Attorney-at-Law Selwyn A. Pieters has denied any involvement in the deactivation of the “Team Mohamed’s Facebook page”, owned and operated by Leader of the Opposition Mr. Azruddin Mohamed.
In a statement, Pieters said: “I, Selwyn A. Pieters, Attorney-at-Law, wish to state unequivocally that I had no role, directly or indirectly, in the deactivation of the “Team Mohamed’s Facebook page”, owned and operated by Leader of the Opposition Mr. Azruddin Mohamed.”
He said any assertion by Mohamed that he caused, requested or was otherwise responsible for the deactivation of the page is false.
“Any assertion by Mr. Mohamed that I caused, requested or was otherwise responsible for the deactivation of that page is false. No evidence has been produced to support such a claim, and I challenge Mr. Mohamed to make public any evidence upon which he relies,” Pieters stated.
According to Pieters, Mohamed has given several explanations regarding the temporary unavailability of the page.
“There have been several differing explanations advanced by Mr. Mohamed concerning the temporary unavailability of his page. He initially claimed that the Guyana Police Force was responsible following his detention in relation to allegations concerning the operation of an unlicensed fast boat and the absence of a valid captain’s license. He subsequently accused the People’s Progressive Party of being responsible. Thereafter, he stated that Meta, the owner and operator of Facebook, had deactivated the page over alleged copyright infringement,” he said.
“He has now sought to attribute responsibility to me. This I reject out of hand.”
Pieters said Mohamed himself stated that the page was restored after his attorneys engaged Meta.
“Mr. Mohamed has himself stated that his page was restored after his attorneys engaged Meta. His legal representatives should therefore be in a position to disclose any communication received from Meta concerning the reason for the page’s deactivation or suspension. I accordingly call on Mr. Mohamed to make that response public so that the facts can speak for themselves,” he said.
Pieters also addressed a separate matter involving a social media post published by Mohamed concerning a Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU) operation and referring to President Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali.
“For completeness, I wish to address a separate matter which should not be conflated with the deactivation of the Team Mohamed page,” Pieters said.
He said that on Saturday, October 3, 2026, he observed the post and also read a CANU press release issued that afternoon.
“In my considered professional judgement, the contents of that post were defamatory and went beyond the bounds of legitimate political criticism or public commentary,” he stated.
Pieters said he acted independently and in his professional capacity as the attorney authorised to represent the President in relation to social media matters.
“At approximately 5:50 p.m. that day, as a first course of action, I contacted Mr. Azruddin Mohamed directly on his cellular telephone and requested that the offending publication be removed. Mr. Mohamed referred me to his attorney, Mr. Siand Dhurjon.”
He said he subsequently spoke with Dhurjon at approximately 6:45 p.m.
“At approximately 6:45 p.m., I spoke with Mr Dhurjon and formally communicated my position that the publication is defamatory and should be removed, failing which I would pursue the appropriate remedies available to my client. Mr. Durjohn indicated that he would raise the matter with Mr. Mohamed but could not guarantee that the request would be honoured.”
According to Pieters, the publication was not removed.
“The publication was not removed. The longer the defamatory material remains online the greater the harm to my client. At the point in time I last reviewed the page the offending post had 1.8K likes, 218 comments and 618 shares.”
Pieters said that after providing notice and an opportunity for the matter to be addressed without further action, he submitted the matter to Meta.
“Having first provided notice and an opportunity for the matter to be addressed without further action, I subsequently exercised the authority vested in me as counsel for His Excellency the President and submitted the matter to Meta for its consideration under its applicable processes and policies.”
He stressed that Meta made its own decision regarding the submission.
“Meta independently considered the submission and took whatever action it deemed appropriate based on its own assessment. I did not determine Meta’s decision, nor did I have the power to do so.”
Pieters said his actions concerning the specific publication should not be confused with the earlier deactivation of the Team Mohamed Facebook page.
“There is therefore an important distinction that must be maintained: my professional action in relation to a specific publication concerning my client is entirely separate from the earlier deactivation of the “Team Mohamed’s Facebook page”.”
He further rejected any suggestion that his actions were politically motivated.
“My actions were not political, nor were they undertaken at the direction of a political party. They were taken in my professional capacity as an attorney, based on my assessment of the publication and the authority granted to me to protect my client’s legal interests.”
Pieters also said freedom of expression and freedom of the press remain fundamental rights, while noting that such freedoms do not exempt individuals from defamation laws.
“Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental rights that must be respected and protected. Those freedoms, however, do not place any individual beyond the ordinary application of the law, including the law relating to defamation.”
He concluded: “Where I determine, in the proper exercise of my professional judgement, that my client’s legal rights have been infringed, I am entitled and professionally obligated to pursue the lawful remedies available to him.”
