A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament Sherod Duncan has accused the Government of setting dangerous precedents for democracy and the rule of law, warning that the treatment of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed could eventually become the reality facing any political leader or ordinary citizen who falls foul of those in power.
Speaking on Monday outside the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, appeared in connection with extradition proceedings, Duncan argued that the controversy surrounding the Opposition Leader must be viewed against a wider pattern of alleged institutional failures, weakened parliamentary oversight and unanswered questions about the exercise of state power.
Invoking the words of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Duncan declared:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
He warned that what is happening to Mohamed today should concern every Guyanese, regardless of political affiliation, because the precedent being established could have consequences far beyond the current political dispute.
“The problems confronting the Leader of the Opposition today could become the problems of tomorrow for any political party, any political leader, or any citizen of this country. Dangerous precedents are being set.”
Duncan questioned the Government’s credibility in assuring the public that Mohamed’s rights and safety would be protected while in state custody,
pointing to the death of Gavin Kennard Douglas and raising concerns about the circumstances surrounding how he entered the Vreed-en-Hoop Police Station alive and left dead.
“The Government wants us to trust it with its political opponent in custody, yet we cannot even trust it with the safety of an ordinary citizen like Gavin Douglas, who reportedly entered state custody alive and came out dead.”
The APNU parliamentarian argued that public confidence in state institutions cannot be demanded while serious questions about accountability and the treatment of citizens remain unanswered.
He also launched a sharp attack on what he described as the Government’s failure to allow meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of national security and surveillance policies, specifically directing attention to Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond.
Duncan said he had submitted questions to Walrond concerning the use of drones and CCTV systems to monitor citizens, but had been unable to obtain the answers needed to establish how the surveillance systems operate and what safeguards protect the public.
“Who keeps this data? Who has access to it? How is it stored and protected?”
He said these were not trivial concerns but fundamental questions involving citizens’ privacy, security and constitutional rights. The absence of meaningful answers, he argued, was particularly troubling at a time when the Government was discussing surveillance and security while failing to provide adequate parliamentary accountability.
Duncan accused the administration of keeping Parliament effectively closed to its political opponents while the courts remained open to prosecute them.
He said the National Assembly was being reduced to a venue for political pageantry, photo opportunities and the passage of government spending, rather than serving as a functioning institution where ministers are questioned and the executive is held accountable.
“When Parliament is open, it is just for the pageantry. The National Assembly is just some photo ops. It is just when they come for money.”
He was equally scathing about the performance of parliamentary committees, claiming that the overwhelming majority were not meeting or carrying out their oversight responsibilities.
“The committees do not function as they should. The overwhelming majority are not meeting or carrying out their work. This cannot be what a functioning democracy is supposed to look like.”
Duncan maintained that the National Assembly should be the place where matters of public policy, national security and government accountability are properly examined. He argued that some issues now being pursued through litigation could also be addressed through parliamentary debate, scrutiny and policy-making.
But, he charged, the Government was unwilling to facilitate that process.
The MP insisted that defending Mohamed’s rights did not amount to endorsing every action or position of the Opposition Leader or his political organisation. He said the principle at stake was whether citizens could stand against alleged abuses of power without being accused of supporting the individual affected.
“Standing up against the wrongdoing of this Government does not mean endorsing every action or position of the person or political party involved.”
Duncan said the cases involving Green, Douglas and others could not be separated from the concerns surrounding Mohamed’s treatment, insisting that injustice must be challenged consistently, regardless of political affiliation or personal allegiance.
“We cannot separate our conscience from the need to speak out against the injustices surrounding Ryan Green, Gavin Douglas and other cases in this country, while also addressing what is happening here today.”
His closing words underscored the central argument of his address: that the protection of rights and the demand for accountability cannot depend on whether the affected person belongs to a favoured political camp.
“Wrong is wrong, regardless of who is affected or which political party is involved.”
Duncan’s remarks placed the spotlight not only on the extradition proceedings involving the Mohameds, but also on the Government’s responsibility to answer questions about surveillance, parliamentary oversight and the treatment of citizens by state institutions.
His warning was that when Parliament fails to scrutinise executive power and public confidence in state institutions is weakened, the consequences extend well beyond the political opposition. They reach every citizen whose rights depend on the impartial application of the law.
