Dear Editor,
The circumstances surrounding the detention of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, particularly during the visit of King Charles III to Guyana, raise serious questions about the state of democracy, political accountability and the conduct of the Irfaan Ali administration.
The timing of Mohamed’s detention cannot simply be dismissed as an ordinary coincidence. It raises the troubling question of whether his detention was deliberately used to prevent him from having an opportunity to meet the visiting monarch and bring to his attention concerns about corruption, governance, democratic accountability and the prolonged absence of parliamentary sittings in Guyana.
The government was confronted with an uncomfortable political dilemma. The Leader of the Opposition occupies a constitutionally recognised office and is an important figure in the country’s parliamentary democracy. Yet, questions have arisen about his exclusion from national engagements associated with the King’s visit.
How, then, could the administration justify excluding the person who holds the office of Leader of the Opposition from events of national significance without attracting criticism from the public and the international community?
One must therefore question whether the circumstances surrounding his detention provided the government with a convenient justification for his absence. If the Leader of the Opposition was in police custody, his exclusion from engagements could be presented as a consequence of his detention rather than a deliberate decision by the administration not to include him.
These are serious questions that deserve answers.
King Charles III’s visit was an opportunity to showcase Guyana, its people, institutions and democratic traditions. It should also have been an opportunity for different voices within Guyanese society, including the parliamentary Opposition, to be heard.
Democracy cannot be reduced to ceremonial appearances, carefully managed guest lists and official speeches. It requires respect for constitutional offices, meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, freedom of expression and the right of elected representatives to perform their responsibilities without political obstruction.
The international community, particularly the international media, must pay attention to what is happening in Guyana. The country’s oil wealth and growing international profile must not overshadow questions about Guyana’s dictatorship.
International journalists should investigate the circumstances surrounding the Opposition Leader’s detention, examine the decisions governing his exclusion from engagements during the royal visit, and scrutinise the absence of parliamentary sittings. They should also seek answers from the government rather than rely exclusively on official statements and carefully choreographed presentations.
Guyanese are not fools. They understand that democracy is measured not by the grandeur of state ceremonies or the presence of international dignitaries, but by how a government treats dissent, respects constitutional institutions and allows accountability to function.
A government confident in its democratic credentials should have no reason to fear scrutiny from the Opposition, the press or the international community.
The world must look beyond the ceremonial welcome and pay attention to the democratic questions unfolding in Guyana.
Yours truly,
Egland Gomes
