There is a fundamental difference between being persecuted for fighting injustice and facing prosecution for criminal conduct. No amount of political public relations should erase that distinction.
Dr Cheddi Jagan fought for democracy and the rights of Guyanese people. Mahatma Gandhi challenged British colonial rule through peaceful resistance. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison fighting apartheid and racial oppression.
Their struggles were about freedom, equality and justice for millions.
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s circumstances are entirely different.
Mohamed is not facing prosecution for fighting colonialism, apartheid or the denial of democratic rights. He is confronting serious criminal allegations, yet the political narrative surrounding his legal battles increasingly portrays him as a victim of persecution and a modern-day freedom fighter.
Being arrested does not make someone Mandela. Facing prosecution does not make someone Gandhi. And claiming political persecution does not make someone Cheddi Jagan.
Freedom fighters versus criminal allegations
Jagan challenged colonial interference, including the suspension of Guyana’s Constitution in 1953, and fought for democratic representation. Gandhi resisted unjust colonial laws, while Mandela challenged a system that denied South Africa’s Black majority fundamental rights.
Mohamed, meanwhile, is defending himself against allegations of personal criminal wrongdoing.
He and his father, Nazar, face a United States indictment involving alleged gold smuggling, fraud, money laundering and a scheme reportedly depriving Guyana of approximately US$50 million in taxes and royalties.
In Guyana, Azzrudin Mohamed has faced charges involving an illegal firearm and ammunition, witness tampering, bribery and a series of other criminal matters. Allegations concerning Claims linking him to the 2021 killing of businessman Ricardo “Paper Shorts” Fagundes have also been raised in legal proceedings, although charges have not been laid, at least until now.
Jagan fought for the political rights of a nation. Gandhi fought to liberate a people. Mandela fought to dismantle apartheid. Mohamed is fighting criminal allegations against himself.
Turning allegations into political sympathy
Mohamed’s apparent public relations strategy is to transform his personal legal difficulties into political strength.
Court appearances become political spectacles. Criminal allegations are framed as persecution. Confrontations with law enforcement become opportunities to portray him as a courageous opponent of the establishment.
The objective appears to be shifting public attention from the alleged criminal conduct to the image of a man supposedly being punished for challenging those in power. It is a powerful strategy because emotion often travels faster than facts.
A cheering crowd outside a courthouse can generate more sympathy than the details of an indictment. Repeated claims of persecution can convince supporters that defending Mohamed is equivalent to defending democracy.
This narrative can be particularly effective in Guyana, where memories of Cheddi Jagan’s political struggles remain deeply rooted.
But criminal allegations do not become acts of political courage simply because the accused is popular or holds public office.
The lessons of Dudus Coke and Pablo Escobar
History offers a warning about the relationship between wealth, public loyalty and criminal accountability.
Jamaica’s Christopher “Dudus” Coke commanded enormous support in Tivoli Gardens, where many regarded him as a benefactor despite serious criminal allegations. He was eventually extradited to the United States and pleaded guilty to federal racketeering-related offences.
Colombia’s Pablo Escobar similarly cultivated public affection through charitable projects and financial assistance while leading a violent drug-trafficking organisation.
While Mohamed has not yet been convicted of the offences currently alleged against him, he is clearly reading from the playbooks of both Coke and Escobar, and the broader lesson is clear: wealth, philanthropy, popularity, and public sympathy cannot substitute for accountability before the law.
The danger is that criminal allegations could become political assets if every court appearance is marketed as persecution and every demand for accountability portrayed as oppression.
While Mohamed deserves fair treatment, due process and the presumption of innocence, those rights do not automatically make him a freedom fighter.
Jagan, Gandhi, and Mandela sacrificed their freedom to fight injustice against entire populations. Mohamed is simply behind bars for grave personal criminal conduct, which the court will determine as innocent or guilty.
One is a struggle for collective freedom. The other is a personal defence against criminal conduct.
A sophisticated public relations campaign may generate sympathy, applause and even votes. But it cannot rewrite history or turn unresolved criminal allegations into credentials for political martyrdom.
Jagan, Gandhi and Mandela fought against injustice. Mohamed must answer allegations of criminal wrongdoing. That is a distinction no political spin should be allowed to conceal.