The Association for Democracy and Human Rights (Guyana) Inc. has warned that Guyana could face a “serious reputational crisis” if businessman and parliamentarian Azruddin Mohamed is selected as Leader of the Opposition, even while legal and political analysts argue that the organisation’s position itself threatens constitutionally protected democratic and human rights.
In a strongly worded public statement, issued Thursday, the organisation said the country would be acting “recklessly, indefensibly, and dangerously” if Mohamed is elevated to the post, citing United States sanctions and indictments against him. The group claimed Mohamed is “regarded internationally as a fugitive offender” and argued that his selection would undermine Guyana’s credibility, Parliament’s honour, and the country’s international standing.
“Electing an Opposition Leader under such circumstances would not only drag the credibility of the Opposition into the gutter but it would place Guyana’s reputation, Parliament’s honour, and our national standing at severe risk,” the statement said.
Under Article 184(1) of the Constitution of Guyana, the Leader of the Opposition is elected by the non-government Members of the National Assembly from among themselves. Mohamed is widely regarded as the presumptive candidate since his party, We Invest in Nationhood, holds 16 of the 29 Opposition seats. A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) holds 12 seats, while the Forward Guyana Movement controls one.
The Association warned that Mohamed’s elevation would send “a poisonous message” to the country’s youth, suggesting “that status can be used to shield wrongdoing, that power can be used to sanitize disgrace, and that the highest offices can be treated like trophies rather than responsibilities.” It described such a development as “moral collapse.”
Goverment and legal analysts note that Guyana practises common law principles, where the presumption of innocence is guaranteed until proven guilty in a court of law. The Constitution permits a parliamentarian to participate fully in the National Assembly unless convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, at which point disqualification may arise.
Mohamed, though sanctioned and indicted in the United States, has not been convicted by any court in Guyana, nor has he been sentenced to serve time that would bar his parliamentary participation or eligibility under local law.
Observers have also pointed to recent political history, raising concerns about selective advocacy. President Irfaan Ali faced 19 fraud-related charges in 2018 while sitting in the National Assembly as an opposition parliamentarian and later contested, and was installed in, the presidency in 2020. Anil Nandlall similarly sat in the National Assembly while facing charges relating to the alleged theft of law books.
In both cases, the charges were later dropped and no convictions were recorded. During those periods, the Association for Democracy and Human Rights (Guyana) Inc. raised no public alarms about reputational damage, parliamentary integrity, or moral fitness, prompting questions about consistency and principle.
In its current statement, the organisation argued that democracy “must be anchored in moral fortitude, decency, honesty, and respect for institutions,” warning that without those values democracy becomes “a hollow performance—loud, shameless, and destructive.”
It further accused Mohamed and his supporters of “manufacturing outrage and engaging in the worst forms of political theatre,” adding, “Guyanese are not fools. They can see the circus for what it is.”
The Association cautioned the 29 Opposition Members of Parliament against proceeding with Mohamed’s selection, stating, “Do not create a burden for yourselves and a stain for this nation by making the wrong choice. History will judge it harshly.”
Legal and democratic observers counter that the organisation’s stance intrudes directly into a lawful parliamentary process and disregards the electorate’s constitutionally guaranteed right to choose representatives who are entitled to exercise the full authority of their office. They warn that efforts to delegitimise a constitutional election undermine the rule of law, erode democratic norms, and amount to a denial of the very human rights the organisation claims to defend.
