Businessman Nazar Mohamed, father of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, is questioning whether he and his son can receive a fair and impartial hearing in Guyana, arguing that the reported review of High Court Justice Gino Persaud’s U.S. visa has heightened concerns about the environment surrounding their ongoing legal proceedings.
In a statement issued September 20, Nazar Mohamed said he had lived through successive governments but had never witnessed what he described as the sustained mobilisation of political power, State resources, media platforms and public officials against one family that he says his family has experienced over the past two years.
He linked the development to his son’s entry into politics, the growth of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) movement and Azruddin Mohamed’s subsequent assumption of the constitutional office of Leader of the Opposition.
The elder Mohamed said his family had been subjected to thousands of reports, political statements, videos and social-media posts, including allegations involving serious criminal conduct.
“You can repeat an allegation a thousand times; that does not make it true and it does not make it evidence. Newspapers, political speeches and social media cannot decide whether a man is guilty. That is what the courts are there to determine.”
Venezuela claims and U.S. lobbying
Nazar also revisited the 2025 General and Regional Elections campaign, when senior government officials publicly raised alleged links between his son and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
FARA filings show that Continental Strategy, a U.S. lobbying firm retained by the Guyana Government, transmitted proposed social-media messages linking Azruddin Mohamed to Maduro to the office of U.S. Congressman Carlos Gimenez. The filing stated that the communication was being made “on behalf of the Government of Guyana.”
Gimenez subsequently publicly described Mohamed as a “pro-Maduro puppet,” while Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo denied instructing lobbyists to target him.
Nazar said he believes the campaign was intended to damage his son politically during the election.
Nandlall’s public commentary
Nazar also criticised Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall over his public comments concerning the Mohameds while their extradition proceedings were before the courts.
The issue was examined by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) during the Mohameds’ challenge to Guyana’s extradition process. In its July 2026 judgment, three CCJ judges found that Nandlall’s public remarks crossed the threshold of apparent bias and were inconsistent with constitutional protections surrounding the presumption of innocence.
However, the CCJ ultimately dismissed the Mohameds’ appeal, allowing the extradition proceedings to continue before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
Nazar said Nandlall’s continued public commentary has added to his concerns.
“My concern is the cumulative effect of these senior Government officials repeatedly portraying my son as criminally culpable while judges and magistrates are still determining matters that could deprive us of our liberty.”
Justice Persaud’s visa review
Nazar’s strongest concerns centre on Justice Gino Persaud, who recently ruled in litigation involving his family.
News Source Guyana reported that Persaud was stopped while attempting to board a Miami-bound flight en route to Jamaica for a judicial conference after being informed that his U.S. visa was “under review.” He was reportedly advised to visit the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown.
Nazar stressed that neither he nor his son has ever met Persaud or had any personal, professional or business relationship with him.
“Our only connection is that matters involving our family came before him as a judge of the High Court.”
Persaud had ruled in matters involving the State and the Mohamed family, including litigation concerning the taxation of a Lamborghini and Ferrari. Nazar said President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Jagdeo and Nandlall subsequently criticised the judge.
He stopped short of claiming that those events caused the visa review.
“I will not publicly assert what caused that review without evidence. But given everything that has happened, it would be foolish to ignore the circumstances surrounding it.”
He said the issue raises a broader question about judicial independence.
“What message does this send to the next judge or magistrate deciding a matter involving my son or me?”
Nazar said neither he nor his son should be immune from scrutiny, but insisted that allegations must be tested through the courts.
“We are only asking for a fair hearing before an independent court, where our fate is determined by the law and the evidence, and not by any politician.”
He concluded:
“Justice is not a favour to my family. It is a constitutional right to which every citizen is equally entitled, without fear, favour or prejudice.”
STATEMENT BY NAZAR MOHAMED
September 20, 2026
I have lived in Guyana all my life, built my businesses here, raised my family here and contributed to this country in many ways. I have also lived through successive governments and political periods. Never in my lifetime have I witnessed the sustained mobilisation of political power, State resources, media platforms and public officials against one family in the manner that has been directed against my family over the past two years. Any rational-thinking person who examines the sequence of events can see clearly that this extraordinary campaign is connected to my son Azruddin’s entry into politics, the growth of his political support and, ultimately, his assumption of the constitutional office of Leader of the Opposition.
