The prospect of Azruddin Mohamed ascending to the position of Leader of the Opposition represents a troubling moment for Guyana’s parliamentary democracy as adumbrated by many prominent public figures including the Attorney General and former Chairman and Parliamentarian for the PNCR, Shurwayne Holder.

This justified concern is rooted in established and documented legal realities emanating not from Guyana, but the United States. Mr. Mohamed is currently the subject of extradition proceedings arising from an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the US.

As the Guyanese people should know by now, that indictment alleges his involvement in a multi-year scheme encompassing gold smuggling, money laundering, wire fraud, and tax evasion, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in revenue to Guyana. These are not merely rumours; they are formal charges supported by documentation transmitted through official channels by the United States Government.

Further compounding the gravity of the situation is the fact that Mr. Mohamed has been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) – a measure reserved for individuals deemed to pose serious risks to financial transparency and international compliance. It is extraordinary that an individual under such crippling sanctions could be seriously contemplated for elevation to one of the highest constitutional offices in the land.

Beyond these formal proceedings, Mr. Mohamed’s name has also been publicly linked to allegations of murder, drug smuggling, and the financing of terrorism. The existence of these allegations alone underscores the profound reputational risk that his elevation would pose to Guyana’s Parliament and our country’s international standing.

As former PNCR Chairman Shurwayne Holder correctly observed a few days ago, an Opposition that routinely critiques the Government on corruption, money laundering and criminal infiltration of the state cannot, without rank hypocrisy, choose as its leader someone who has not cleared his name of such serious accusations. Moral authority, once forfeited, cannot be reclaimed through rhetoric.

Editor, the Leader of the Opposition is not a ceremonial title. It is a constitutional office requiring unimpeachable character, credibility with international partners, and the capacity to speak on governance issues without contradiction or embarrassment. To proceed otherwise would not only stain the Opposition but diminish the dignity of the National Assembly itself.

Guyana deserves an Opposition that strengthens democracy, not one that invites ridicule, weakens oversight, and compromises the country’s reputation at home and abroad. It goes without saying, therefore, that elevating Mr. Mohamed under these circumstances would do precisely that.

It is hoped that the Opposition members who truly care about Guyana and its international standing will do the right thing on Monday and opt for someone other than Mr Mohamed to hold the post of Leader of the Opposition.

Yours Truly

Quincy Anderson

Let us stop the nonsense and call this thing for what it is. The PPP/C is not afraid of Azruddin Mohamed. If he was such a big force, he would not have been beaten so badly at the polls. So that argument does not hold water.

What this is really about is shame and embarrassment for Guyana. How can we seriously expect the country to move forward when the Opposition is prepared to choose a US-indicted and OFAC-sanctioned person as Leader of the Opposition? That kind of decision will hurt our image and make it harder for Guyana to deal properly with our international partners.

The same Opposition MPs who shout corruption every day now want to turn a blind eye when it suits them. That is pure hypocrisy. You cannot demand accountability from Government while lowering the bar for your own leadership.

We also must not forget the Opposition’s own history. These are the same people who ignored the Constitution, appointed a GECOM Chair illegally, and tried to avoid elections after losing a no-confidence vote.

If they go ahead with this, the blame must sit squarely on their shoulders. The Speaker should name those MPs in Parliament so the Hansard can show exactly who chose politics over country.

Sincerely,

Alvin Hamilton

Azruddin Mohamed, the U.S. indicted MP, has made a litany of public statements recently, intending to distort his extradition proceedings. In a recent Facebook address, the aspiring Opposition Leader sought to compare his extradition proceedings to those of Vitesh Guptar, implying that Guptar received protection and preferential treatment from the Government. Basic analysis shows otherwise.

In 2019, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Guptar, alleging aggravated conspiracy to commit international drug trafficking on behalf of the ’Ndrangheta organization. He later entered Guyana, where he lived until his capture in 2024. Extradition proceedings commenced with Italy’s Request to Proceed before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court. Magistrate Faith McGusty refused to commit to extradite. Between March 19 and March 28 of 2024, when court was adjourned, Vitesh Guptar spent his days in prison pending the decision of the Magistrate. No paltry bail of $150,000 GYD. No access to his residence, businesses and, most certainly, no access to our country’s Legislature.

Guyana and Italy do not share an extradition treaty. Additionally, Mohamed cited his insurance policies being suspended and bank accounts closed without the same being done to Guptar; a deliberately false comparison excluding the gravity of OFAC Magnitsky Sanctions relating to association, goods and services. If the PPP were truly protecting Guptar, why was his lawyer Mr. Ronald Daniels, a National Candidate for APNU in the 2025 Elections?

