Dear Editor,
I NOTE Ms. Hadiyyah Mohamed’s recent letter in relation to my previous article (SN Apr 24). This “response” comprised rhetorical diversions and unfortunate character attacks.
I reserve my right to respond. First, Ms. Mohamed begins by claiming that I suggested that OFAC can “somehow disqualify or ethically invalidate a candidacy”-something she described as “legally untenable” and “dangerously misleading”. But when did I suggest such a thing? I explicitly stated that without a conviction in our courts, no sanction can disqualify a soul from running for office in Guyana.

Ms. Mohamed’s assertion isn’t just inaccurate—but false. Next, Ms. Mohamed builds upon this falsehood to water down the OFAC sanctions-labeling them “administrative tools” for internal U.S. regulation. Let’s further unpack these ‘administrative tools’—sweeping international penalties enacted for the global public good.

The Mohameds were sanctioned by the US Treasury Department pursuant to Executive Order 13818, under the Global Magnitsky Act. President Trump enacted this Order, citing corruption of such “scope and gravity” that it threatened the “stability of international political and economic systems”. Ms. Mohamed paints these sanctions as significant as parking tickets—when the reality is anything but. These are extraordinary punitive measures stemming from the very top level of the U.S. Government—weeding out malicious actors from polluting the global financial ecosystem.

Further, Ms. Mohamed dismisses the risks associated with doing business with sanctioned individuals-labeling this a “gross misinterpretation of OFAC guidelines”, and suggesting that I “peruse the OFAC guidelines in full or consult with a qualified legal expert”.
This is either willful obfuscation, or an alarmingly underdeveloped understanding of the U.S. Sanctions. This is the financial equivalent of downplaying skin-to-skin contact with a leper. Akin to a parasite-these sanctions intend to exterminate the very environment upon which they thrive. The reality of these risks became clear when, shortly after the announcement, Stabroek News reported the immediate closure of all personal and business bank accounts held by Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed.

One source told the Sunday Stabroek that “all of the entities in the financial sector that were doing business with the Mohameds have stopped doing so”. Doing otherwise in today’s ecosystem is tantamount to pure financial suicide. Notably, the OFAC release doesn’t just clamp down on transactions with financial institutions, but also on “other persons” who engage in “activities with the sanctioned entities”, and will “expose themselves to sanctions or be subject to an enforcement action”.

Further, the release defines these activities as “any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any designated person, or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person”. Need I elaborate further? Additionally, Ms. Mohamed claims no precedent exists of sanctions affecting media access. Precedent abounds: Consider the case of Margarita Simonyan of Russia Today, and Rossiya Segondnya (RT’s parent) who were sanctioned and their social media platforms demonetised for in‑kind contributions on behalf of the Kremlin.

Ms. Mohamed then claims that I invented the notion of Team Mohamed’s being blocked from social media and newspaper ads.
Her reasoning? They never needed ads-citing grassroot mobilization. Congrats on the achievement—but that evades my point. Moreover, in the interest of integrity and transparency, I invite Mr. Mohamed to directly take out an advertisement in an independent paper like the Stabroek News. The remainder of Ms. Mohamed’s letter is devoted to gratuitous accounts of how they provided security for polling stations, President Ali, and VP Jagdeo in 2020—linking this to defending Guyanese democracy. She then accuses me of “conveniently” omitting this, and labels me as “dishonest”. What does any

of this have to do with my letter? This is textbook straw man fallacy. Finally, after Hadiyyah published her letter, it was subsequently posted to her and her sister Hana’s Facebook page. Team Mohamed’s own page followed suit, branding me a “PPP troll” and attaching a picture of myself and Minister Vindhya Persaud. Ms. Hana then labelled me a “handpicked stooge” of the PPP in a subsequent Facebook tantrum. In light of this coordinated Online response, several relatives have reached out over personal safety concerns, given the allegations made against Azruddin Mohamed by Sergeant Dion Bascom. I’ve since had to disabuse these notions. With Mr. Mohamed now having publicly confirmed his political ambitions—according to Stabroek News on April 30—I have full confidence that he will answer the following questions with clarity and coherence: 1) In what capacity is Ms. Hadiyyah

Mohamed writing—personally, on behalf of her brother or as spokesperson of a political entity? 2) Can Team Mohamed’s confirm or deny the U.S. Treasury’s OFAC allegation that, between 2019 and 2023, Mohamed’s Enterprise omitted more than 10,000 kilograms of gold from import and export declarations and, in doing so, evaded over US$50 million in duty taxes owed to the Government of Guyana? 3) Did Ms. Hana Mohamed’s acquisition of a 2020 Ferrari 488 comply with the terms of her tax‑exempt status? 4) Did Team Mohamed understate the value of three imported vehicles – including a

Lamborghini – by $300m? 5) U.S. Government officials warned Exxon about conducting business with the Mohameds due to drug trafficking allegations suggested by intelligence reports seen by Reuters-can Team Mohamed confirm or deny these allegations? 6) Why did the Mohameds subsequently withdraw from the consortium hired to build a lucrative US $300 M shorebase for Exxon Mobil?

Yours faithfully,
Nikhil Sankar