By Mark DaCosta- The High Court has delivered a significant blow to Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed, the businessmen behind Confidential Cambio, who sought reinstatement of their cambio licence after it was revoked by the Bank of Guyana last year. This ruling comes at a time when Azruddin Mohamed, the leader of the opposition, faces heightened scrutiny both politically and legally.
In recent judgement- Thursday, March 5, 2026- by Justice Damone Younge, the court dismissed the Mohamed family’s application for judicial review, which claimed that the revocation of their cambio licence was unlawful and lacked due process. The court ruled that the Bank of Guyana acted within its authority, citing the provisions of the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act, which grants it the power to revoke licences under certain conditions, particularly when the character of the licence holders is in question. This case not only highlights the Mohamed family’s ongoing legal challenges — but also underscores the strained relationship between the opposition, particularly the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), and regulatory bodies in our country.
The controversy began in mid-2024 when the United States Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on the Mohameds, linking them to allegations of fraud, money laundering, and gold smuggling. Consequently, the Bank of Guyana made the decision to revoke their licence on June 13, 2024. In response, the Mohameds filed a legal challenge a year later, arguing that they were deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves adequately prior to the revocation. However, the court found that they had been invited to a hearing regarding their licence but failed to attend, despite confirming their participation in prior correspondence.
In its decision, the court held that the claim of a lack of opportunity to be heard was unfounded, as evidence suggested that the applicants had indeed received notice of the hearing but chose not to appear. This lack of action raised questions about their commitment to adhere to legal and procedural standards. Furthermore, the presiding judge highlighted perceived delays in the Mohamed’s application, noting that they waited a full year to challenge the decision. By that time, their licence had already expired, rendering the court’s capacity to reinstate it ineffective.
It is relevant to consider that the Mohamed family has been in the public eye for various reasons, not least their connection to the political landscape in our nation. Azruddin Mohamed, as a prominent figure in the opposition, has often positioned himself against the ruling PPP. The implications of the recent court ruling not only affect the family’s business interests but also raise questions about the political dynamics between the opposition and the current government.
The court’s determination effectively upheld the authority of the Bank of Guyana to ensure compliance from cambio dealers and underscores the stringent regulatory measures in place to maintain the integrity of financial operations within our country. Justice Younge emphasised that the appearance of the Mohameds on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list significantly impacted their standing and qualifications to hold a cambio licence. By linking this sanction to their moral fitness as business operators, the ruling could very well mark a turning point in how regulatory bodies interact with politically connected individuals.
Many concerns arise from the outcomes of this case, as it highlights broader narratives regarding governance and accountability within our nation’s financial system. The perceived undue influence that certain political figures may hold can complicate processes of justice and regulation. Critics argue that the current administration, under the PPP, has exhibited a tendency to manipulate such circumstances to its advantage, suggesting that it will not hesitate to utilise the judicial system to its benefit. This situation poses imminent questions about the political motivations behind regulatory decisions and whether they are applied uniformly across the board.
For the Mohameds, the implications of this ruling extend beyond mere business concerns. As opposition figures, their ability to engage with the community and advocate for their interests now sits in jeopardy, particularly with a regulatory framework that appears hostile towards them. It could also signal a troubling trend — where political opposition may face barriers not just in the realm of governance, but also in the sphere of commerce.
As this case draws attention to the intersection of legal proceedings and political affiliations, the potential for repercussions demands scrutiny from all corners of our society. While the court upheld the authority of the Bank of Guyana, it simultaneously opened a dialogue about fairness, access to justice, and the broader implications of regulatory practices entwined with political narratives. The situation warrants careful monitoring as it unfolds, raising critical questions about the balance of power and accountability in our nation’s governance.
