By Mark DaCosta- Denials of the use of public venues and transport for the WIN party, coupled with banking restrictions on its candidates, have fuelled suspicion that Azruddin Mohamed and his We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) movement are being systematically sidelined and targeted ahead of the upcoming elections — a pattern critics and analysts say suggests political interference rather than routine compliance.
Local election campaigning in Region Two erupted into controversy last week after organisers for WIN were refused use of two prominent public sites for planned rallies today, 10 August. Party officials say permission requests for the Anna Regina tarmac and the Charity Community Centre were turned down by the relevant authorities, a move the party describes as part of a longer campaign of harassment. “The victimisation continues!!!!” the party said in a statement, adding bluntly: “The WIN party views this as the ongoing victimisation of its Presidential Candidate, Azruddin Mohamed. The party calls for a fair and level playing field during this elections period.”
The venue refusals come on the heels of separate incidents that critics contend are not coincidental. On 6 August, Roraima Airways publicly announced it would not transport Mohamed, citing the airline’s need to respect sanctions imposed by the United States Treasury in June 2024. The carrier’s aviation director defended the decision as a legal and regulatory necessity following an internal review. At the same time, commercial banks including the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry Citizens Bank, Demerara Bank and New Building Society (NBS), have curtailed services for individuals linked to WIN, with reports of account access being restricted or service levels reduced.
Taken together, these developments have provoked alarm and anger among supporters of WIN, who warn that the combination of denied venues, limited banking access and constrained travel could effectively hobble the opposition’s capacity to campaign. The party has urged international election observers present in our nation to note what it says are mounting attempts by the ruling party to obstruct its activities.
Political analysts interviewed for this article say the sequence looks troubling. Several commented that while banks and airlines may lawfully comply with international measures, the simultaneity of these actions — withdrawal of banking services, refusal to convey a leading opposition figure, and denial of public spaces — creates the appearance of coordinated pressure that disproportionately affects one political movement.
“The pattern raises questions about whether private sector decisions are being influenced by political actors,” one analyst said, noting that perceptions of bias can be as damaging to democratic contestation as overt legal bans.
Government spokespeople have not directly linked state organs to the commercial decisions, and Roraima Airways framed its refusal as risk management in light of sanctions. Banking regulators say they require institutions to follow anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing rules, which can necessitate limiting engagement with sanctioned persons. Even so, critics argue that a clearer public explanation is needed to reassure citizens that objective criteria, not partisan calculations, informed those actions.
For many ordinary voters and campaign volunteers, the practical effect is immediate. Meeting venues are central to grassroots mobilisation in our country, and limits on travel and banking complicate logistics, fundraising and outreach. Opposition organisers say such constraints have a chilling effect: they discourage supporters from participating and may skew the contest in favour of incumbents with easier access to resources.
Foreign observers and civil-society organisations have been asked to monitor these developments closely. If the pattern persists, it risks eroding public confidence in the fairness of the electoral process and deepening political polarisation at a time when democratic institutions should be strengthened, not strained. WIN has called for a level playing field; whether electoral and commercial bodies will provide transparent answers that restore trust remains to be seen.
