THE United States Ambassador to Guyana, Nicole Theriot, delivered a pointed and unprecedented warning: the potential inclusion of Azruddin Mohamed—an individual sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)—within Guyana’s government poses serious risks to the nation’s diplomatic standing and economic prospects.
The Ambassador’s statement was not the usual diplomatic hedging. It was blunt and clear. If Mohamed, leader of the newly minted We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, were to enter Parliament—whether in government or opposition—it could jeopardize not only Guyana’s relationship with the United States, but also its hard-won reputation as an emerging investment destination in the hemisphere.

This is no small matter. In June 2024, OFAC sanctioned Azruddin Mohamed, his father Nazar Mohamed, and their sprawling network of businesses, citing gold smuggling and corruption.
These allegations alone would be enough to spark domestic outrage and political reckoning in many countries.
Yet, in Guyana’s fragile and fast-changing democracy, Mohamed’s ambitions have only grown. Having declared his intention to run for President, Mohamed now looms as a sanctioned figure seeking legitimacy through the ballot box.

It is telling that Ambassador Theriot had to remind us of what this means in practical terms: U.S. law restricts all forms of engagement with sanctioned individuals.
Should Mohamed gain a seat in Parliament, American diplomats, aid agencies, and investors would be forced into a diplomatic minefield. Every committee, every piece of legislation, every handshake could be scrutinized for breaches of federal law back in Washington, D.C.

The repercussions would not stop at government-to-government ties. Theriot’s remarks make clear that the mere presence of an OFAC-sanctioned individual in Guyana’s government sends tremors through boardrooms far beyond Georgetown. American companies—many now eyeing Guyana’s once-in-a-generation oil boom and its untapped sectors—may well choose to “de-risk” rather than gamble their compliance obligations and global reputations on a country flirting with sanctioned actors.

We have seen this story play out elsewhere. In countries where corruption or sanctions become entangled with the state, investors flee, development slows, and the ordinary citizen pays the price. Guyana, a country whose oil discoveries have catapulted it from regional obscurity to global relevance, should not be so quick to test how much diplomatic goodwill and investor trust it can squander.

Critics of Ambassador Theriot’s intervention might argue that Guyana is a sovereign nation, free to choose its leaders through democratic elections.
That is undeniably true—and non-negotiable. But sovereignty does not exist in a vacuum. Nations do not operate as islands. In an interdependent world, one country’s political choices can trigger legal and financial consequences from allies, lenders, and markets.

Already, the repercussions are visible. Candidates affiliated with WIN—like Natasha Singh-Lewis and Duarte Hetsberger—have reported their bank accounts shuttered by Demerara Bank, presumably due to heightened compliance risks.

WIN has tried to distance its other candidates from the Mohamed family’s businesses, but as any compliance analyst knows, appearance and affiliation can be just as damning as direct ownership when OFAC sanctions are in play.

Perhaps most concerning is Mohamed’s silence. Since the sanctions were imposed, he has not made a credible public rebuttal of the allegations nor offered any transparent accounting that might reassure voters, regulators, or investors. Instead, he remains conspicuously absent from campaign events while his lieutenants insist they are untarnished by the shadow hanging over their leader.

Guyana stands at a crossroads. It is experiencing unprecedented growth, and with it, a rare chance to build durable institutions, strengthen democratic norms, and deliver prosperity that reaches every village, from the coastland to the hinterland. But that promise hinges on good governance and international credibility. To flirt with sanctioned figures at this delicate stage is to gamble with the very foundation of Guyana’s future.

In the end, Guyanese voters will decide who speaks for them. But they should do so with eyes wide open to the stark reality: when you invite the sanctioned to your table, you risk finding fewer partners willing to sit beside you.