‘Oppressive Isolation or Standard Custody?’: Heated High Court Clash Over Azruddin Mohamed’s Prison Conditions; Judge Chandra-Hanif Warns Against Oppressive Detention

By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — The conditions under which Leader of the Opposition Azruddin Mohamed is being detained at the Lusignan Prison ignited a sharp confrontation in the Demerara High Court on Wednesday, as defense counsel accused state authorities of subjecting the political leader to psychological abuse and near-total solitary confinement, while the State maintained that prison conditions are inherently restrictive and “not a bed of roses.”

The contentious hearing before High Court Judge Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif placed the physical and psychological welfare of the incarcerated Opposition Leader at the center of his ongoing bid for pretrial liberty.

Mohamed, who was remanded to prison on October 30 alongside 20-year-old Police Constable Ryan Greene under Section 9(2)(b) of the Cybercrime Act 2018 over the alleged unauthorized procurement and disclosure of Police Command Center CCTV files, is challenging his continued incarceration through an urgent bail application.

Solitary Confinement and Constant Lighting: Forde Cites ‘Psychological Abuse’

Presenting arguments on Mohamed’s behalf, lead defense attorney Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde outlined a troubling description of his client’s daily custodial routine inside the East Coast Demerara penitentiary:

• 23 Hours and 50 Minutes of Isolation: Forde submitted that Mohamed is confined to his holding cell for 23 hours and 50 minutes each day, leaving him with a mere 10 minutes of out-of-cell movement, an arrangement he argued constitutes de facto solitary confinement.
• Sleep Deprivation and Sensory Strain: The Senior Counsel told the court that a high-intensity bright light is kept illuminated directly into the cell around the clock, severely disrupting sleep cycles and compounding the psychological strain of continuous confinement.
• Inadequate Airflow and Environmental Hazards: Forde cited severe ventilation deficits in the cell, reinforcing allegations sworn in an initial affidavit by Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, which described exposure to extreme heat and foul smoke emanating from a neighboring dumpsite as cruel and inhumane.
• Characterization of State Action: Forde submitted that these conditions exceed standard pretrial restraint, amounting to unlawful, oppressive detention and deliberate psychological abuse aimed at breaking his client’s resolve.

The State’s Defense: ‘Prison Is Not a Bed of Roses’

Responding to the allegations, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, resisted claims that Mohamed is being targeted with unlawful administrative cruelty:

• Realities of Correctional Facilities: Nandlall cautioned against attempts by the defense to conflate the standard rigors of penal confinement with constitutional breaches, reminding the court that prison facilities are structured for custodial security and are “not a bed of roses.”
• Prison Service Denials: State counsel referenced earlier formal statements from the Guyana Prison Service (GPS) which rejected claims of solitary confinement, noting that Mohamed is classified as a “high-profile prisoner” under the Prison Management Offenders System (PMOS), and has been granted statutory access to legal counsel, family consultations, and telephone calls.

The Bench Weighed In: Justice Chandra-Hanif’s Position

Weighing the arguments, Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif intervened to establish judicial expectations regarding Mohamed’s custodial care:

• Prohibition Against Oppression: Justice Chandra-Hanif stated that the court expects the State and prison directorate to guarantee that Mohamed’s conditions of detention remain strictly non-oppressive and within constitutional parameters.
• Reservations on General Population Placement: While emphasizing that detention must not be oppressive, the judge expressed clear reservations regarding any blanket order directing that the Opposition Leader be integrated into the general prison population, acknowledging the distinct security risks associated with high-profile political figures in custody.
• Direct Affidavit Permitted: To resolve evidentiary disputes surrounding the initial filing by Bonita Mohamed, the court granted Mohamed leave to execute and file a supplementary affidavit sworn in his own name, allowing him to place his personal, firsthand account of his treatment and detention directly before the bench.

Legal Calendars: High Court Bail and Magisterial Return

The legal wrangling sets the stage for a critical sequence of judicial hearings:

• High Court Hearing Schedule: The substantive hearing on Mohamed’s High Court bail application has been scheduled to proceed, with arguments centering on the admissibility of the contested affidavit paragraphs and the legality of the Sparendaam remand order.
• Magisterial Court Return: Both Mohamed and Constable Ryan Greene remain scheduled to appear before the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court on November 24, 2026, for report and fixture regarding the Section 9(2)(b) Cybercrime Act indictment.