Dear Editor,
Azruddin Mohamed appears determined to make “corruption” the centrepiece of his political messaging, accusing almost everyone around him while portraying himself as the fearless crusader demanding accountability.
But there is an elephant in the room that no number of Facebook videos can remove: Mohamed himself is sanctioned by the United States and faces a U.S. federal indictment containing extremely serious allegations.
His constant accusations against others increasingly look like an attempt to shift public attention away from the uncomfortable questions surrounding his own affairs.
Mohamed wants Guyanese to believe that his troubles began because he entered opposition politics and challenged President Irfaan Ali. The chronology destroys that argument.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctioned Mohamed in June 2024, long before he became Opposition Leader. President Ali, the PPP/C, or the Government of Guyana did not impose those sanctions. The United States imposed them following investigations that produced serious allegations of corruption, gold smuggling, tax evasion, and manipulation of Guyana’s gold sector.
Mohamed later became the subject of a U.S. federal indictment alleging that he and his father, Nazar Mohamed, participated in a years-long scheme to export approximately 10,000 kilograms of gold through Miami while allegedly evading taxes and royalties owed to Guyana.
U.S. prosecutors allege that approximately US$50 million in taxes and royalties were evaded.
Azzrudin Mohamed wants the world to believe the United States sanctioned him without any evidence to support such a significant action. The truth is, those sanctions and the indictment arose from U.S. governmental investigations and processes. The indictment itself sets out the evidence and allegations prosecutors intend to prove in court.
This is why Mohamed’s daily cry of “corruption” should not become a convenient distraction from legitimate questions about his own sanctions, indictment, tax affairs, and business dealings.
It is remarkably easy to stand before a camera and accuse everybody else.
It is much harder to explain why the U.S. Treasury sanctioned you.
It is easy to accuse ministers of corruption.
It is harder to explain why U.S. prosecutors secured a federal indictment against you.
It is easy to demand that everyone else produce evidence immediately.
It is harder to confront the detailed allegations already placed on the public record against you by authorities outside Guyana.
Mohamed repeatedly asks President Ali: When did I become a criminal? Was it only after I became your political opponent?
That is a clever political line, but the dates expose its weakness.
Mohamed’s serious difficulties with U.S. authorities existed before his present political leadership role. His sanctions were already in place. The investigations surrounding his business activities did not suddenly materialise because he decided to oppose the PPP/C.
He also repeatedly reminds the public about his previous relationships with people associated with the Government, claiming his money was accepted, his armoured vehicles were used and his security arrangements were previously welcomed.
But that proves absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of subsequent allegations.
If authorities subsequently discover information suggesting wrongdoing, should everybody remain silent because they once knew you?
Of course not.
Past association is not permanent immunity.
The same problem arises with Mohamed’s argument about the approximately GY$191 billion tax assessment and the approximately US$50 million figure contained in the U.S. allegations.
These figures relate to different calculations and processes. The US$50 million figure concerns the specific alleged scheme described by U.S. authorities. The larger Guyana figure arose from a separate GRA assessment involving alleged tax understatement and accumulated liabilities.
Presenting those figures as though they must be identical is misleading.
Then there is Mohamed’s favourite instruction: “Address the message, not the messenger.” Fine. But the credibility and conduct of the messenger become relevant when that messenger appoints himself chief prosecutor of everybody else while avoiding serious questions concerning himself.
If Mohamed possesses evidence of corruption, publish it.
If he has evidence that President Ali owns 150 acres of farmland, publish the ownership documents and precise boundaries.
If he has evidence of criminality in government contracts, identify the transactions, contractors and beneficiaries and submit the evidence to the appropriate authorities.
But the standard cannot be that Mohamed is permitted to make accusations and everybody else must prove themselves innocent.
The burden rests with the person making the allegation.
The hypocrisy becomes even clearer when Mohamed demands due process for himself while simultaneously demanding that ministers be removed over the MV Barima tragedy before the independent Commission of Inquiry determines responsibility.
Why should Mohamed enjoy the presumption of innocence while others must suffer punishment based merely on allegations?
Let the Commission hear witnesses. Let it examine documents. Let it determine responsibility. Then hold accountable anyone whom the evidence establishes should be held accountable.
That is due process.
Mohamed also invokes Mahdia, MV Barima and even killings from the crime wave of two decades ago when confronted about allegations surrounding himself.
Those tragedies deserve serious examination and respect for the victims.
They should not become rhetorical escape routes from questions about U.S. sanctions and a federal indictment.
Guyanese should scrutinise President Ali. They should scrutinise ministers. They should scrutinise government contracts, oil revenues, hospitals and public spending.
But Azruddin Mohamed must be scrutinised too.
The opposition leader is not a shield against legitimate questions. Political office does not erase sanctions. Calling other people corrupt does not make your own indictment disappear. Uploading another Facebook video does not change the date on which the United States sanctioned you. And accusing everybody around you certainly does not answer the allegations contained in official U.S. proceedings. The fundamental facts remain: Mohamed was sanctioned by the United States before becoming Opposition Leader, and he is now facing serious allegations in a U.S. federal indictment.
Those are not inventions of President Ali. They are not PPP/C press releases. They are actions taken by United States authorities through their own investigative and legal processes. So perhaps before Mohamed appoints himself judge and jury over everybody in Guyana, he should spend some time answering the extraordinary questions surrounding his own affairs. His allegations against Government deserve examination wherever evidence supports them.
But his relentless corruption crusade must not become a smokescreen behind which his own sanctions and indictment conveniently disappear.
Accountability cannot mean “everybody except me.”
If Mohamed wants to build his political identity around transparency, evidence and accountability, then he should understand that those principles apply just as forcefully to Azruddin Mohamed.
Yours faithfully,
Mohamed Nazrudeen Khan