Contrast this with the apparent unlimited access enjoyed by the WIN Leader. Of the two men, only one has been able to enter Parliament with an uninsured vehicle, rack up alleged traffic violations and avoid jail time during extradition proceedings with remarkably low bail. So who really has been receiving preferential treatment? Certainly not Vitesh Guptar.

This latest misrepresentation of the extradition proceedings is but the latest episode of an ensuing circus of disinformation. The primary legal battle taking place in the High Court no longer appears to be about insufficient evidence to extradite, but against the idea of extradition itself. His legal team hasn’t reposed confidence in his innocence; instead they’re adamant that the extradition proceedings will go “nowhere”, without a chance to prove his innocence in Florida.

Curiously, both Azruddin, his family and the WIN party haven’t mounted any serious rebuttal to the 11-count Florida indictments. The elder Mohamed asserted on January 10 that he was a victim of “ malicious, political persecution.” Outside the Parliament Buildings after an extradition hearing, Azruddin was asked by Prime News if the evidence in Florida was “unbelievable” to which he agreed and retorted: “What proof is there?” Outside of these interactions, there hasn’t been any specific response to the 11-count indictments of wire and mail fraud. In several recent press statements, the WIN party affirmed their position of the extradition as being “politically motivated” with confidence that the indictments will fail, yet no significant comment on those very indictments.

In the Mail Fraud Indictment, an affidavit from Mr. Ronald Wayne Potts Jr. of International Speed Consulting states that he sold the 2020 Lamborghini Roadster to Mohamed for 75,000 USD. Several invoices show costs charged for “Marketing & Advertising” (250,000 USD) and a “Race Team Management Fee” spanning 2020 & 2021 (350,000 USD). These figures total 675,000 USD, similar to a 695,000 USD figure on an invoice for the same vehicle from the same International Speed Consulting Inc. This invoice, confirming no Outstanding Balance, was supplied by the US Justice Department. Did Potts actually sell the vehicle for $695,000 and then falsify several invoices to divide the cost into various services to undervalue the vehicle? Azruddin even gloated to Influencer “ChrisMustList” in a February 2025 YouTube video that the Lamborghini cost him “A Million” USD. Something doesn’t quite add up.

I hold no brief for Azruddin Mohamed, his family, nor the WIN party. But if he is confident in his innocence then I challenge him to step away from curated Facebook monologues and address the indictments directly at a press conference; for greater scrutiny, clarity and coverage. If the indictments are indeed baseless, then directness and scrutiny should pose no difficulty. Until then, this silence remains telling.

Yours faithfully,

Nikhil Sankar.

In November of last year, I felt compelled to address High Commissioner Sébastien Sigouin’s public exhortations for Guyanese citizens to “speak up” regarding domestic electoral processes—a move I characterized then as an overreach into our sovereign internal affairs.

Today, observing the High Commissioner’s recent social media output regarding his “engagement” with the National Assembly and various stakeholders, I find a different, yet equally troubling trend: the transition from quiet, effective diplomacy to overt self-advertisement.

As a dual citizen of both Canada and Guyana, I have long valued the deep, historically grounded relationship between our two nations. However, the efficacy of that relationship is compromised when the representative of a sovereign partner appears to prioritize a high-frequency public profile over the traditional “mystique” of the diplomatic office.

There is a fine line between modern “digital diplomacy” and what looks increasingly like personal branding. When a diplomat frames every routine meeting or “engagement” as a public affirmation of their personal “belief in institutions,” they inadvertently center themselves in the narrative.

In the world of high-level international relations, a diplomat’s power is often inverse to their visibility. True influence happens in the quiet corridors of the Ministry of Finance or the Office of the President, not on a Facebook feed.

By constantly “advertising” his presence and his personal philosophies, the High Commissioner risks compromising his own diplomatic autonomy. To be an effective interlocutor, an envoy must remain a neutral bridge. When an envoy becomes a local “influencer” or a celebrity commentator on the functioning of our Parliament, they lose the gravitas required for the “hard miles” of bilateral negotiation.

Canada’s commitment to Guyana is unquestioned and appreciated. But that commitment is best served by an approach that respects the quiet dignity of Guyanese institutions without the need for a play-by-play public commentary.

As I noted weeks ago, democracy belongs to the Guyanese people. So, too, does the right to manage our institutions without the constant, televised “endorsement” or “engagement” of foreign representatives who seem more focused on their digital footprint than their diplomatic footprint.

