Dear Editor,
The recent exchange between PNCR Leader Aubrey Norton and representatives of WIN raises a larger issue that Guyanese voters should not ignore: the difference between political persecution and public accountability.
Mr. Norton’s statement that Mr. Azruddin Mohamed entered politics to protect himself from extradition may be strongly worded, but it is not an unreasonable question for the public to consider. When a businessman with known past closeness to the governing party enters politics after serious sanctions, indictments, and extradition proceedings become part of the national conversation, Guyanese citizens have every right to ask whether this is a movement of public service, self-preservation, or both.
This is not to deny that governments can use state institutions unfairly. Guyana’s political history gives citizens every reason to be alert to the misuse of power. However, the phrase “political persecution” should not be used as a shield against legitimate questions about wealth, taxes, business dealings, political relationships, and accountability. Serious allegations cannot simply be brushed aside because someone has entered politics or because that person has helped people through philanthropy.
Charity and accountability are not the same thing.
Many Guyanese are understandably moved by donations of houses, vehicles, hampers, money, and other forms of assistance. In a country where many families struggle daily, help from any quarter can feel like relief. But philanthropy does not answer questions about how wealth was accumulated, whether the state was deprived of revenue, or whether political power is now being used to protect personal interests. Giving to the poor does not automatically erase the public’s right to ask hard questions.
There is also a clear political contradiction that must be addressed. Mr. Mohamed and his family were widely known to have had close relations with the PPP/C before this fallout. That relationship was not hidden. So when supporters now present him only as a victim of the same political machinery he once appeared comfortable with, the public is entitled to question the timing and the narrative. One cannot benefit from proximity to power when it is convenient, then ask the country to forget that history when the relationship changes.
The same concern applies to those such as Member of Parliament Natasha Singh-Lewis, who left one political camp and now defends WIN’s leader. When individuals once condemned the PPP/C, but now defend a political figure who was previously associated with that same political environment, voters are entitled to ask whether principle is guiding them or political convenience.
This is not a personal attack. It is a legitimate democratic question. Are elected representatives in Parliament to answer genuine public concerns, or to mask them? Are they there to represent the people, or to repeat the very behaviour they once accused the government of displaying? Whenever citizens raise serious questions, the response should not be automatic defence, emotional diversion, or political justification. In a democracy, people have the right to question authority, wealth, influence, and motive.
That is one of the deepest problems in Guyanese politics. Wrongdoing should not become acceptable because it is attached to someone we support. Corruption should not only offend us when it comes from a party we dislike. Accountability must not depend on political convenience.
Mr. Norton may have his own political weaknesses, and the PNCR must also account for its failures, especially after losing significant ground to WIN but maybe that was the plan all along but that’s a discussion for another day.
That does not mean every criticism he makes should be dismissed as bitterness. Sometimes a weakened messenger can still raise a valid concern. The public must be mature enough to separate the messenger from the issue.
The issue is this: Guyana cannot build a serious democracy if wealth, charity, popularity, or party alignment becomes a substitute for accountability. Voters have a right to ask who is funding political movements, what interests are being protected, and whether leaders are entering politics to serve the people or to shield themselves.
Guyanese people deserve better than emotional manipulation. They deserve answers. They deserve leaders who can face scrutiny without hiding behind race, charity, party loyalty, or claims of persecution. They deserve an opposition built on principle, not merely money, personality, resentment, or convenience.
If we only care about accountability when it benefits our side, then we are not fighting corruption. We are simply choosing who should be allowed to get away with it.