Clip purporting to show shooting at Mohamed’s vehicle circulates online as court battles continue
A CCTV clip purporting to show the October 12 shooting involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed is circulating on Facebook, drawing tens of thousands of views — but the clip’s own details do not match the reported record, and the footage does not clearly show a shot being fired.
The clip was posted by Bryan Max of Max Media Guyana overnight on November 7-8, captioned “(Shortened video) Policeman Prem Narine shooting at the vehicle of the Opposition Leader of Guyana Azruddin Mohamed.” It had gathered around 38,000 views and more than 260 shares within hours of being posted.
What the clip actually shows is a short stretch of night-time CCTV, stamped Monday, October 12, 2026, at 6:19 in the morning, from a camera labelled “Side Left Back.” A dark red car is seen driving away up a residential street, while a white police pickup with its red and blue lights flashing stands in the road with its driver’s door open, and a man in a light teal shirt stands nearby. A parked vehicle in the foreground carries a banner in Guyana-flag colours. No gun, muzzle flash or shot impact is clearly visible in the footage, and no street name or landmark can be read from it.
The incident itself is real and extensively reported — but every reported account puts it at a different time and place. According to the Guyana Police Force and the Government, the shooting happened shortly before midnight on October 12, around 11:45 p.m., outside the Barr Street, Kitty home of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the police Special Branch — not at 6:19 in the morning, and not on Municipal Street, as the clip’s caption and comments suggest. No news outlet or official statement has mentioned a “Municipal Street” camera or a 6:19 a.m. timestamp.
The two sides’ accounts of that night remain irreconcilable. Police say Narine was at home when a black Toyota Allion, registration PXX 5300, drove slowly past his residence and then came back. On the second pass, Narine heard what sounded like a gunshot, took cover and fired several rounds from his service pistol at the car. The car was intercepted at Vlissengen Road and Sandy Babb Street, and police say a search found a .32 Taurus pistol with no serial number and three live rounds inside. One spent .32 casing was recovered on Barr Street and four spent 9mm casings nearby, and the weapon and casings were sent for ballistic testing.
The Government went further in a statement on October 13, saying Mohamed and two companions had been filming Narine’s home around midnight in a dark, heavily tinted car, that “gunshots rang out from the car,” and that Narine opened fire in response. An unlicensed firearm was found in the car and the trio were arrested, the statement said, adding that Narine is a critical witness in the extradition case against Mohamed and that the United States Department of Justice is being kept informed.
Mohamed, who was in the car with his driver Eugene Thorne and videographer Mario Mohamed, denies that anyone in his vehicle fired a shot. In a Facebook Live broadcast from Kitty Police Station on the night, he accused police of firing several shots at the vehicle and attempting to kill him, and alleged the handgun was planted. Speaking after his release on bail around October 20, he said, “I could have been a dead man,” claiming Narine fired twice at point-blank range without provocation and stomped on him as he lay on the ground. He said the Allion had already been searched in Parika earlier that evening and nothing was found.
Who fired first has not been established, and no ballistic findings have been publicly released.
The footage at the centre of the dispute is not the short clip now circulating, but around 23 minutes of Safe City CCTV from the police Command Centre at Liliendaal, which Mohamed screened at a press conference on October 26. He said the footage showed Narine shooting at his vehicle at close range at the Vlissengen Road and Sandy Babb Street traffic light, hitting the car twice and firing again after he raised his hands. He said he obtained the footage from Special Branch, called the incident a “failed assassination attempt,” and announced he would file private criminal charges against Narine.
The following day, the Opposition Leader’s Office and his party, We Invest in Nationhood, demanded Narine’s arrest and an independent investigation, along with the preservation and independent forensic examination of police communications, ballistic records and CCTV. The party repeated the allegation that the firearm was planted, and said the publicly released footage revealed “serious contradictions in the official police account.”
The same footage is at the heart of the Cybercrime Act case that has since put Mohamed back behind bars. Police allege that 20-year-old Police Constable Ryan Greene, who worked at the Command Centre, downloaded the October 12 surveillance footage on October 23 and saved it to a flash drive, and that Mohamed paid him GY$800,000 in cash for it at his Houston home the following day. Mohamed’s lawyer, Damien DaSilva, has denied that, saying Mohamed “does not know” Greene and that no payment was made. A second constable, 24-year-old Ashton Chappelle, was later alleged to have downloaded the recordings and passed them to Greene.
Mohamed and Greene were charged on October 30 at Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court under Section 9(2)(b) of the Cybercrime Act, which covers electronic data connected to national security. Magistrate Abigail Gibbs refused them bail and remanded them to November 24. Chappelle was charged separately on November 2 under Section 9(1)(b) and was also remanded to November 24. If convicted on indictment, they face a fine of up to GYD$8 million and five years in prison.
The classification of the footage as national security data is itself disputed. Greene’s lawyer, Darren Wade, has argued that video of public streets should not qualify as electronic data relating to national security and called the charge “nonsensical,” while Greene’s father has taken the bail refusal to the High Court, disputing the classification. Attorney General Anil Nandlall, meanwhile, has warned that the unauthorised release of police surveillance footage could have far-reaching consequences for national security.
The Ministry of Home Affairs said on November 2 that the alleged unauthorised access to the Command Centre was a matter of grave concern and a serious threat to the confidentiality and integrity of law enforcement operations, and ordered a comprehensive review of personnel, access controls, supervision and procedures at the centre.
Narine himself spoke briefly outside the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts on November 3, saying, “It’s very disheartening because all I am doing is executing my duty as a policeman.” He said his family and his brother’s business had been attacked, called being labelled a “murderer” and “assassin” hurtful, and declined further comment because the matters are under investigation.
Mohamed, Thorne and Mario Mohamed have all pleaded not guilty in a separate case arising from the October 12 incident, in which they are charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and attempting to obstruct the course of justice. Each was granted $750,000 bail, and the prosecution’s disclosure was adjourned to November 27.
Narine is also a key witness in the United States’ request to extradite Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, on an 11-count federal indictment alleging mail and wire fraud and money laundering linked to a gold-export scheme. Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman rejected two consecutive prosecution applications to revoke the Mohameds’ extradition bail on November 2 and 3, so Mohamed remains on bail in that case — but stays in custody because of the cybercrime remand.
The High Court bail matter, brought by Mohamed’s mother Bonita Mohamed, is due back before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif on November 12, with a ruling expected on November 13 and a substantive hearing set for November 23. If bail is refused, Mohamed remains on remand until November 24.
The circulation of the Bryan Max clip shows the dispute over what happened on the night of October 12 is far from settled in the public eye — but as it stands, the clip itself proves less than its caption claims, and the courts, not social media, will decide the competing versions.
About The Author