For almost two years, the public has been inundated with material about the Mohamed family. There have been thousands of newspaper articles, television reports, political statements, videos, social-media posts and comments. My son has been accused of virtually every category of serious criminal conduct imaginable, including murder, rape, narcotics, torture and kidnapping.
The attempt to associate my son with Nicolás Maduro and Venezuela is another troubling example. During the active 2025 election campaign, senior Government officials, including President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and Foreign Affairs Minister Hugh Todd, publicly raised and amplified insinuations about supposed connections between my son and Venezuela. Public filings in the United States later revealed that Continental Strategy, a lobbying firm retained by the Government of Guyana, sent the office of Congressman Carlos Gimenez five proposed social-media messages targeting my son and linking him to Maduro, with the communication stating that it was being made “on behalf of the Government of Guyana.” Congressman Gimenez subsequently published an allegation portraying my son as a “pro-Maduro puppet.” Jagdeo then denied instructing the lobbyists to target my son.
This happened during an active election campaign, when the PPP was competing directly against my son and WIN for the support of the Guyanese people. I believe this was part of a wider effort to frighten people away from supporting my son, damage him politically and give greater credibility to the same narrative already being pushed against him here in Guyana by having American political figures repeat it. I firmly believe it cost WIN significant votes and shows just how far the Government was prepared to go to discredit my son and weaken him as a political opponent.
Government officials, including Attorney General Anil Nandlall, have continued publicly pushing narratives about my son and insinuating his involvement in serious criminal conduct while proceedings affecting our family and our liberty remain before the courts. This is particularly serious because Nandlall is not merely another political commentator. He is the Attorney General and principal legal adviser to the Government, and has been directly involved in defending the State’s actions in our extradition proceedings. He has publicly referred to money associated with my son as “proceeds of crime money,” spoken repeatedly about the allegations against us and maintained a running public commentary on his program “Issues in the News” while matters affecting our liberty remain subject to judicial determination.
He continued to do this even as the Caribbean Court of Justice itself ordered him to stop. During our extradition proceedings, members of the Court questioned the Attorney General about his public commentary, and three CCJ judges concluded that his statements gave rise to a real possibility of apparent bias and were inconsistent with the constitutional protection of the presumption of innocence.
Despite this, Nandlall has not restrained himself after concerns of that magnitude were expressed. Yesterday, he declared publicly that while the courts may review what he says, “they cannot stop me from making those comments,” adding that he would not “seek refuge in silence.” That statement is profoundly important. When the principal legal adviser to the Government, after having his public commentary scrutinised by Guyana’s apex court, declares that the courts cannot stop him from continuing to comment, I am entitled to question the environment in which our cases are being heard. My concern is the cumulative effect of these senior Government officials repeatedly portraying my son as criminally culpable while judges and magistrates are still determining matters that could deprive us of our liberty.
I am not suggesting that my son, as Leader of the Opposition, or I should be immune from scrutiny. Neither of us is above the law. But there is a profound difference between legitimate scrutiny and creating a public presumption of guilt while our liberty remains before the courts. If there is evidence that either of us committed any crime, place it before a competent court, allow it to be tested and prove it according to law. You can repeat an allegation a thousand times; that does not make it true and it does not make it evidence. Newspapers, political speeches and social media cannot decide whether a man is guilty. That is what the courts are there to determine.
I have watched this narrative reproduced through State media, including NCN and the Guyana Chronicle, as well as State-aligned media including Guyana Times and News Room. I have watched social-media pages operating under names and aliases such as John Persaud and The Baccoo Speaks, among numerous others, publish allegations and attacks concerning my family. I have watched our photographs placed on billboards sponsored by “Ignite News” and our names saturated across the internet to such an extent that anyone searching for us is confronted with an enormous archive of accusation and insinuation before ever encountering the outcome of a court proceeding.
