Mohamed must answer for his judgement — Jermaine Figueira — Opinion

Mohamed must answer for his judgement

October 21, 2026·5 min read

Dear Editor,

The reported late-night incident outside Senior Superintendent Prem Narine’s residence, which the media several days ago raised a question that Opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed is yet to answer with honesty: what common sense or sound judgement justified his presence near the home of a key witness in extradition proceedings involving himself^[1]?

Public reporting, citing the Police account^[2], places Mohamed in a heavily tinted vehicle that passed Narine’s residence and returned shortly before midnight. One version from the Opposition explanation that the occupants were documenting an alleged misuse of state security resources does not adequately address the central concern: was this responsible conduct for someone occupying a constitutional office?

The Leader of the Opposition has parliamentary platforms, legal representation and formal investigative channels through which to challenge public expenditure or Police conduct. His personal involvement in a late-night excursion near a key witness’s private residence who expressed fear for his life therefore invites serious criticism. An asserted public purpose does not place the methods employed beyond scrutiny.

A national leader should have the common sense to recognise the foreseeable danger of creating a confrontation around a witness’s home. Such conduct can reasonably raise concerns about pressure or possible intimidation, although intent must be established through evidence. Leadership requires sufficient discipline to avoid circumstances that could undermine public confidence in the Administration of justice.

Equally troubling is Mohamed’s reported characterisation of the shooting as an assassination attempt. Narine’s reported account is that he believed he was under attack. These competing accounts require an impartial investigation. Neither political influence nor public repetition can establish what the evidence has yet to determine.

More serious still is the reported accusation that President Irfaan Ali directed or desired Mohamed’s assassination. An allegation of that gravity demands compelling evidence. Without such evidence, advancing it as fact is reckless and grossly irresponsible. It risks inflaming public sentiment, damaging confidence in institutions and diverting attention from the Opposition leader’s own conduct.

A constitutional officeholder must distinguish suspicion from proof. Political disagreement does not establish a conspiracy, and repetition cannot supply missing evidence. Anyone possessing credible information about a threat to life should place it before the appropriate investigative authorities.

Further, appeals to shared religious identity are similarly misplaced if advanced as grounds for preferential treatment, which he seems to want.

The President, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and other public officials owe their professional duties to the entire country. Their shared faith creates no obligation to intervene on a politician’s behalf, excuse questionable conduct or influence legal proceedings.

Religious freedom and equality before the law deserve unwavering protection. Neither principle is served by making religious identity a test of political loyalty. No official should have to demonstrate religious sincerity by supporting Mohamed, and no religious community should be expected to adopt his personal legal disputes as its collective cause.

Mohamed remains entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair hearing. Allegations concerning Police conduct also warrant independent scrutiny. These principles strengthen the demand for accountability; they do not exempt the Opposition leader from it.

The public need not await a criminal verdict before assessing political judgement. Whether an offence occurred and whether an officeholder exercised the restraint expected of his position are separate questions. Guyanese are entitled to examine both.

Mr Mohamed’s remarks about President Ali’s legacy are equally grossly misplaced. The President’s principal responsibility is to serve the people of Guyana, implement policies that improve their lives and fulfil the commitments on which his Government was elected. In my assessment, President Ali’s Administration’s development agenda demonstrates a sustained commitment to those responsibilities and an ambition to deliver beyond its manifesto promises.

The Opposition leader’s responsibility is to scrutinise that work, identify shortcomings through credible evidence and present practical alternatives. Producing videos of alleged wrongdoing can contribute to accountability when supported by verifiable facts. It cannot substitute for a coherent programme of national leadership.

President Ali’s legacy already has substantial foundations and continues to take shape. Investments in roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, health centres and expanded educational opportunities form part of a development agenda reshaping Guyana’s physical, social and economic landscape. Its lasting value must be measured by the opportunities created, services improved and benefits reaching ordinary citizens. Unsupported accusations cannot erase that work.

In my assessment, President Ali’s accessibility and direct engagement with communities place him among Guyana’s most grounded Presidents, recalling the connection with ordinary citizens associated with Forbes Burnham and Bharrat Jagdeo. His willingness to listen, engage directly and pursue practical responses is a defining strength of his leadership.

Accessibility matters because effective Government requires more than announcements. It requires leaders who hear people’s concerns, understand their circumstances and translate those concerns into action. This is the standard by which I recognise President Ali as a President is committed to service.

His continuing mandate provides an opportunity to consolidate infrastructure development, expand economic opportunities, strengthen public services and advance food security. His historical standing will ultimately rest on lives improved, institutions strengthened and opportunities extended to future generations. Political allegations unsupported by evidence cannot substitute for an honest assessment of that record.

Mohamed, meanwhile, has an opportunity to establish a meaningful legacy of his own. That requires demonstrating that his leadership extends beyond his personal legal circumstances. Guyanese deserve an Opposition capable of proposing credible policies, demanding accountability through substantiated scrutiny and contributing constructively to national development.

Where are the detailed alternatives to address the cost of living, create employment, improve electricity and water services, strengthen healthcare delivery and manage the country’s growing national wealth? These are matters on which a serious Opposition should consistently engage the Government and the public.

Responsible Opposition requires informed parliamentary interventions, credible policy proposals and the maturity to recognise progress while challenging deficiencies. Its democratic purpose is diminished when public debate becomes persistently centred on the officeholder’s personal disputes.

The Office of the Leader of the Opposition belongs to Guyana’s constitutional democracy. Its authority should strengthen parliamentary scrutiny, public confidence and respect for lawful institutions. It should never be used to confer credibility on unsupported accusations or advance demands for personal exemption from accountability.

Mr Mohamed owes the country a clear explanation of his conduct and evidence for the grave allegations attributed to him. Investigating the actions of the Police does not remove his obligation to account for his own judgement.

President Ali’s record should be assessed through his service and the results of his Government’s policies. Mohamed’s leadership must likewise be assessed through his conduct, his judgement and the substance of what he offers the nation.

The office he holds demands restraint, maturity, honesty, and responsibility. The people of Guyana are entitled to demand better.

Yours respectfully,
Jermaine Figueira
Former Member of Parliament

References

Police spy chief flagged for central role in Azruddin Mohamed’s court cases – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana — demerarawaves.com ↩
Slowe questions police delay after alleged gunshot in Mohamed-Narine incident - Kiskadee Watch — kiskadeewatch.com ↩

Police spy chief flagged for central role in Azruddin Mohamed’s court cases – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana

demerarawaves.com · 2026-10-18

The State’s so far key witness in the United States (US) extradition request hearing, police intelligence chief senior superintendent Prem Narine is a central figure in going after Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, indicated the lawyer for the businessman turned politician. Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde raised multiple instances of Mr Narine’s involvement and utterances against Mr Mohamed who is wanted by the United States to face trial for alleged money laundering, wire fraud and mail fraud associated with his and his father’s gold trading business. In making a bail application for his client on charges of possession of a firearm and ammunition and attempting to pervert the course of justice, Mr Forde told the court that Mr Narine alleged that Mr Mohamed fired several rounds at him, is a witness in the extradition proceedings, and testified that he was the greatest national security threat but could not provide any evidence. Mr Forde also told the court presided over by Faith McGusty that Mr Narine was not only the witness in parallel proceedings but also the virtual complainant and investigator in the gun, ammo possession and attempted perversion of justice charges and the the extradition case, an testified that he had conducted surveillance without the Police Commissioner’s permission. The lawyer also told the court that the Head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch (intelligence arm) was demonstrating his loyalty to the government of the day while pretending to be a professional policeman. In seeking to make the point that Mr Narine appeared to be politically biased towards the governing People’s Progressive Party Civic. “Mr Prem Narine is recorded as being present at the Region Four Returning Office. What is unfolding before this court did not begin on Tuesday night. Prem Narine was in the presence of government officials who now form the government,” the lawyer said. ... Mr Mohamed and two of his employees are each on GY$750,000 bail in connection with the joint charge of gun and ammunition possession and attempting to pervert the course of justice for the administration of law by discharging a firearm at or in the vicinity of the Barr Street, Kitty, Georgetown residence of Mr Narine who is testifying in Mr Mohamed’s extradition proceedings. Those offences allegedly occurred on October 12. Mr Forde also told the court that Mr Narine benefitted from accelerated promotion.

Source

Mohamed must answer for his judgement in Guyana Times, October 21, 2026

Slowe questions police delay after alleged gunshot in Mohamed-Narine incident - Kiskadee Watch

kiskadeewatch.com · 2026-10-18

Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Slowe ... Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Slowe has questioned the response of police personnel following the second pass of a vehicle carrying Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed outside the home of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, Head of the GPF’s Special Branch, saying 22 seconds elapsed before a man entered a parked pickup. Slowe, who shared surveillance footage showing portions of the October 12 incident on Barr Street, Kitty, Georgetown, said the delay raised questions about the actions of the officers who were reportedly stationed near Narine’s residence. In reviewing the footage, Slowe pointed to a black car, said to be the vehicle in which Mohamed was travelling, passing the area before returning a second time. He also highlighted a pickup parked nearby, which he said did not appear to have police markings or a crest, although it was being identified as a police vehicle. Slowe said the footage appeared to show the black car passing the parked pickup during the second round through the area. This was the pass during which Mohamed has alleged that shots were fired at the vehicle. “If you’re there on duty there, you’re to protect the Head of Special Branch, and a vehicle passed, and a shot is fired,” Slowe said, questioning why the police vehicle did not appear to respond immediately. He said he had carefully checked the footage and calculated that 22 seconds elapsed between the black car passing the pickup and a man entering the vehicle, apparently to pursue the car. Slowe also drew attention to the pickup’s red lights, suggesting that they could indicate that its engine was running or that its parking lights had been left on. ... The incident occurred at about 11:45 p.m. on October 12, when Mohamed and two associates were travelling in a black Toyota Allion along Barr Street, near Narine’s residence. According to the police report, Narine was at home when he observed the vehicle travelling slowly along the street. After it passed and subsequently returned, he reportedly heard what appeared to be a gunshot, took cover and fired several rounds from his service firearm in the direction of the vehicle. The car later left the area and was intercepted at the junction of Vlissengen Road and Sandy Babb Street, Kitty. Mohamed, his driver Eugene Thorne and videographer Mario Mohamed were arrested. Police subsequently reported finding a .32 Taurus pistol without a serial number and three rounds of ammunition in the vehicle. Investigators also recovered one .32 spent shell near Narine’s residence and four 9mm spent shells. The items were lodged for ballistic examination, while surveillance footage was expected to assist the investigation. Mohamed has denied firing at Narine and alleged that the officer shot at his vehicle. He has also disputed the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the firearm. The incident has since resulted in criminal charges against Mohamed and his two associates. On October 16, the three men pleaded not guilty to charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and attempting to obstruct the course of justice. They were each granted bail totalling $750,000, subject to conditions that include avoiding Narine and his immediate family and staying away from the specified section of Barr Street. The case was adjourned to November 6. During the bail proceedings, the magistrate noted that the prosecution had not presented CCTV footage establishing that the suspected gunshot originated from the vehicle occupied by the accused.