newsroom.gy, Nov 4, 2026The High Court on Wednesday delivered no judgment on the application for bail filed by Bonita Mohamed, the mother of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed. Attorney General Anil Nandlall challenged the affidavit supporting the application, describing it as “one of the worst drafted affidavits” he had ever seen and arguing that it contained inadmissible hearsay evidence. High Court Judge Justice Priscilla Chandra-Haniff identified deficiencies in the application filed by lawyers for Mohamed seeking judicial review of the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court’s decision to refuse him bail. The judge granted the defence additional time to address the issues and adjourned the matter until Thursday, November 12. The application for bail for Mohamed was filed by Bonita Mohamed, who named the Director of Public Prosecutions, Magistrate Abigail Gibbs and the Attorney General as respondents. Through the application, the defence is seeking to have the decision by the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court refusing bail to Mohamed quashed and reasonable bail granted. The attorneys have also asked for the Fixed Date Application to be treated as urgent. During Wednesday’s hearing, Nandlall argued that the affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay, as well as material he considered scandalous and vexatious, which ought not to form part of the proceedings. “You Honour, this is a court of law. A court of law can only act on two things, one is evidence and two the law itself,” Nandlall told the court. He pointed out that the application contained 136 paragraphs spanning more than 50 pages, accompanied by approximately 25 to 30 pages of exhibits. He argued that several paragraphs did not constitute admissible evidence and that the document was highly defective. “This is one of the worst drafted affidavits I have ever seen,” Nandlall said, adding that the defence was seeking an opportunity to rectify the errors. Nandlall filed a Notice of Application (NOA). He asked the judge to first address the objections to the affidavit before proceeding with the substantive judicial review application, stressing that the matter before the court was not a direct application for bail. Nandlall also challenged the timeline within which the State was expected to respond, telling the court that the application was filed on Monday, November 2, after the close of business, at approximately 6pm, and served on the respondents on Tuesday at 10:50am. He said the State had effectively received only 24 hours’ notice, notwithstanding that work on the application had commenced immediately. Nandlall said the application made serious allegations against the Guyana Police Force, the Guyana Prison Service, Magistrate Abigail Gibbs and other State agencies. He argued that the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions needed adequate time to obtain instructions from those agencies and prepare a response. “The point I am making is that justice must not be rushed, justice rushed is justice crushed, so the State will not be rushed,” he told the court. He further argued that, under the applicable court rules, a Fixed Date Application (FDA) should be heard within seven days of being filed and that the matter should properly have been fixed for hearing the following Monday. Nandlall maintained that natural justice required all parties to be given adequate time to be heard so that the proceedings would not be conducted prematurely. In response, attorneys Roysdale Forde and Siand Dhurjon sought permission to file an additional affidavit from Mohamed to address the concerns raised by the State. Dhurjon argued that the strict rules of evidence did not apply in the same way during bail proceedings and objected to what he viewed as attempts by the State to delay the matter. He also submitted that, in judicial review proceedings, an individual applicant was confronting the considerable resources of the State and that the State had an obligation to be honest before the court. The defence argued that Mohamed should be given an opportunity to address the concerns raised and that filing his own affidavit would allow the substantive issues to be considered comprehensively. Forde, meanwhile, argued that the Bail Act was the statutory legislation governing the granting of bail in Guyana. He submitted that the Act did not provide for a detained person to make an original application for bail in the manner contemplated, and that the defence had therefore approached the High Court through the available avenues of appeal or judicial review. He maintained that there was nothing preventing Mohamed from filing an affidavit in his own name to address the issues arising from the application filed by his mother. Forde also asked the court to take into consideration the rationale behind bail and Mohamed’s liberty when setting the timelines for the proceedings. Justice Chandra-Haniff cautioned that even if Mohamed were allowed to file an affidavit, the rules of evidence would still apply to what he could and could not say. She also stressed that matters which did not affect the validity or reasoning behind the granting of bail did not need to form part of the proceedings. The judge indicated that the court would still have to address the question of striking out any scandalous, vexatious or irrelevant material contained in the affidavit filed by Bonita Mohamed. However, she said she wanted to hear specifically from Mohamed, as the person seeking bail, through an affidavit addressing the relevant issues. The judge subsequently directed that arrangements be made for the defence attorneys to have access to Mohamed between 1pm and 3pm on Wednesday to prepare the affidavit, which was to be filed by 6pm. “I expect you have access to your client from 1 to 6,” she told the attorneys. Mohamed was remanded in connection with a cybercrime charge arising from allegations involving the unauthorised downloading and dissemination of CCTV recordings from the Safe City initiative. The footage captured the shooting involving Head of Special Branch Prem Narine and was subsequently shown by Narine at a press conference he held last month. Mohamed and Police Constable Ryan Greene were jointly charged over allegations that they obtained CCTV footage from the Safe City initiative in exchange for $800,000. Both were remanded to prison. Mohamed is also facing extradition proceedings and is out on bail in relation to that matter, as well as a separate matter involving the shooting Narine. With no judgement delivered, the matter has been adjourned until Thursday, November 12. A judgement is expected on the following day.