Sincerely,

Dr. Walter H. Persaud

Dear Editor,

If Guyana is serious about governance, then we must be serious about one basic rule: there cannot be two standards of accountability — one for Government Ministers and another for political actors who wish to govern.

In recent months, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, leader of the We Invest in Nationhood (WiN) party, has positioned himself as the country’s loudest prosecutor. His movement has issued repeated, sweeping allegations of corruption against senior figures in Government and has demanded resignations and “consequences.” That is his right in a democracy. But if you choose to prosecute people in the court of public opinion, you must also accept the same scrutiny you demand of others.

The contrast is stark. Ministers — whether one finds their answers satisfactory or not — have shown up in the arena that public office requires. They have responded in statements, interviews, and official forums because that is what a democracy forces on anyone who holds, or seeks, power. Yet on the most serious questions surrounding Mr. Mohamed himself, the public receives rhetoric, deflection, and victim narratives — not a clear, line‑by‑line accounting.

The questions are not invented by political opponents. They arise from formal actions by United States authorities. On June 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) publicly designated Mr. Mohamed, his father, and associated entities, alleging a corruption network tied to the under‑declaration of gold exports, the avoidance of duty taxes, and bribery of officials. According to Treasury, between 2019 and 2023, Mohamed’s Enterprise omitted more than 10,000 kilograms of gold from import/export declarations and avoided paying more than US$50 million in duty taxes to the Government of Guyana, with allegations of bribery to falsify documentation.

More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice publicly announced criminal charges against the Mohameds in connection with an alleged scheme that exported at least 10,000 kilograms of gold through Miami and caused an estimated loss of approximately US$50 million to Guyana. International reporting has also confirmed that extradition proceedings have been triggered or are underway pursuant to U.S. requests, with Mr. Mohamed having been arrested and released on bond in Guyana pending the legal process.

Let us be intellectually honest: these are not trivial controversies. They are not “Facebook noise.” They are not matters a serious national leader can wave away with generic claims of persecution. They go directly to the core issue WiN claims to champion — corruption, integrity, and the rule of law.

Guyana therefore deserves direct answers, not slogans. Will Mr. Mohamed submit fully to the judicial process and contest the allegations in court on the evidence? Will he stop using politics as a shield against accountability? Will he provide the public — transparently and in detail — with his explanation for the OFAC designation and the U.S. indictment, including the documentary record he relies upon to refute the allegations?

I will not repeat the more sensational claims that circulate in the public space whenever a figure becomes internationally sanctioned, because Guyana must not replace evidence with gossip. But the official record already carries enough gravity to demand clarity, candour, and responsibility from anyone who seeks to lead this country.

If Mr. Mohamed wants the public to believe that he represents a new standard, then he must meet a higher standard — beginning with answering the questions that stem from formal international sanctions and ongoing legal proceedings. Until he does so, his daily moral lectures to Ministers ring hollow. Accountability cannot be a weapon used only against others; it must also be a mirror.

Sincerely,

Avinash Bhagwandeen

By now, the public is aware that the European Union Election Observation Mission has released its final report into the 2025 General and Regional Elections. Anyone genuinely concerned about democracy should read the report in full.

What becomes apparent on review of the report is that Guyana has much to be proud of; significant strides have been made to improve the health of our democracy after the scars of 2020. After the Granger Government attempted to rig the 2020 Elections, the EU EOM made several priority recommendations for the future conduct of elections. The 2025 EOM report acknowledges the fulfillment of three of these priority measures through the Government’s amendments to the Representation of the People’s Act (ROPA) in 2022. These measures, from the real-time online publication of SOPs to harsher penalties for electoral fraud, were heralded as a “welcome development” aimed at boosting transparency.

Equally compelling is that the report completely dismantles the allegations of electoral fraud leveled by U.S.-indicted Member of Parliament Azruddin Mohamed. Despite the EU itself congratulating President Ali and the PPP/C on September 7th, strangely enough, Mr. Mohamed has welcomed this very report, even though it thoroughly discredits his claims.

Not only was Election Day described as “peaceful” and “orderly”, but the report also confirms that voting and counting were “efficiently administered,” with tabulation equally efficient. This underscores the integrity and transparency of Polling Day activities, striking down Mohamed’s allegation of rigging. Additionally, the report highlighted that voters were able to cast their ballots in an “orderly environment”, free to exercise their democratic franchise. Further, the Observer Mission made it clear that PPP/C, APNU and WIN representatives were present at 100% of the observed polling stations. Alongside a brief scan of the SOPs published online, this cements that WIN agents would have joined the PPP/C and APNU agents in signing off on every single SOP. This exposes the glaring contradiction in Mr. Mohamed’s shifting narrative.

