By Mark DaCosta- In the midst of escalating political tensions, the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) is facing serious accusations of using the banking sector as a weapon to silence dissent and undermine its opposition.
The political party We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), led by Azruddin Mohamed — who has been sanctioned by the United States — has called for a boycott of several banks which have closed the accounts of its candidates. This situation has raised serious concerns about the seemingly intertwined relationship between financial institutions and partisan politics while shedding light on the broader implications for democratic processes and individual rights.
The Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI), Demerara Bank and Citizen’s Bank are at the forefront of this controversy, as they have reportedly terminated banking services for several individuals connected to WIN. This action follows the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designating the Mohamed family, including Azruddin and his father Nazar, for alleged involvement in criminal activities, including gold smuggling, tax evasion, and corruption. With these sanctions, the Mohameds lost their business licenses, significantly complicating their ability to operate both politically and commercially.
In a statement responding to these developments, WIN condemned the cancellations of their candidates’ accounts as politically motivated actions intended to erode their electoral support. They argue that these closures are not merely regulatory responses to the sanctions but rather a calculated tactic by the PPP aimed at suppressing opposition voices and undermining the democratic process.
The party claimed that such actions illustrate a broader trend of political repression in Guyana, where fundamental freedoms — such as the right to express dissent, associate with political movements, and contest elections — are increasingly imperilled.
This rhetoric, however, has been met with a robust rebuttal from the Private Sector Commission (PSC), an influential coalition of business leaders that has positioned itself alongside the PPP. The PSC has vehemently rejected WIN’s allegations of collusion and coercion, asserting that the private sector must navigate a complex landscape of local and international regulations, especially when operating amid the backdrop of sanctions. They argue that banks are fulfilling their legal obligations by severing ties with parties and individuals that might expose them to significant legal risks under U.S. law.
However, the swift actions taken against WIN-affiliated accounts appear to raise questions about the motivations behind these closures. Many observers believe that in light of the historical antagonism between the PPP and its opponents, these bank actions cannot be seen in isolation. The narrative that emerges suggests a finely orchestrated strategy by the ruling party to not only isolate WIN but also to instil fear among its supporters and deter potential dissent within the electoral landscape.
The PSC has urged businesses to maintain rationality amidst the political fray, asserting that their members make decisions based on internal risk assessments and adherence to legal frameworks. Nevertheless, the perception that GBTI and Demerara Bank may be aligning their operations with the PPP’s political objectives casts a long shadow over the integrity of the banking sector.
The assertion that banks are acting independently in the face of political pressure sounds hollow when viewed within the context of our nation’s history, where politics and commerce have often intertwined in troubling ways.
WIN’s leaders have not been shy about articulating their frustrations. In public statements, they have described the banks’ actions as “appalling” and indicative of a troubling climate where corporate actors become complicit in governmental oppression. They accuse GBTI and Demerara Bank of succumbing to political intimidation, framing their closures as a deliberate effort to destabilise a legitimate political movement and suppress the voices of a growing number of Guyanese who seek alternative avenues for political representation.
The ramifications of these bank closures extend beyond the immediate impacts on WIN candidates. For many supporters, the banks’ actions signify a chilling effect on democratic participation. As WIN has mobilised its base to challenge the electoral dominance of the PPP, the party’s rhetoric of victimhood resonates deeply within a constituency that yearns for representation and accountability. The push for a public boycott of the banks represents a broader plea for solidarity among those who feel vulnerable in the face of political coercion.
Public sentiment surrounding the closures is divided. Some citizens express sympathy for WIN, viewing the bank actions as a blatant form of state-sponsored intimidation, while others support the PSC’s stance, urging calm and stability amidst what they see as a tumultuous political environment. Yet, the very fact that a political party has resorted to calling for a boycott of financial institutions in our nation underscores the escalating tensions and deep-seated divisions that characterise the current political landscape.
The spectre of sanctions lingers, forcing local banks to tread carefully, particularly in their engagements with figures like Azruddin Mohamed, whose legal troubles have cast a long shadow over his party. As the situation develops, both WIN and the PSC maintain that their narratives will shape public perceptions of power dynamics in our society. How this plays out in the upcoming electoral cycle could either exacerbate or alleviate the deeply rooted divisions that have long characterised our national politics.
As the calls for an organised boycott of banks grow louder, the stakes are high for both political actors and financial institutions. The outcome may affect not just individual livelihoods but also the future of democratic engagement in our country. The discourse surrounding these actions highlights the fragility of our democratic institutions and the paramount importance of safeguarding the freedoms that lie at the very core of our national identity.
