Nandlall Moves to Block Interim Bail Bid for Opposition Leader

By Mark DaCosta- Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, has urged the High Court to throw out an application, filed on November 8, 2026, that seeks interim bail for Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed. His thesis is that bail cannot be sought as a standalone interim remedy while the main judicial review is still undecided, because release can only follow a ruling that the magistrate erred. The question is procedural, but it decides whether the Opposition Leader stays in custody until the main hearing on November 23.

The matter came before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif at the Demerara High Court on Thursday November 12. Mohamed is contesting Magistrate Abigail Gibbs’ refusal, on October 30, to grant him bail on an charge under the Cybercrime Act 2018. His mother, Bonita Mohamed, acts as his next friend, a person who may litigate on behalf of someone unable to appear. She is asking the court to quash the magistrate’s decision and admit him to bail.

Two legal terms matter here. An interlocutory application is a request made in the middle of a case, before final judgment, to settle an urgent or preliminary issue. Interim bail is temporary release, granted for a limited period while a larger question, such as a bail appeal or review, is pending. The defence says that waiting until November 23 would cause harm that no later ruling could undo.

Nandlall’s objection goes to the structure of the case. He argues that the defence has misunderstood how judicial review works, calling the application a “jurisprudential error”. The proceedings, he says, are a challenge to a magistrate’s decision, not a bail hearing. In his words: “Bail is a consequence.” If the court finds the magistrate wrong, release may follow, but it cannot come first through the back door. He wants the application struck out without the judge weighing whether Mohamed should be freed temporarily.

The defence, led by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde along with attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva, argues that continued detention is causing prejudice that cannot be repaired afterwards. Mrs Bonita Mohamed has proposed conditions: surrendering his travel documents, remaining in the country, reporting regularly to a police station, and avoiding his co-accused and prosecution witnesses except through lawyers. The defence also points to his duties as Opposition Leader, his family circumstances and his compliance with bail terms in other proceedings.

The charge alleges that Mohamed and Police Constable Ryan Greene unlawfully obtained and passed on data from the Police Force’s Safe City surveillance system. The footage concerns the October 12 shooting outside the Kitty home of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Special Branch. The prosecution alleges it was taken from the Police Command Centre at Liliendaal and handed over for $800,000. Mohamed denies the allegation, and the charge has not been tested at trial. He and Greene were remanded until November 24. A third constable, Ashton Chappelle, was later charged and remanded.

The implications cut both ways. If Justice Chandra-Hanif accepts the Attorney General’s argument, the interim route closes, and Mohamed stays in custody until the judicial review is decided. The ruling could also limit how defendants in future cases use judicial review to seek early release. If she rejects it, the court will go on to weigh the proposed conditions, with the risk of flight and interference with witnesses on one side and the right to liberty on the other. Detention before trial is meant to be the exception, and courts must balance the presumption of innocence against the integrity of the investigation.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, represented by King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani and State Counsel Madana Rampersaud, has separately challenged parts of Mohamed’s supplemental affidavit. For our nation, the outcome will be watched as a test of how our courts handle the line between procedure and personal liberty in a politically charged case.