In what some call a stunning display of authoritarian overreach, or, if the government is to be believed, a sudden surge in violent extremism, more than 50 Guyanese citizens have been charged under terrorism laws following protests over the still-unresolved and deeply suspicious death of 11-year-old Adriana Younge.
For a nation of just 750,000 people, the mass labeling of so many citizens as “terrorists” ought to provoke serious concern, not just among human rights defenders and democratic governments, but also among international investors eyeing Guyana’s oil-rich economy.
Which is it? Is Guyana truly home to a disproportionately large pool of domestic terrorists, or is the government of President Irfaan Ali and Attorney General Anil Nandlall grossly abusing state power to crush public dissent and criminalize political expression?
Attorney General Nandlall, in a chilling interview, left no doubt about the government’s position.
“We couldn’t have found a better charge,”
he declared Tuesday night, defending terrorism charges against ordinary Guyanese who protested following the suspicious drowning and delayed reporting of Adriana Younge’s death.
Let that sink in.
In a time of national grief and public outrage, the state’s legal response is to brand the grieving, the angry, and the desperate as terrorists. Under Section 309(A) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, recently amended to cover acts that “strike terror” in the public, dozens have been arrested, charged, and remanded. The charges are tied to public disturbances including tire burnings, robberies, and altercations on the streets.
“When you light the road afire, rob supermarkets, and walk the streets with weapons, that is striking terror,”
Nandlall continued.
“That is exactly what the law was designed to address.”
But Guyanese observers and international analysts are not convinced. According to a member of the legal fraternity, who preferred to remain anonymous, “The term “terrorist” is being weaponized by the government of Guyana, not to ensure public safety, but to justify sweeping crackdowns, sidestep public accountability, and terrify others into submission.”
Another citizen stated, “what we are witnessing is not the neutral application of law, it is the strategic escalation of fear and power. A government backed into a moral corner is now using the nuclear option of terrorism charges to silence dissent and criminalize the poor.”
And some say investors should take note.
For a government to claim that more than 50 “terrorists” were walking freely in its cities until just days ago is either a damning admission of state failure or a confession of political persecution masquerading as law enforcement.
Which version should international partners believe?
- A nation overwhelmed by homegrown terror cells?
- Or a regime drunk on oil wealth and increasingly intolerant of public scrutiny?
According to an opposition politician, “Either way, it’s a red flag for political instability, a flashing warning light for serious investors with reputational risk assessments to consider.
After all, how can a country so overrun by so-called terrorists possibly be safe for business?
What guarantees do foreign companies have that civil unrest, mass arrests, or government reprisals won’t destabilize their operations?”
Guyana must answer these questions. And fast.
For now, some say that the government appears more invested in silencing protest than addressing its root causes. But the world is watching. And so are the markets.
As another member of the legal fraternity stated, “Investors, you are warned.”
Editor’s Note: Not one citizen interviewed for this piece agreed to have their name shared. They all feared reprisal by the government of Guyana.
