Dear Editor,
The recent public discourse initiated by Mr. Kit Nascimento regarding the leadership of the “We Invest in Nationhood” (WIN) party demands a rigorous defense of the principles that underpin our Republic. By suggesting that Mr. Azruddin Mohamed should disqualify himself from a constitutional role based on foreign administrative sanctions and potential economic discomfort, Mr. Nascimento is advocating for a dangerous precedent: the subordination of the Guyanese ballot to the preferences of foreign powers.
The cornerstone of any democratic society is the presumption of innocence. In both Guyanese and American law, an individual remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Nascimento’s argument relies heavily on “accusations” and “sanctions”—administrative tools that do not require the standard of proof found in a courtroom. To demand that a political leader step aside based on unproven allegations is to endorse a system of “guilt by association” and to allow hearsay to override the legal rights of a citizen. Furthermore, the suggestion that Mr. Mohamed must “submit himself” to a foreign judicial process to prove his worthiness for office in Guyana ignores the fact that every citizen is entitled to the protections of their own country’s laws.
Beyond the legal technicalities lies the fundamental issue of national sovereignty. While the maintenance of international relations and investor confidence is important, it cannot be bought at the price of our independence. If we allow the administrative lists of a foreign power to dictate who can and cannot hold high office in our Parliament, we effectively grant an external “veto” over our internal affairs. The Speaker of the National Assembly is a servant of the Guyanese Constitution, and his duties are procedural and domestic. To suggest he should delay constitutional processes based on the “concerns” of a foreign embassy is to ask him to prioritize external diplomacy over his primary oath to the laws of Guyana.
Ultimately, the most powerful argument against Mr. Nascimento’s position is the result of the September 1, 2025, General and Regional Elections. Mr. Mohamed did not simply appear in the political arena; he rose to the call of the people, and they rewarded him with a mandate to lead. The electorate went to the polls with full awareness of the international landscape, yet they chose WIN as their representative voice. In a democracy, the ballot is the supreme expression of the people’s will. And in this case it was the people of Guyana expressing their choice for Mr. Mohammed .
To ask a leader to step aside in the face of such a mandate is to tell the voters that their choice is secondary to the “risks” perceived by the elite or the international community. Guyana’s economic stability is indeed vital, but a nation that sacrifices its democratic integrity for the sake of “investor confidence” risks losing its soul. We must remain steadfast in the belief that our Constitution and our voters are the only true arbiters of who is fit to lead. Sovereignty and constitutionality must remain supreme, and the mandate of the people must be respected without interference.
Yours truly,
Hemdutt Kumar
