Guyana Police Defend Detention of Constable Ryan Greene and Mother Over Surveillance Footage Investigation

The Guyana Police Force (GPF) has defended the detention of Police Constable Ryan Greene and his mother, Nikita Greene, in connection with an investigation into the alleged unauthorized downloading and removal of surveillance footage from the Government’s Safe Country programme, according to the Guyana Times.

In an affidavit submitted to the High Court on Wednesday, Cadet Officer Stephan Hinds, who is attached to the Criminal Investigation Department’s Major Crime Investigations Unit, stated that the two individuals remained in lawful custody while the investigation proceeded. This affidavit was filed in response to a fixed-date application brought by Randy Greene, the father of Ryan Greene and husband of Nikita Greene, who sought their release from police custody. The application requested that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus, compelling the Police to present the detained persons before the court and explain the legal basis for their detention, or alternatively, grant their immediate release or release under court-set conditions.

Hinds reported that Ryan Greene, a constable assigned to the Safe Country programme’s Command Centre at Liliendaal, was arrested on October 26 after the Police informed him of the allegations and cautioned him. The affidavit further claimed that Ryan Greene subsequently provided a recorded confession, in which he allegedly admitted to downloading surveillance data from the Command Centre that covered the period from the night of October 23 into the morning of October 24.

It was further alleged by the affidavit that Ryan Greene transferred this data to a flash drive and delivered it to Azruddin Mohamed, the Opposition Leader sanctioned and indicted by the United States, at his residence in Houston, Greater Georgetown. Ryan Greene allegedly told investigators that Mohamed reviewed the flash drive's contents and inquired about the price, at which point the constable allegedly requested $800,000. This amount was reportedly paid in cash by Eugene Thorne, an associate of Mohamed, acting on Mohamed’s instructions and in his presence.

The affidavit also stated that Nikita Greene handed over $300,000 to the police following a visit to her home at Guyhoc Park, Georgetown, where officers contacted her after Ryan Greene led them there.

Police further alleged that another member of the Force stationed at the Command Centre might have been involved in the unauthorized downloading and removal of the data, with investigations continuing and the file slated to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice upon completion of the inquiries. The affidavit indicated that, based on counsel from the Police Legal Advisor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, several serious criminal offenses might have been committed by Ryan Greene and Nikita Greene.

Hinds maintained, relying on guidance from the Attorney General’s Chambers, that the arrests were made on sufficient reasonable grounds and that the detention was authorized by Article 139 of the Constitution. He characterized the habeas corpus proceedings as premature and without merit, requesting the court to dismiss the application with costs.

In the fixed-date application, Randy Greene contested the legality of the arrests and detention, asserting that the accusation of “conspiracy to commit a felony” lacked the identification of a specific felony recognized under Guyanese law. The application also contended that the Police failed to inform Ryan Greene and Nikita Greene of the actual reasons for their arrests, which would be contrary to Article 139(3) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the application argued that Ryan Greene’s arrest and detention concerning the alleged copying and communication of surveillance footage related to an incident on October 12, 2026, involving Mohamed and members of the Police, raised constitutional concerns. The application detailed competing narratives regarding the encounter, including the State's assertion that shots originated from the vehicle Mohamed was traveling in and that an unlicensed firearm was found inside, while Mohamed claimed shots were fired at his vehicle and that the firearm was planted. The applicant argued that the footage raised questions about the conduct of Police ranks during the encounter and the handling of evidence pertinent to the ongoing criminal proceedings. The application also challenged the Police's public disclosure of Ryan Greene’s purported admissions before any formal charge was laid, arguing this violated the presumption of innocence and the protections afforded by Article 144 of the Constitution. Among the requested remedies were declarations that the arrests and detention were unlawful, directions regarding a claim for compensation, damages, and legal costs. The Police have requested that the court dismiss the application, asserting that the detention remains lawful while investigations are ongoing.