Dear Editor,
Mr. Zulfikar Mustapha’s statement responding to the Facebook exposé published by Team Mohamed and the WIN Party is not evidence; it is a self-serving press release seeking to hide the truth with regards to his family. Declarations of innocence carry no weight in law or public accountability unless they are supported by verifiable proof. Simply asserting that assets were lawfully acquired does not make it so.
If Mr. Mustapha genuinely believes he has been libeled or slandered, the proper forum is a court of law—not a politically charged statement in the newspapers, filled with indignation and moral posturing. Until he files a lawsuit, presents documentary evidence, and prevails before an independent judge, the public is under no obligation to accept his narrative as established truth.
In Guyana, as in any functioning democracy, public officials are subject to scrutiny. When serious questions arise about wealth, property, or exorbitant lifestyle with luxury boats and the likes, the burden rests squarely on the officeholder to prove legitimacy—not to demand unquestioning belief. Who does Mr. Mustapha think he is, the prophet?
Mortgage agreements, bank records, construction contracts, income histories, and Integrity Commission declarations are verifiable facts. Anything short of producing such evidence is rhetoric.
Mr. Mustapha’s attempt to deflect by attacking Mr. Mohamed’s character, motives, or associations is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Character attacks do not answer substantive questions – that is an old PPP ploy at subterfuge and deception in an attempt to fool the people. The issue is not who raised the allegations, but whether the Minister can transparently and credibly account for the assets in question based on a public servant’s income.
Threatening to have lawyers “review” social media posts while stopping short of legal action is a familiar political tactic seeking to quash the matter in the court of public opinion but the Guyanese public are not that fatuous in their thinking. They remember the PPP that promised them the cash grant and then withheld it from them at the “nth hour” in an act of public mean-spiritedness in this season of Christmas. What Mr. Mustapha is doing signals hesitation; not confidence. If the allegations are false and malicious, the remedy is straightforward: sue for libel, submit to cross-examination, and allow an independent court to decide.
But we all know that Mr. Mustapha cannot do that since there will be more coming out in those hallowed halls of the court of law and that will be music to the FBI’s ears and the United States authorities.
Until that happens, the public is entitled to remain skeptical. Accountability is not “nasty propaganda,” and scrutiny is not persecution. Public office is not a shield from legitimate questions, and family ties do not exempt anyone from examination where the public interest is involved. In short, Mr. Mustapha can either produce evidence, go to court and prevail, or accept that public doubt will persist on him and his family forever. Statements alone do not establish truth—proof does.