Serious questions have been raised about the conditions under which Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed is being held at Lusignan Prison, with his attorneys, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Attorney Siand Dhurjon, challenging both his treatment in custody and the State’s opposition to his release on bail.
The matter was heard on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif at the High Court in Demerara.
The concerns featured prominently during High Court proceedings on an application filed by Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, seeking judicial intervention over the decision to deny her son bail.
Forde welcomed the court’s consideration of the circumstances surrounding Mohamed’s detention, maintaining that his client was being held in solitary confinement under conditions he described as inhumane, oppressive and potentially psychologically damaging.
He argued that the allegations contained in the affidavit filed by Bonita Mohamed had not been contradicted by any affidavit or documentary evidence from the Attorney General.
Forde specifically highlighted concerns about prolonged exposure to bright artificial lighting, an issue he said had already attracted the court’s attention. He recalled that the court had made clear that Mohamed should not be detained under circumstances that could cause psychological harm or be intended to break his will.
The attorney also questioned the significance of a photograph released by the Guyana Prison Service showing the interior of Mohamed’s cell. The Prison Service had issued the photograph while denying allegations that the Opposition Leader was being subjected to torturous conditions.
Forde maintained, however, that a photograph did not adequately address the broader allegations about his client’s confinement. He called for disclosure of the actual conditions under which Mohamed was being held, describing the situation as deplorable and regrettable.
Forde challenges State’s legal arguments
Forde also challenged the State’s approach to the proceedings, particularly its objections to the affidavit submitted by Mohamed’s mother.
He argued that the court should examine the substance of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding Mohamed’s detention rather than allow procedural and technical arguments to overshadow the fundamental issues raised in the application.
The defence further raised concerns about access to their client and the need to obtain his direct account of the conditions under which he was being held.
The court directed that arrangements be made for Mohamed’s attorneys to meet with him at Lusignan Prison to facilitate the preparation of an additional affidavit in his name.
Forde’s submissions emphasised the importance of ensuring that Mohamed has a meaningful opportunity to challenge his continued detention and present evidence concerning his treatment.
Dhurjon questions Attorney General’s opposition to bail
Dhurjon also questioned the State’s opposition to bail, pointing out that the offence with which Mohamed has been charged is classified as non-serious under the Bail Act.
He questioned why Attorney General Anil Nandlall had mounted such an extensive opposition to the application, drawing a comparison with bail proceedings involving Daniel Seeram, during which, he said, the Attorney General had raised no objection.
According to Dhurjon, the current proceedings had been unnecessarily prolonged by technical and legalistic arguments.
He accused Nandlall of successfully delaying the matter and ensuring that the Opposition Leader would remain behind bars for at least another two weeks.
In a sarcastic remark directed at the Attorney General, Dhurjon said: “Congratulations to him.”
The defence maintains that Mohamed’s continued detention warrants close judicial scrutiny, particularly in light of the classification of the offence and the circumstances outlined in the application.
Prison conditions and the rule of law
The Guyana Prison Service’s release of a photograph of Mohamed’s cell and its denial of allegations of torture have not resolved the controversy surrounding his detention.
The central issues before the court include whether the conditions of his confinement meet the standards of humane treatment and whether the decision to deny bail should stand.
Mohamed was charged alongside Police Constable Ryan Greene in connection with allegations involving the unauthorised obtaining and dissemination of electronic data from the Guyana Police Force’s Safe City surveillance system. Constable Ashton Chappelle was subsequently charged on November 3 with a similar offence. All three men were remanded to Lusignan Prison until November 24.
The defence is seeking judicial intervention against the decision to deny Mohamed bail while also challenging the conditions under which he is being detained.
The proceedings therefore place two significant issues before the judiciary: the lawfulness of Mohamed’s continued detention and the State’s responsibility to ensure that an individual who has not been convicted is treated humanely and afforded due process.
The matter was adjourned to November 12, with a ruling expected on November 13.
