Before You Ask a Nation to Protest, Give It the Facts

Before You Ask a Nation to Protest, Give It the Facts

 OPINION BY : Hem Kumar November 2026 

A call for nationwide protest carries a responsibility to the people being asked to answer it. They deserve facts, clearly identified uncertainties and an honest account of developments—not simply the version most likely to provoke outrage.

That is the standard Hana Mohamed should meet when speaking about her brother’s detention.

Concerns about prison conditions are serious. Allegations of improper isolation, inadequate ventilation, continuous lighting and restrictions on exercise deserve examination. But their seriousness makes verification more important, not less.

Demerara Waves and Credible Sources both  reported that Hana raised those allegations and that the Guyana Prison Service subsequently rejected the suggestion that Azruddin Mohamed was being subjected to punitive or degrading treatment outside the lawful requirements of his detention. Neither the accusations nor the official denial should be treated as independently established findings.

The public deserves accountability from both sides.

The response must receive the same attention as the allegations

The GPS provided a specific account of Mohamed’s admission and subsequent treatment.

According to the service, he received medical and welfare assessments. His mother and two sisters were permitted to visit after arrangements were explained to them on October 31. The family’s request to provide his meals was subsequently approved, subject to security procedures.

The service also said senior prison officials visited him, granted his request to telephone his son ahead of the child’s birthday, and adjusted the fan serving his cell area.

Anyone who circulated the original allegations should now circulate this response with comparable prominence.

If Hana disputes those statements, she should identify the inaccuracies. If circumstances changed after her initial complaints, she should explain the timeline. If particular concerns remain unresolved, she should state precisely what they are and what evidence supports them.

What would be irresponsible is to leave an alarming account circulating without acknowledging material information that complicates it.

Updating supporters is not weakness. Correcting an impression is not betrayal. Both are basic obligations of credible leadership.

Scrutiny must run in both directions

The GPS response does not settle every question.

Demerara Waves expressly notes that the service did not confirm or deny whether Mohamed was in solitary confinement. Approval of visits and family meals does not, by itself, resolve every allegation about lighting, exercise or ventilation.

That distinction matters. Those defending the Prison Service should not claim its statement disproved everything. Those criticising it should not behave as though no response was issued.

The proper questions are practical and answerable: What restrictions apply? Why are they necessary? How long will they remain? What opportunities exist for exercise and human contact? How are complaints assessed?

A debate centered on those questions serves the public. A contest in which each side selects only convenient information does not.

Mobilization is not a substitute for substantiation

On the chronology described in the original account, Hana coupled her allegations with a call for nationwide protest, before Odessa Primus’s subsequent appeal.

That sequence makes the factual basis of the allegations especially important. They were not merely private expressions of family distress; they became part of an appeal for public action.

Hana has every right to advocate peaceful protest. Citizens have every right to participate. But those rights do not remove a political leader’s responsibility to distinguish verified information from allegations and inference.

Before asking people to leave work, close businesses or take to the streets, give them the whole picture.

What has been directly observed? What has been reported second-hand? What has changed? What remains disputed? What specific outcome is the protest intended to secure?

In my view, using unresolved allegations as a rallying cry without clearly communicating their evidential limits risks weaponizing public concern. It asks citizens to provide the outrage before they have been given enough information to exercise informed judgment.

Solidarity cannot mean expendability

That appeal for public commitment also brings the reported “collateral damage” remark back into focus.

The exact words and full context of the recording been be verified. Having established– Hana described Ryan Greene in those terms when his father sought answers, she should explain what she meant.

A person’s predicament cannot be treated as incidental while other people are being asked to make sacrifices for the same political cause.

No politician can guarantee bail or an acquittal. No responsible person should demand interference with a court. But humane language, honest answers and respect for a worried family require no judicial intervention.

People are not valuable only while they are useful.

Their livelihoods, liberty and families are not expendable resources in a political confrontation. Anyone who calls for solidarity must be prepared to practice it when another person’s circumstances become inconvenient.

“From hero to collateral damage” is a warning—not a finding about Greene’s motives or what anyone promised him. It asks supporters to consider whether the concern being demanded from them will be reciprocated when they need it.

 A leader’s legal interests are not automatically the public interest, and his political title does not make his liberty more valuable than Ryan Greene’s. If the principle is equal justice, then Greene’s rights, welfare and legal predicament deserve the same seriousness—not a passing mention while every demand centers on the leader. The test is consistency: you cannot condemn the PPP for double standards while reproducing a hierarchy in which the powerful command attention and the less influential bear the consequences. An opposition that demands equality for its leader but fails to extend that concern to the constable is not challenging a two-tiered society; it is preserving its logic. You cannot credibly promise to dismantle privilege while practicing it within your own ranks. That is not change. It is simply an exchange—different beneficiaries, the same double standard.

It would go beyond the available evidence to declare this entire dispute a personal vendetta. But citizens are entitled to question whether a political movement is adequately distinguishing its leader’s legal interests from the wider public interest.

That distinction must be demonstrated, not assumed.

A campaign for humane detention should speak to the treatment of prisoners beyond one prominent individual. A defense of due process should extend to the less powerful accused. A movement demanding transparency should tolerate scrutiny of its own claims.

Otherwise, the language of principle risks becoming a vehicle for selective outrage.

Mohamed’s rights do not disappear in custody. The Prison Service must answer legitimate questions about his treatment. His family and political representatives must also answer legitimate questions about the accuracy and completeness of what they tell the public.

Publish the evidence. Address the response. Clarify the timeline. Correct inaccuracies. Identify what remains unresolved.

Leadership informs people before asking them to act. Manipulation asks them to act before they have enough information. And anyone asking citizens to stand beside a cause must never treat those citizens as disposable when standing beside them becomes costly.