Dear Editor,
AZRUDDIN Mohamed has been duly and properly elected, in accordance with our Constitution, as the Leader of the Opposition, his party, WIN, having won sufficient votes in free and fair elections to allow him to be elected Leader of the Opposition in our Parliament.
Congratulations to him and his party. However, the fact that he has been so elected does not gainsay anything that I have warned of the consequences of this happening.
The fact remains that Azruddin Mohamed has been charged by a US Grand Jury with conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and other charges—very serious criminal offences—and is before our courts to be extradited to the US to face these charges.
It is not without interest that when Dr Terrence Campbell, of APNU, in responding to a journalist’s question on this matter, remarked that Mohamed “should be guided by the Westminster Confession,” meaning that he should resign.
A letter from a Mr Surujdai Juglall (Stabroek News 25/01/26), in reference to my letter, incredibly, offers the opinion that since the Donald Trump Government continues to engage “directly and substantively” with Delcy Rodriguez, who is under US sanction by OFAC, this demonstrates that the US Government would have no problem engaging Azruddin Mohamed.
It is, of course, downright nonsense, in fact, ludicrous, for Juglall to equate Rodriguez with Mohamed with respect to the US Government’s attitude towards them. The US Government, having captured Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s bad man, finds it convenient to deal with Rodriguez, once she agrees to President Trump’s dictates, including accommodating access to Venezuela’s oil resources to US oil and gas companies, while she manages to control her colleagues in the unelected Venezuelan regime from resistance.
In contrast, the US Government has absolutely nothing to gain from engaging with Azruddin Mohamed and, as the US Ambassador quite clearly said, when asked about him holding any official capacity in Parliament, it would be “concerning” and “problematic” for the US Government.
Further, there is nothing in my letter that suggests that Azruddin Mohamed should not have been elected Leader of the Opposition, as Mr Juglall wrongly accuses me. What my letter does is warn of the consequences which, unfortunately, are yet to come.
What my letter does suggest, however, is that if Azruddin Mohamed is convinced of his innocence, why does he not simply present himself to stand trial in a US court and establish his innocence beyond doubt and, as I have said, “he could then return to Guyana the conquering hero and assume the leadership of the opposition” with absolute credibility and with Mr Juglall there to cheer him on.