There was a time when Stabroek News occupied a singular place in Guyana’s media landscape. It was regarded as a standard-bearer for objectivity, balance, and editorial independence. That reputation has now been seriously eroded. What confronts readers today is not robust journalism but a troubling drift into advocacy, selective outrage, and the uncritical amplification of politically convenient narratives.
Under its current editorial direction, Stabroek News has crossed a clear line—moving from holding power to account to actively promoting the political ambitions of individuals aligned with the WIN movement, most notably Azruddin Mohamed. This shift would be concerning under any circumstances; it is indefensible given that Mohamed is both sanctioned by the United States and interdicted locally.
In a recent editorial, the paper strained to defend Mohamed’s supposed “constitutional right” to be Leader of the Opposition, even as it dismissed criticism that it has become a de facto WIN platform. Yet in doing so, the paper inadvertently confirmed what has now become obvious: that Stabroek News has abandoned its traditional posture of detachment and now operates as a political amplifier.
As it was aptly put by Mr Ruel Johnson, this reality was laid bare by the paper’s decision to publish, as a lead story, an article based entirely on an unverified video produced by Mohamed. In that video, Mohamed alleges that a “major dealer based in Essequibo” is smuggling gold and receiving payment via the cryptocurrency USDT, which he claims is untraceable. No evidence was presented. No independent verification was offered. No countervailing views were sought.
As Mr Johnson further pointed out, a serious newspaper would have approached such claims with caution. It would have contacted Mohamed directly to establish the basis of his allegations. It would have conducted independent inquiries. If anything plausible emerged, it would have produced its own reporting grounded in verifiable facts. Instead, Stabroek News simply repackaged the video as news.
More troubling still, the article reports that Mohamed claimed “Chinese interests” purchase this cryptocurrency, without any attempt to define or contextualise the term. A responsible editor would have insisted on clarity. Does this refer to the Chinese government, state-owned enterprises, private corporations, or members of the Chinese diaspora? Each carries vastly different implications, yet the ambiguity was allowed to stand—an omission that risks inflaming suspicion without evidence.
This is not investigative journalism. It is narrative laundering.
The broader context cannot be ignored. Azruddin Mohamed has been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control under the Global Magnitsky sanctions regime, based on allegations of serious corruption, including tax evasion, customs fraud, false declarations, and the illicit movement of gold. As a result, he is barred from the U.S. financial system and regarded internationally as a high-risk individual. Locally, he remains interdicted and subject to ongoing legal and regulatory scrutiny.
These are not minor footnotes. They go directly to questions of integrity, suitability for public office, and national credibility. Yet Stabroek News has chosen not to interrogate these issues with the seriousness they demand. Instead, it has normalised Mohamed as a political actor while intensifying its hostility toward the elected government.
The tragedy of this moment lies in the paper’s origins. Stabroek News was founded by David de Caires—lawyer, intellectual, and fierce defender of civil liberties—who believed deeply that journalism was a public trust. De Caires understood that a newspaper’s power lay not in whom it favoured, but in its willingness to interrogate all centres of power with equal rigour. He resisted propaganda, distrusted political messianism, and insisted that facts, context, and verification were non-negotiable.
For decades, Stabroek News under de Caires earned credibility precisely because it refused to become anyone’s instrument—whether of the state, the opposition, or wealthy benefactors. Editorial independence was not a slogan; it was a discipline.
That inheritance is now being steadily dismantled. Under Anand Persaud’s stewardship, the paper has drifted from scepticism to sympathy, from scrutiny to service. The standards that once distinguished Stabroek News from partisan rags are being sacrificed, seemingly for access, influence, and financing. Whether the currency is silver or gold is beside the point; the cost is credibility.
What is unfolding is not merely editorial bias. It is the hollowing out of an institution that once claimed moral authority. In choosing expediency over principle, Stabroek News risks becoming precisely what David de Caires founded it to oppose—a partisan instrument masquerading as a newspaper.
That loss is not just the paper’s own. It is a loss to Guyana’s democratic discourse.