High Court Upholds Arrest of Police Constable Ryan Greene, Releases Mother Nikita Greene

According to the Guyana Times, the High Court on Thursday confirmed the legality of the arrest of Police Constable Ryan Greene in an investigation concerning the alleged unauthorized extraction and sale of surveillance footage. Justice Christel Lambert-Meertins, however, determined that the evidence presented by the State did not warrant the detention of Nikita Greene, Ryan Greene's mother, and ordered her immediate release.

Justice Lambert-Meertins stated that the circumstances surrounding the alleged removal and disclosure of the footage, combined with information gathered by investigators and Ryan Greene's connection to the Guyana Police Force's (GPF) Command Centre, provided a reasonable basis for his arrest. The investigation centers on allegations that the 20-year-old constable downloaded footage from the Force’s Safe City surveillance system and provided it to Azruddin Mohamed, an individual sanctioned by the United States and indicted, in exchange for $800,000.

The footage pertains to an event that occurred on October 12 outside the residence of Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine, who is involved in an extradition hearing before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts. Police reported that Narine heard what appeared to be a gunshot as his vehicle passed his home a second time and subsequently fired several rounds toward it. The three men involved were reportedly found possessing a .32 Taurus pistol and three rounds of ammunition. They were jointly charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and attempting to obstruct the course of justice, with all three pleading not guilty and being granted bail of $750,000 each.

This matter is connected to ongoing extradition proceedings involving Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. The United States sanctioned the two men and several associated businesses in 2024, and the father and son faced indictments in Florida in 2025 on 11 counts related to alleged fraud, money laundering, and offenses connected to a gold-export scheme. Both Mohamed individuals deny these allegations and are contesting extradition to the US, with the proceedings in Guyana set for November 2.

In evaluating the grounds for Ryan Greene’s arrest, Justice Lambert-Meertins noted that the public disclosure of the footage, the claim that it was removed without authorization, and police intelligence provided an objective basis for suspecting his involvement in criminal activity. The judge affirmed that the court was satisfied that Ryan Greene’s arrest was not arbitrary nor without lawful justification. She observed that the alleged actions could potentially fall under offenses in the Cybercrime Act, such as unauthorized access to computer systems and the unlawful acquisition or disclosure of electronic data, while clarifying that the proceedings did not constitute a determination of guilt.

Regarding Nikita Greene’s detention, the court heard that the 39-year-old housewife had received $300,000 from her son and later gave the money to the police when asked. However, the State’s evidence failed to prove that she was aware the money was linked to criminal activity, that she participated in the alleged removal or disclosure of the footage, or that she had agreed with anyone to commit an offense. Justice Lambert-Meertins stated that receiving money from a family member, in this instance her son, does not inherently constitute criminal conduct without further evidence. Consequently, the judge concluded that the State had not demonstrated objectively reasonable grounds to suspect Nikita Greene of criminal conduct and ordered her release.

Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, SC, had requested the court dismiss the habeas corpus application filed for the mother and son. Greene’s legal representative argued that Ryan Greene had committed no known offense and asserted that the State had a constitutional duty to act in good faith and protect citizens. The lawyer also challenged the detention of individuals for up to 72 hours without sufficient grounds, characterizing such detention as unconstitutional, noting that no specific offense had been presented to the constable during his submissions.

Nandlall countered that the detention was within the limits permitted by the Constitution of Guyana and argued the application was premature while police investigations were active. He mentioned that Ryan Greene was arrested at 15:00h on October 26, meaning the initial 72-hour period would conclude at 15:00h on Thursday, and that police planned to seek an extension from the High Court to maintain custody while investigations continued. The AG contended that the constitutional framers recognized that 72 hours might be insufficient depending on the investigation's nature.

The AG informed the court that investigators were looking into several potential offenses, including bribery, corruption, witness tampering, interference with the administration of justice, and unauthorized access to electronic data, though specific charges had not yet been finalized. Nandlall also mentioned that police were investigating whether other officers were involved or if similar breaches of the surveillance system had occurred previously. He described the situation as a serious breach of national security affecting the welfare and safety of tens of thousands of Guyanese.

Speaking to reporters after the ruling, Nandlall characterized the decision as fair but confirmed that the investigation into Ryan Greene’s alleged conduct was ongoing. He expressed concerns regarding the implications of unauthorized access to Safe City footage, as the system records images of people in public areas, potentially revealing their movements. The AG also alleged that Azruddin Mohamed was implicated in the breach, claiming the US-indicted man paid someone to supply images extracted from the system without authorization for use in a personal criminal matter. Another application seeking constitutional declarations and damages is scheduled for a later date, as the State had not yet filed a response to those issues.