I am particularly concerned about a propaganda page baring the name “Live in Guyana” and its connections to persons associated with the Government, including Minister Kwame McCoy and Jason Abdullah. That page has published numerous allegations about my family. Two months ago, my daughter attended a funeral of a victim of the MV Barima tragedy. McCoy was present and she personally saw him take out his telephone and record her. Within seconds, that footage appeared on the Live in Guyana propaganda page accompanied by an allegation that my daughter was fighting with members of the bereaved family. To watch how easily an interaction stripped of context, attached to an allegation and disseminated to hundreds of thousands of people as supposed fact is concerning to me.
I have also observed persons who repeatedly attack my family receive Government contracts, appointments or opportunities. Names such as Jewula Caesar, Claudine Benn, Robin Singh, Javed Benjamin, Junior Evafrass Sharma, Indhira Jafarally, Raj Narayan, among scores of others, have arisen in this wider environment. The PPP party has clearly descended to one of total indecency that Dr. Cheddie Jagan would have never tolerated. Examine the chronology, the publications, the contracts, the appointments and the public record and allow the facts to speak for themselves. What concerns me is whether an environment has developed in which attacking the Mohamed family is materially rewarding.
Now, I want to get into recent developments involving Justice Gino Persaud which concern me profoundly.
I want there to be absolutely no ambiguity about our relationship with Justice Gino Persaud. My son and I have never met him, neither as a lawyer nor as a Judge. He has never conducted business with us, or had any personal, professional or social relationship with us. Our only connection is that matters involving our family came before him as a judge of the High Court.
Justice Persaud delivered decisions adverse to the State in litigation involving our family, including the vehicle-tax matters concerning the Lamborghini and Ferrari. Following those decisions, President Ali, Vice President Jagdeo and Attorney General Nandlall publicly criticised Justice Persaud. We now learn that his United States visa is reportedly under review. I will not publicly assert what caused that review without evidence. But given everything that has happened, it would be foolish to ignore the circumstances surrounding it. What message does this send to the next judge or magistrate deciding a matter involving my son or me?
Judicial independence means that a judge must be able to decide a case based on the law and the evidence, without worrying about who will be angered by the decision or what consequences may follow. No judge should have to wonder whether ruling against the Government could affect his career, his ability to travel, his reputation or his personal life.
My concern also comes from what we have already experienced during these proceedings. While our case was still before the courts, the United States Ambassador publicly commented in very definite terms on the allegations and the merits of the case against us, before those matters had been fully tested before a Guyanese court. Our United States attorney, Peter A. Quinter, wrote to the Ambassador and formally objected to those comments and the potential prejudice they could create. After his intervention, those public comments ceased.
Anyone who understands Guyana knows the considerable weight that statements from the United States carry here. When such statements are made about a case that is still before our courts, they can shape public opinion before the judicial process has run its course.
It is against everything that has happened over the past two years that I now have to ask a question I never imagined I would be asking in my own country, can my son and I truly receive a fair and impartial hearing? These proceedings concern our freedom and could determine whether we spend the remainder of our lives with our children and grandchildren or separated from them.
This situation involving Justice Gino Persaud has made that concern even more serious for me. I want to state clearly that I am satisfied from the information available to me that this did not happen by accident and that the intervention originated at the highest level of government. A clear and direct message is being sent to any judge or magistrate who rules against the Government in matters involving our family that they too may face consequences for doing so. I have every right to be concerned about what this means for the next judge or magistrate who must decide a case involving my son or me.
My son and I will continue to face these proceedings through the courts and use every lawful avenue available to us. We are only asking for a fair hearing before an independent court, where our fate is determined by the law and the evidence, and not by any politician.
I have lived in Guyana all my life. I have raised my family here, built my businesses here and contributed to this country. I never imagined that I would reach this stage of my life questioning whether my son and I could walk into a courtroom confident that nothing outside that courtroom would influence what happens inside it.
Justice is not a favour to my family. It is a constitutional right to which every citizen is equally entitled, without fear, favour or prejudice.
Nazar Mohamed