Debate will continue on the incumbent’s advantage; between 2006 and 2025, Guyana went nineteen years without reelecting a sitting President. But the EU Observers Report is clear: the integrity and transparency of the election remained intact.

History continues to remind us that lies remain lies, no matter the repetition. Guyana is a fledgling and vibrant democracy which only continues to grow. Suggestions to the contrary have no basis in fact. The EU Observers Report simply affirms this.

Yours faithfully,

Nikhil Sankar.

To this end, critics are questioning, I suppose, the legality of whether the President can intervene in such matters, given that the GRA is an “independent” body.

But from my reading and interpretation of the relevant governing legislation of the GRA, the Revenue Authority Act, Chapter 79:04, and the Constitution of Guyana in respect of the authority of the executive, I found nothing unlawful or unconstitutional with such intervention by His Excellency.

In fact, the GRA falls under the purview of the Minister of Finance, who is a senior minister responsible for finance in the Office of the President. Accordingly, Section 12 (2) of the Revenue Authority Act states:

“The Minister may give to the Governing Board such general directives with respect to carrying out of its functions under this Act as he considers necessary or expedient, and the Board shall give effect to those directives…”.

Clearly, there was/is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional as regards the President’s intervention at the GRA.

Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin

This morning (June 2, 2025), United States-sanctioned businessman and presidential hopeful Mr. Azrudin Mohamed revealed the so-called evidence that President Ali facilitated the approval of a false invoice for a Lamborghini that the controversial businessman imported.

In a pre-recorded video, the businessman sought to implicate the President but failed miserably and ludicrously, and in fact, has further implicated himself by providing evidence that he misled the President, stating he paid US$75,000 for the Lamborghini. What he showed in the video was a supposed wire transfer receipt from Republic Bank representing full payment for one luxury vehicle in the sum of US$75,000.

At no time did he show that he presented to the President the true and correct invoice and payment thereof for US$695,000. Furthermore, one cannot expect the President to perform due diligence on what was presented to him to ensure it is true and correct.

It is a well-known fact that for many years, Guyanese have often purchased vehicles from junkyards in the United States. So, if he did pay that price (US$75,000) for a Lamborghini, it had to be from a junkyard.

It turns out, however, that the Lamborghini was not purchased from a junkyard. A subsequent investigation by the U.S. authorities confirmed that the actual price was much higher than the declared price, and the price he informed the President that he paid for the vehicle was proven to be false, knowing full well he was being untruthful to the President.

The funny thing in this whole story is that the embattled businessman has presented all the evidence to the public of the crime he committed from the beginning. None of it whatsoever, which he thought would have proven otherwise to vindicate him. I am not sure who is/are his advisor (s), these machinations enacted by him are nothing short of being profoundly and incredibly foolish.

All in all, Mr. Azrudin, a U.S.-sanctioned businessman, has provided compelling evidence to the public that he has committed an egregious financial crime, which the authorities are well aware of, in order to ensure that it is remedied forthwith in accordance with the law.

Sincerely
Joel Bhagwandin

And reportedly, the opposition commissioners walked out of a GECOM meeting on the subject of the holding of the general and regional elections on September 1, 2025. 

Editor, this behaviour demonstrated by the opposition-nominated commissioners, though not unusual whenever it is time for national elections, signals that they have yet to receive directives from Congress Place. Because it is not GECOM that is not ready for an election, it is the opposition, the APNU+AFC, that is in no way, shape, or form ready for election 2025, hence, the shenanigans.

Article 60 (2) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana is clear. It states that:

“An election of members of the National Assembly under Article 60 (2) shall be held on such day within three months after dissolution of Parliament as the President shall appoint by proclamation.”

With the Independence Day announcement made by the President, we can therefore expect the aforesaid proclamation by the President shortly.

Further, it is important to note that according the Constitution of Guyana, there are practically three (3) scenarios under which a national election may be held: (i) when it is constitutionally due in accordance with the normal election cycle period (every five years), (ii) snap election (a snap election can be called anytime due to various factors and circumstances), and (iii) a No Confidence Motion (NCM; as in the case of 2018-2020). In all three scenarios hereof, the constitution mandates that the national election shall be held within three months.

In view of the foregoing, let us not be misguided or distracted by the whims and fancies of a hopeless bunch. The Chairman of GECOM is the appropriate and authorized personnel to indicate GECOM’s readiness for an election, to his Excellency the President, which she did according to law.

Sincerely,

Joel Bhagwandin