that the defence was prepared to challenge the charges in court.
Dhurjon also questioned why the men were not charged with discharging a firearm, arguing that the absence of such a charge raised questions about the initial police account. His claims of political interference and unlawful detention have not been established by a court.
Disputed accounts of Kitty shooting
The case stems from a late-night incident on October 12 near the Kitty residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch.
Police said Narine heard what he believed was gunfire as a vehicle passed his residence and discharged his weapon. The vehicle was later intercepted, and police reported recovering a .32 Taurus pistol without a serial number and three live rounds of ammunition.
Mohamed has disputed that account, saying he and his companions were filming the security presence outside Narine’s home when shots were fired at their vehicle. He has denied knowing about the firearm and alleged that it was planted after their arrest. Those claims have not been independently verified.
The case has drawn further scrutiny because Narine is a witness in the United States extradition proceedings involving Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
The court proceedings will determine the next steps in the case. All three men are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
