Dear Editor,
A week before the General and Regional Elections, which took place, as we know, on September 1, 2025, I wrote a letter published in the media on August 26, 2025, in which I said that “the opportunities for our next Government to take our country to a level of prosperity equal to or beyond any other country of its size are immense, and yet, the threat to this realisation is stark and dangerous if, in this election, we make the wrong choice.”
I was, of course, referring to the choices between the PPP/C, APNU (PNC), WIN, AFC, ALP and FGM.
Fortunately, we made the right choice. The results gave the PPP/C a handsome majority but also delivered WIN, the party led by Azruddin Mohamed, just under one quarter of the popular vote, qualifying Mr Mohamed to be chosen by due Parliamentary process to be the Leader of the Opposition, and I had warned about this very danger, not from outside but from within our country.
I had pointed out then that “WIN, led by Azruddin Mohamed, offers the choice of a party led by a person sanctioned by the US Government, accused of gross criminal activity and who is before our own courts charged for further criminal activity. The consequences of electing such a party to govern our country should be plain to see and really need no elaboration.”
On September 12, 2025, 11 days after the elections, I wrote again, pointing out that “therein (the election of Mohamed) lies a potential threat to the future stability of our country”, drawing attention to the US Embassy’s response to a Stabroek News list of questions regarding the sanctioning of Mr Mohamed, asking, “What are the implications for a country’s investment from the United States if an OFAC-sanctioned individual (GLOMAG Program) is elected to Government or wins seats in Parliament?” The US Embassy responded, “Guyana is not subject to OFAC’s broad jurisdiction-based sanctions. As a result, US persons are not generally prohibited from investing in Guyana, provided no sanctioned persons are involved in such transactions.” The emphasis is mine. The Embassy went on to say that “we cannot comment on the possibility of broader impact to US investment in a country as a result of the election of a sanctioned individual to that country’s Government or Parliament.”
I went on to point out in that letter that we can draw two conclusions from that exchange with the US Embassy. The first conclusion we could draw is that “if Mr Mohamed becomes directly involved in any investment or transaction in Guyana from the US, we have a problem”, and, secondly, “the US Embassy left the broader question of US investment in our country having a sanctioned individual (Mohamed) elected to our Parliament wide open”.
I then went on to point out that the US Ambassador, Ms Nicole Theriot, when questioned at an event by a Journalist about Azruddin Mohamed’s participation in Parliament in an official capacity, responded by clearly stating that that would be “concerning” and “problematic” for her Government.
As I write today, it is a fact that Azruddin Mohamed has, indeed, been elected by just under a quarter of our population as the leader of WIN, the majority opposition party in Parliament, and potentially as the Leader of the Opposition. As a result, there is an ongoing uproar by some, including an editorial in the Stabroek News (19/01/26) on the subject of Parliamentary respect, calling it “shameful” that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr Manzoor Nadir, has not as yet called a meeting of the Assembly to afford the possibility of Mohamed being chosen as Leader of the Opposition, the very possibility that I had gone to some lengths to point out in my earlier letters could have very serious destabilising consequences for Guyana and, in the words of the US Ambassador, could be of concern and be problematic to our country’s relations with the United States of America. The Speaker has since acted appropriately on this matter.
So, to all those loud voices and writers of letters and editorials on this subject crying “shameful”, I ask this simple question. Is it not the first and absolute priority of any Government and the president who leads it to do all in their power to protect their country from the very consequences posed by electing Azruddin Mohamed as Leader of the Opposition? Are those consequences not clear enough? The threat to our economic stability, the threat to our country’s security and defence against the external threats to some two-thirds (2/3) of our territory by Venezuela, and the threat to Guyana being deemed a country of high risk to any and all potential investors.
I also ask this simple question of Mr Azruddin Mohamed. Surely, he too is well aware of the consequences of his becoming the Leader of the Opposition while he remains sanctioned by the US Government and accused of gross criminal activity in that country. And why is he determined to fight extradition rather than stand trial to prove his innocence in a US court?
If, indeed, Mr Azruddin Mohamed is truly and genuinely a political leader concerned for the future and well-being of those who voted for him and all of Guyana and its people, why not simply anoint his deputy in his party to stand in his stead as Leader of the Opposition and volunteer himself to stand trial in the US and prove his innocence for the crimes he claims he has been unjustly accused of? He could then return to Guyana as the conquering hero and assume the leadership of the Opposition.