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.