Many people and countries have had to walk back on their words. In Guyana and in some other English-speaking countries there is the saying about talking out of both sides of one’s mouth. It often is a case of saying one thing and doing something else. The situation here is slightly different. Here Guyana is faced with a situation that is forcing this country and the United States to amend the laws and treaty agreements.
The United States had imposed sanctions on the Mohameds, including Azruddin Mohamed, who has emerged as the opposition leader following the 2025 elections. The sanctions restricted companies and individuals from doing business with the Mohameds or with any sanctioned individuals. One such individual was Mae Thomas, a former Permanent Secretary in the Home Affairs Ministry.
Given the sanctions and the treaty agreement entered into between Guyana and the United States, the government was restricted from transferring money to Thomas. But the opposite was the reality. Although the government said nothing John Public concluded that Thomas was paid a salary. Also of interest was the fact that no commercial bank indicated a cancellation of Thomas’s account. Immediately the conclusion was that there was selective application of the rules. But that pales when one considers that the United States and the Guyana government would have to walk back on the sanctions.
Azruddin Mohamed is entitled to a monthly cheque from the government. He is also qualified for duty free concessions on vehicles. The government had claimed that Azruddin had cheated the country by under invoicing a high end vehicle. There can be no such issue here. There is now no limit to the kind of vehicle Mohamed wants to import. The question is what happens to the sanctions? Analysts note that there is a conflict between the local laws and the treaty that facilitates the sanction. It is known that the constitution is the supreme law of this country.
Whatever is in conflict must be subservient to the constitution. Can the commercial banks continue to refuse handling Mohamed’s accounts? They had also frozen the accounts of people associated with Azruddin Mohamed. The United States had said that such actions represented an over-reach. Azruddin has moved to the courts. Recently, the head of the Central Bank had approached Azruddin with the proposition that he foregoes his legal action if there is to be any discussion. Azruddin appears not to be so inclined.
At the same time the government is pursuing its legal action against Azruddin. It would be interesting to see how that goes. The Guyana Revenue Authority approved the vehicle importation four years ago. It is passing strange that the same GRA could now claim that the import was under invoiced based on information from the United States. Someone would have to come from the US to testify. But the situation is more complicated than that. The information provided by the United States is akin to an allegation. It has come after the local authorities accepted what was presented to them as legitimate.
But there is more. At least fifteen members of Azruddin’s party are Members of Parliament. Will the Central Bank and the commercial banks refuse the cheques paid by the government into the accounts of these people? If their accounts are frozen then what happens to the money in the accounts? Surely, since the local law takes precedence over the sanctions the commercial banks can no longer freeze those people’s accounts. Perhaps the accounts have already been released but that the account holders have been asked not to say anything.
There was a senior policeman based in Region One who was also sanctioned by the United States. He was sanctioned for being a drug dealer. There was no word on whether he was sacked from the police force. Up to election day and this was long after he was sanctioned he was seen in his police uniform posing with others with a red cup, a symbol of the ruling party. For that to happen would be to suggest that the government refused to act against one of its own.
There is no equal dispensation of the law in Guyana. The United States must have noticed this. Such persons, though, are not exempt from the US law. One open supporter of the Mohameds had her visa cancelled at the John F Kennedy International Airport, New York, on arrival. It was the same with former Permanent Secretary Mae Thomas.
Some people in the Guyana Government seem disinclined to travel to the United States. Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo was a noticeable absentee from Irfaan Ali’s delegation to the United Nations. There was a time when he was a frequent visitor and Irfaan Ali’s shadow.
Many people set store by the United States visa. Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley is not one of them. She was reported as saying that if she had to lose her visa to the United States over her refusal to part company with the Cuban medical brigade, then so be it. And at the United Nations she confronted both President Donald Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the treatment of the Palestinians. Guyana was silent on the Palestinian issue.
