Allegations Are Not Evidence: The Questions the Mohamed Narrative Must Answer

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Allegations Are Not Evidence: The Questions the Mohamed Narrative Must Answer

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar November 2026

“Hana Mohamed says the High Court directed daily family visits on November 4 and that prison officers refused access on three consecutive days. Her published statement does not reproduce the “written direction.” The dispute therefore requires the court’s wording, the accounts of those present, and the prison’s visitation record—not assumptions based on either party’s description.” “Hana Mohamed said she was denied a visit and did not receive independent confirmation of her brother’s well-being.” She should have been more precise than presenting a failure to provide “proof of life” as evidence that something had happened to him.

The public is entitled to ask searching questions about the treatment of anyone held in prison, including Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed. But the public is equally entitled to question allegations made on his behalf. Political prominence does not make an account self-verifying, and repetition does not turn a disputed assertion into an established fact.

What this controversy needs is “scrutiny”—of the handwritten complaints, the claims attributed to the High Court, and the official responses.

An unexplained source of information

Mohamed’s handwritten account says he is the only inmate on the top floor of Building Five at Lusignan Prison. It alleges that prisoners were transferred before his arrival. Yet the same document repeatedly reports what other inmates supposedly told him, including detailed histories of recreation restrictions, earlier complaints, transfers and alleged punishment. Eight inmates are also said to have thanked him and requested visits from named individual reporters.

How did these communications take place?

That question does not require speculation. It requires an explanation. Were conversations conducted between floors, during movement, through doors or through intermediaries? Or perhaps a “psychic connection?” Did eight prisoners communicate directly with him, or was information relayed by one person?

Being alone on a floor does not establish that communication was impossible. But an account circulated alongside claims of complete isolation should explain how such extensive communication occurred. The handwritten pages do not.

Nor should the entire document be treated as firsthand testimony. Some passages describe experiences the author could personally observe. Others explicitly begin with “inmates said” or “inmates reported.” Still others assign motives to the authorities. These are different categories of information, not interchangeable forms of proof.

A daily confinement figure that needs qualification

The note states that inmates spend 23 hours and 50 minutes locked in their cells each day, leaving only for two five-minute bathing periods. It also describes visits and telephone calls in another room, along with occasional recreation.

Those activities require the blanket daily figure to be qualified. Does it describe days without visits, calls or recreation? Does it describe other prisoners rather than Mohamed? Or does it omit additional periods outside the cell?

The prison service’s November 2 statement presents a sharply different account of November 1. It lists counselling, telephone calls, an attorney’s visit and other attention, and claims that Mohamed spent nine hours and 20 minutes outside his holding area.

If accurate, that account contradicts a claim that he had only ten minutes outside on that particular day. It does not establish his treatment on every subsequent day.

The authorities should also account for their arithmetic. The explicitly timed counselling session, telephone calls and attorney visit total three hours and 59 minutes. The statement does not provide enough further durations to reconstruct the full nine hours and 20 minutes. A complete movement record would clarify the dispute better than competing summaries.

What, precisely, did the High Court direct?

Hana Mohamed’s November 6 statement asserts that the High Court permitted daily family visits on November 4 and that prison officers refused access for three consecutive days.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall directly disputes the asserted judicial authority. In the transcript supplied for this editorial, he says he attended the relevant proceedings and states: “No such order was made.” He also challenges the representation of a document as a court order and raises the possibility of criminal investigation.

That is a serious contradiction between two public accounts.

There is, however, a distinction worth preserving. Nandlall initially speaks of “unrestricted” visits; Hana speaks of “daily” visits. A daily visit can still be subject to restrictions. His subsequent denial is broader, but responsible scrutiny should identify exactly what each person says was—or was not—directed.

In the material presented here, Hana has not reproduced the substantive wording of the alleged direction. Yet, she maintains that the court authorized daily visits, but she still have not substantiated that representation with a published record of the documentary evidence. A repeated assertion of judicial authority is not a substitute for demonstrating it.

Equally, the Attorney General’s accusation is not itself a conviction for forgery. His account carries the significance of claimed personal attendance at the hearing, but the allegation of wrongdoing must be reported as his allegation.

Concern must not become a substitute for proof

Hana’s statement also links the reported presence of Special Branch personnel to fears for her brother’s life. Yet her own account says those personnel were refused entry.

Their presence may warrant questions. It does not, without further evidence, establish a plan to harm a prisoner. Nor does undisclosed information attributed to an unnamed journalist allow the public to assess the alleged danger.

The same discipline applies to the prison complaints. Claims about heat, continuous lighting, restraints and religious observance deserve examination. Weaknesses in one part of an account do not automatically disprove every other allegation. But neither should serious allegations escape examination because questioning them is politically uncomfortable.

The proper standard is neither automatic belief nor automatic dismissal. It is particulars: dates, communication channels, movement records, visitation records and the precise words attributed to the court.

Until those questions are answered, these accounts should be presented for what they are: contested allegations, not settled facts.

Editor’s Note

We are publishing copies of the handwritten account attributed to Azruddin Mohamed, alongside a link to Hana Mohamed’s statement claiming High Court directions permitting daily family visits, and a link to Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s interview disputing that such an order or ruling was made.

These materials are presented together so readers can examine the competing accounts in their own words. Their publication does not constitute independent verification of the prison allegations, confirmation of the claimed judicial directions, or endorsement of the Attorney General’s allegation concerning a purported court document.

Readers should distinguish between personal observations, information attributed to other inmates, and conclusions about motive. They should also note the difference between Hana Mohamed’s claim of “daily” visits and the Attorney General’s initial reference to “unrestricted” visits, before his broader denial that the court made the ruling alleged.

The accompanying editorial examines these accounts for consistency, substantiation and unanswered questions. Its purpose is accountability: serious allegations about prison conditions, judicial authority and official conduct should be tested against evidence, regardless of who makes them.

The materials appear below: