Timing, origins and equality before the law

November 12, 20263 min read

Dear Editor,

Following the June 2024 sanctions, the Government committed to an investigation with due process. On June 13, 2024, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo promised accountability for lawbreakers while recognising the Mohameds’ right, “as Guyanese citizens,” to due process. By November 6, 2025, he maintained that due process was being followed. The test is whether subsequent proceedings support that assurance.

The Government’s stated restraint also predated the election. On 12, August 2025, The Big Smith News Watch reported Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo explaining that the Administration had been cautious about pursuing legal action against Mohamed during the campaign because it “would make it look like you’re going after your opponent.”^[1] After polling, Guyana Standard reported on September 5, his explanation was that matters had been put on hold to avoid the perception of victimisation.^[2] This position distinguished between allowing electoral participation and granting exemption from legal accountability. Mohamed was able to contest; permanent immunity was not part of the stated undertaking.

The issue must therefore be examined relative to both timing and outcome. A claim that legal action prevented Mohamed from facing the electorate must account for the fact that he did contest. Conversely, treating post-election action as persecution solely because of its timing would convert temporary restraint into an expectation of permanent immunity. Under that interpretation, enforcement before polling would constitute interference, while enforcement afterwards would constitute retaliation. No period would remain in which the law could legitimately be applied. This is not a sustainable standard of democratic accountability.

The origins of the American case must also be distinguished from the domestic political dispute. As the US Department of Justice records, the Mohameds were sanctioned in June 2024, before the 2025 election campaign. A federal grand jury in Miami returned an indictment on 2 October 2025 alleging fraudulent gold exports, tax evasion and related money laundering.^[3] It also alleged a separate scheme involving the importation of a Lamborghini. These remain allegations, not convictions. Their origin in an American criminal proceeding is nevertheless relevant to the claim that the case was manufactured by the Guyanese Government. Such a claim requires evidence establishing that connection; domestic political hostility does not, by itself, establish it.

At home, Mohamed faces firearm and obstruction-of-justice charges arising from the October incident outside a witness’s home, as well as a cybercrime charge concerning surveillance footage. He is presumed innocent of those charges too. Each matter must be assessed on its own evidence and legal basis. The existence of several allegations does not establish guilt, but neither can a general claim of political persecution substitute for examining each one. Where a prosecution is defective, the relevant defect must be identified and tested. The accused’s political office does not determine the evidentiary merits.

Membership of the National Assembly does not alter that framework or confer general immunity from criminal proceedings. An electoral mandate authorises representation and scrutiny of Government; it does not remove the representative from legal scrutiny. The same standard must apply to a Government minister, an Opposition Leader and a citizen holding neither office. Otherwise, electoral support would become a source of legal privilege, undermining the equality before the law that democratic accountability requires.

The family’s successful challenge to the GRA is also relevant to the institutional assessment. On July 2, 2026, Justice Gino Persaud ruled against the GRA in the vehicle-tax disputes brought by Hana and Bibi Mohamed, quashing assessments and restraining enforcement.^[4] The reported judgement found important aspects of the authority’s conduct unlawful. That finding must be acknowledged, not minimised in defence of the Government. It demonstrates the relationship between administrative power and judicial oversight: a state agency can act unlawfully, and an affected citizen can obtain a remedy. An unlawful administrative decision does not, without further evidence, establish a Government-directed conspiracy. At the same time, the family’s access to an effective judicial remedy must form part of any assessment of whether the institutions afford it protection.

Altogether, the evidence weakens the claim of unrestrained political persecution. None of this determines guilt or removes the duty to examine state overreach. The test is whether executive action remains subject to law, judicial review and effective remedies. The record shows those constraints operating; accountability within them is the standard democracy requires.

Yours faithfully,
Concerned Citizen

References

Prosecuting Mohamed during campaign would look like political persecution-Jagdeo – The Big Smith News Watchbigsmithnewswatch.news ↩
Mohamed can expect the wrath of law now that elections are almost over – Jagdeowww.guyanastandard.com ↩
Guyana father, son charged with evading taxes on smuggled goldwww.miamiherald.com ↩
High Court throws out GRA's claim of $800M in belated taxes against Hana and Bibi Mohamed for import of luxury vehicles - News Source Guyananewssourcegy.com ↩

Prosecuting Mohamed during campaign would look like political persecution-Jagdeo – The Big Smith News Watch

bigsmithnewswatch.news, Aug 12, 2025

Mohamed can expect the wrath of law now that elections are almost over – Jagdeo

www.guyanastandard.com, Sep 5, 2025

Guyana father, son charged with evading taxes on smuggled gold

www.miamiherald.com, Oct 10, 2025

Father and son charged with evading millions in taxes on smuggled gold to Miami By Jay Weaver October 10, 2025 10:24 AM A wealthy father and son from Guyana have been indicted in the U.S. in a gold-smuggling case involving Miami and Dubai. Getty Images/iStockphoto In Guyana, Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed have long been members of the South American country’s business elite, making a fortune in gold trading and other dealings. They have exported hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of gold over the years, using Miami as a hub to smuggle the precious metal to Dubai in the Middle East, U.S. authorities say. But now the law has caught up with Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin, an elected member of parliament in Guyana: Both have been charged in Miami federal court with conspiracy, fraud and money laundering. They’re accused of conspiring to ship at least 10,000 kilos of gold through Miami without paying Guyanese taxes and royalties between 2017 and 2024, according to an indictment filed last week. Prosecutors in Miami say the loss to Guyana’s government totals $50 million. Both father and son face possible extradition to Miami on the 11-count corruption indictment, once U.S. authorities formally make the request, Guyana’s attorney general said this week. According to the federal indictment, here’s how the father and son carried out their alleged gold-export scheme: Under Guyanese law, the government imposes a 2% export tax and a 5% royalty tax on the value of gold shipped abroad. Once those taxes are paid, wholesalers obtain government seals allowing the exportation of gold from Guyana. The Mohameds, who did business with a handful of shipping companies in Miami, “set up a system” whereby they would pay taxes and royalties in Guyana on one load of gold and obtain the appropriate government seals and customs declarations. Reused government seals: feds But then, they would “reuse the same” seals for subsequent shipments so their company, Mohamed’s Enterprise, could avoid paying taxes and royalties to the Guyanese government, according to the indictment. Four Miami shipping companies, which are not named in the indictment, coordinated the family’s gold exports via Miami to Dubai, among the world’s importation capitals of gold. As part of the scheme, the Mohameds arranged to have empty wooden boxes with intact Guyanese seals shipped from gold buyers in Dubai to Miami, according to the indictment. Then, they arranged to have those empty boxes with government seals shipped from Miami to their office in Guyana. The Mohameds “reused empty boxes with intact seals for shipments of gold to make it appear that” their company “had paid Guyana taxes and royalties on shipments of gold when, in truth and in fact, Mohamed’s Enterprise had not paid them,” according to the indictment, filed by federal prosecutors Michael Berger and Jil Simon. Both father and son are accused of paying “bribes” to Guyanese customs officials so they would accept shipments of gold by Mohamed’s Enterprise with “duplicate paperwork and reused seals” to avoid the proper payment of export taxes and royalties, the indictment says. The Mohameds “used proceeds of the conspiracy for their own person benefit,” the indictment says. ... For example, the son, Azruddin Mohamed, bought a Lamborghini for $680,000 from a dealer in California with gold-export profits and then arranged to have the luxury Italian sportscar transported to Miami and then to Guyana. But the son is accused of directing an intermediary who bought the Lamborghini to fabricate an invoice saying it only cost $75,300, the indictment says. The reason: Guyanese tax authorities charges taxes and duties of more than 100% on ceretain luxury vehicles imported into the country. By falsely decreasing the cost of his Lamborghini on the invoice, the son was able to avoid paying more than $1 million in taxes that he owed to Guyanaese authorities, the indictment says.

High Court throws out GRA's claim of $800M in belated taxes against Hana and Bibi Mohamed for import of luxury vehicles - News Source Guyana

newssourcegy.com, Jul 2, 2026

Source

Timing, origins and equality before the law in Guyana Times, November 12, 2026