The Opposition Leader is not above the law

Dear Editor,

The recent decision by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, to complain to the United Nations, CARICOM, the OAS and foreign diplomatic missions about what he describes as a campaign of political harassment deserves scrutiny.

Allegations that the State is using the police to persecute an Opposition Leader are serious. But serious allegations require serious evidence.

What is conspicuously absent from this narrative is adequate acknowledgement of the circumstances that preceded the encounters with law enforcement.

Consider the record.

In February, Mr. Mohamed was detained after failing to appear at the appointed time for his extradition proceedings.^[1] The arrest was not ordered by the Government or the Guyana Police Force. A magistrate issued a warrant after the matter was called and Mr. Mohamed was absent. When he eventually appeared, the warrant was subsequently recalled. Whatever one thinks of the episode, portraying it as political persecution requires ignoring the inconvenient fact that the warrant originated from the bench.

Then came the August incident on the Demerara River.^[2] According to the Joint Services, a fast craft travelling at high speed failed to stop when signalled, resulting in a pursuit. The Maritime Administration Department subsequently stated that neither the vessel nor Mr. Mohamed was licensed or otherwise authorised to operate it. Mr. Mohamed and his colleagues dispute aspects of the police account, as they are entitled to do. But a dispute over the facts does not transform a legitimate law-enforcement investigation into political persecution.

More recently, Mr. Mohamed and others were intercepted after two heavily tinted vehicles attracted the attention of security personnel near the private residence of the President. Police subsequently reported finding a drone, while the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority confirmed that unregistered drones were discovered and reminded the public that unauthorised drone operations, particularly around restricted or protected areas, may constitute criminal offences.^[3]

There is an obvious pattern here, but perhaps not the one Mr. Mohamed would have the international community believe.

The recurring feature is that each encounter arose from an identifiable law-enforcement or judicial circumstance. A court appearance was missed. A vessel was allegedly operated without the necessary authorisation and allegedly failed to obey instructions to stop. Heavily tinted vehicles and unregistered drones were discovered in circumstances sufficiently unusual to attract the attention of security personnel near the President’s residence.

None of this establishes Mr. Mohamed’s guilt of any criminal offence for which he has not been convicted. That distinction matters in a society governed by law. But the converse is equally important: being Leader of the Opposition does not confer immunity from investigation, questioning, arrest or the ordinary requirements of the law.

This is where Mr. Mohamed’s argument becomes troubling. He appears increasingly to regard ordinary encounters with law enforcement as extraordinary simply because they involve him. The Constitution accords the Leader of the Opposition an important place in our democratic system. It does not provide him with a separate traffic code, maritime code, aviation code or criminal law.

Nor does political office convert every police inquiry into political persecution.

If the police have acted unlawfully, Mr. Mohamed has access to counsel and to the courts. If property has been improperly seized, that too can be challenged. If his constitutional rights have been infringed, Guyana’s judicial system provides remedies. These are precisely the institutions through which allegations of unlawful state conduct should be tested by evidence rather than assertion.

Instead, an increasingly familiar spectacle is emerging: confrontation, cameras, social media, allegations of persecution and appeals to international organisations.

That may be effective political theatre. It is less clear how it advances the work for which an Opposition Leader was elected.

Guyana needs a vigorous opposition. It needs an Opposition Leader who scrutinises legislation, interrogates government expenditure, proposes alternative policies, represents constituents, holds ministers accountable and uses Parliament to challenge the Government. Democracy benefits when the opposition does these things effectively.

What Guyana does not need is the transformation of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition into a permanent stage for confrontation with law-enforcement authorities.

Mr. Mohamed should also recognise the distinction between political opposition and provocation. An Opposition Leader is entitled to challenge the Government relentlessly. He is entitled to criticise the President, expose alleged wrongdoing and mobilise public opinion. Those are legitimate democratic functions. But repeatedly placing oneself in circumstances likely to invite intervention by law-enforcement authorities and then presenting the resulting intervention as proof of persecution risks turning politics into performance.

Social-media views are not a substitute for parliamentary representation. Viral videos are not legislation. Confrontations with police are not policy. And political theatre, however entertaining to one’s supporters, is not an alternative to the serious work of opposition.

The most dangerous proposition in Mr. Mohamed’s complaint may therefore be the implicit one: that because he occupies high constitutional office, the application of ordinary law to him should itself be regarded with suspicion. The opposite must be true.

The test of the rule of law is not whether powerful political figures are left alone. It is whether the same law applies to the powerful and the powerless, to government and opposition, and to officeholders and ordinary citizens alike.

Mr. Mohamed is entitled to every protection of the law.

He is not entitled to exemption from it.

References

1. US extradition request: “I will not tolerate your excuses” – Magistrate warns US-indicted Azruddin Mohamed - Guyana Times — guyanatimesgy.com ↩
2. Mohamed released on $100K bail after river standoff with joint services - Kaieteur News — kaieteurnewsonline.com ↩
3. Civil Aviation Authority says vehicles outside President's house had unregistered drones - News Room Guyana — newsroom.gy ↩