By Mark DaCosta- Guyanese woke this week to an extraordinary confrontation between the State and the man elected to be its principal parliamentary critic. According to the Opposition Leader’s office, Mr Mohamed’s vehicle was riddled with bullets by the head of the Special Branch. The Government and police say the Opposition Leader’s party came under suspicion after gunfire erupted near the officer’s home. Between those two accounts lies a question about whether justice in Guyana can be seen to operate without fear or favour.
The office says Senior Superintendent Prem Narine fired on the car carrying Mr Mohamed and his staffers, Eugene Thorne and Mario Mohamed. It insists the three men fired no shots and carried no weapon. They describe being hauled from the vehicle at gunpoint and forced to the ground, where they say they were beaten and stomped upon. One masked man allegedly planted a boot on Mr Mario Mohamed’s neck. Mr Azruddin Mohamed claims the officer screamed, “I will kill you! I will kill you!” The statement describes this as a “deliberate assassination attempt”, and adds that all three men bore bruising and complained of pain at the station.
The competing version emerged first from the police. Mr Narine, who is testifying in the United States extradition proceedings against Mr Mohamed, reported that a vehicle passed his residence, returned, and that he heard what he believed was a gunshot as it approached. The Government separately said the men had been filming his residence. The police later acknowledged that Mr Narine fired at the Opposition Leader’s car, but said he did so only after coming under fire. The Opposition Leader’s office seizes on this shift. It points to “materially different assertions” between the initial police account and the Government’s later claim that shots came from Mr Mohamed’s vehicle, which it says was made without forensic proof.
The most contested ground is the firearm. The office says the car was first searched along Vlissengen Road and nothing was found. It was then driven to Kitty Police Station over Mr Mohamed’s objections, and only there did a weapon surface. The office calls that sequence “profoundly suspicious” and believes the gun was planted in “a clear attempt to frame him.” Mr Mohamed has denied any link to the weapon, alleging it was planted during the journey to the station. The statement lists what could settle the matter: CCTV footage, search records, fingerprints, DNA, ballistics, gunshot residue tests and “chain-of-custody records.”
Mr Narine’s dual role sharpens the dispute. He is a principal State witness against the Mohameds in extradition proceedings, in which US prosecutors allege that Azruddin and his father Nazar conspired to commit fraud and launder money through their gold exporting firm. The office stresses that those allegations are not convictions. It argues the officer’s status does not “confer upon his testimony a presumption of truth,” and that any inquiry run inside the same police hierarchy lacks credibility. It calls the extradition case “politically motivated” and says the Government improperly recycled murder allegations from those hearings to imply guilt here.
The office goes further, voicing grave concern that Mr Narine acts under the “political direction and protection” of President Irfaan Ali and Attorney General Anil Nandlall. It demands an independent examination of whether either man knew of, directed or later sought to shield anyone involved. The statement offers no evidence for this link and presents it as a question for investigators, not an established fact. It also condemns the Government’s use of the word “henchmen” for the two staffers, insisting they are “public employees carrying out legitimate duties” and entitled to the presumption of innocence. It criticises Ministers Priya Manickchand and Charles Ramson for describing parliamentarians as “purchased” and others as “paid agents.”
Placed in context, the statement reflects a wider grievance. Mr Mohamed was arrested on 31 October 2025 following the American extradition request, and became Leader of the Opposition in January 2026. His We Invest in Nationhood party won 16 of 65 seats at the 2025 general election. His office now cites a “sustained political victimisation” that includes a vessel interception, arrests over alleged drone activity at Leonora, searches, and seizures of devices and property.
The Opposition’s account is not without its own tests. At a press conference on Wednesday, WIN representatives did not explain why Mr Mohamed was near the private residence of a witness in his extradition case, and said he would have to address his own actions. The Government has suggested that his presence could amount to witness interference. Mr Mohamed has said he and his companions were recording the heavy security presence at the officer’s home, which he called a waste of State resources. The statement itself is silent on this point.
The office also warns that any information passed to the United States Department of Justice must disclose the contested nature of events, and calls for “arbitrary exercise of State power” to end. It demands the “immediate and unconditional release” of all three men, along with independent medical examinations and legal access. Its closing lines are pointed: the presumption of innocence is “not a concession granted by the Government,” and no official may replace it with a “politically determined verdict.”
For ordinary Guyanese, the task is to separate rhetoric from evidence. Forensic findings, CCTV footage and the vehicle’s documented movements can resolve what no press statement can. Until they are produced and tested before an impartial court, public confidence in our institutions will remain as contested as the events of that night.
