IN the heat of Guyana’s election season, promises are plentiful but substance is scarce. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the recent unveiling of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party’s manifesto, a document Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh rightly dismissed as “predictably short on originality” and suspiciously long on recycled pledges already in motion under the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration.
From new development banks to business incubators and Local Content Act amendments, the WIN party’s platform reads like a carbon copy of existing PPP commitments, and in some cases, ongoing projects.
When a party’s grand plan is built on appropriated ideas, it begs the question: what, if anything, does WIN offer that is new or credible?
This would be worrying enough on its own, but the situation spirals into farce when one considers the man at WIN’s helm. Azruddin Mohamed, the party’s presidential hopeful, sits under a cloud of serious allegations and financial sanctions imposed by the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
Mohamed, whose companies allegedly evaded Guyana’s taxes on gold exports by under-declaring more than 10,000 kilogrammes of gold and defrauding the state of over US$50 million, wants Guyanese to believe that if elected, he will donate his presidential salary to charity.
As Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo pointed out, the irony is as thick as it is insulting: A man accused of evading billions in taxes now touts his charitable spirit with money he should arguably never have pocketed in the first place.
More troubling than the hypocrisy is the real danger his candidacy poses to Guyana’s international standing.
The US Ambassador to Guyana, Nicole Theriot, has been clear: “Having an OFAC-sanctioned individual in government is ‘problematic in multiple ways,’ not least because it triggers regulatory hurdles and reputational risks that threaten the flow of foreign investment.”
The Ambassador’s warnings are not idle diplomatic chatter. They are reminders of the harsh realities of international finance: Major investors and partners, including giants such as ExxonMobil, will not, and legally cannot, risk entanglements with sanctioned individuals. The withdrawal of Exxon from a consortium with Mohamed’s businesses is living proof.
Guyana’s current economic boom is not invincible. It is fuelled by delicate partnerships, confidence in governance, and a reputation for political and fiscal stability. These gains can evaporate overnight if the country appears willing to reward alleged financial wrongdoing with the highest office in the land.
Yet WIN supporters jeer and heckle journalists for asking the tough but necessary questions: How will these promises be funded? What is the plan for governance when their leader’s presence alone may deter foreign banks from doing business? The silence that follows these questions is louder than any slogan.
Guyanese voters must not be distracted by hollow rhetoric or headline-grabbing promises of salary donations. They must demand accountability, transparency and originality.
The stakes are far too high for Guyana to gamble its reputation and prosperity on a party that cannot chart its own path, and on a candidate who, far from being a solution to corruption, stands accused of embodying it.
Elections are more than manifestos and rallies. They are a test of our collective judgment about who is fit to lead this nation through an era of unprecedented growth and opportunity.
Voters must ask themselves: Do we risk it all on promises plagiarised and funds unexplained? Or do we protect what we have built by rejecting sanctioned opportunism and empty mimicry?
Guyana’s bright future demands leadership that is credible, transparent and original, not promises bought with borrowed words and overshadowed by international disgrace.