AZRUDDIN Mohamed and his supporters continue to demand that Speaker Manzoor Nadir convene a special sitting of the National Assembly so he can be sworn in as Leader of the Opposition. It is a curious demand, one that seems less about leadership and more about optics, less about public service and more about self-image.
In the past week alone, Azruddin and his motley crew, whom he may have paid handsomely for an hour or so of placarding, staged two protests. On Friday, he boldly claimed that the Speaker is in cahoots with the government to deny him the title of Leader of the Opposition.
Interestingly, they staged their protest, not outside the Arthur Chung Conference Centre in Liliendaal, where it might get less media exposure. Instead, they assembled in front of the now-empty Parliament Building and steps from the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where only a few weeks ago he entered in cuffs, the first legal platform in his extradition proceedings.
The title of Opposition Leader, after all, will not save him from extradition to the United States, though he surely knows that. What it will do, unfortunately, is leave a smudge on Guyana’s hard-earned reputation, something he has not contributed an ounce of gold towards. You don’t have to like the current administration to recognise that Guyana’s standing at the diplomatic level and among the respected chambers of commerce internationally is purely a result of their hard work.
What is Azruddin chasing? The answer is simple: A headline. If he goes down, he is determined to take the reputation of our country with him. He and his supporters prefer a headline that reads “Leader of the Opposition in Guyana’s National Assembly extradited” rather than “Azruddin Mohamed, gold-smuggling business tycoon, extradited.” The first drags the country’s institutions into the dock; the second keeps the shame where it belongs – on the individual, not the Republic.
One does not have to be uncharitable to see Azruddin’s devious calculations. Political recognition, especially a constitutional title, changes the narrative. Once he becomes the Opposition Leader, any move against him will be framed not as a matter of justice but as a national insult. The lines shift from “Is this businessman answerable?” to “Is Guyana being disrespected?” That is a very convenient shield for someone facing 11 serious charges that include gold smuggling, wire and mail fraud, and money laundering.
For Azruddin’s true believers, he is a victim who needs the armour of high office to protect him from foreign overreach. The title is reputational detergent. Once he is branded as the official alternative to the government, extradition appears to be an attack on democracy itself. The goal is not to clear his name in court, but to make any attempt at accountability politically radioactive.
But Guyanese should ask a different question: why should the office of Leader of the Opposition be turned into a human shield? That office is meant to check executive power, scrutinise spending, and represent those who do not support the government. It is not supposed to double as a public relations strategy for a sanctioned and indicted businessman. To pretend otherwise is to admit that our most important institutions have become tools in individual legal battles.
The international optics are not a minor side issue. Guyana is under greater scrutiny than ever due to its oil and gas industry, governance issues, and its role in regional security. Imagine the signal it sends if the world’s databases, news archives, and diplomatic cables have to record that the official Opposition Leader of this country was extradited. That is not just a line in one man’s biography; it becomes a stain on the political judgment of an entire nation.
By contrast, if the headline reads “Azruddin Mohamed, business tycoon, extradited,” the damage is largely personal. The state may still face questions, but the core story is about an individual’s criminal behaviour and the outcome of a legal process. Guyana does not need to volunteer its constitutional offices as co-defendants in that narrative.
None of this is an argument against due process. Azruddin, like any other citizen, is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to defend himself vigorously. But the presumption of innocence does not obligate Parliament to bestow titles as a kind of moral insurance policy. The bar for occupying high constitutional office should rise when serious questions exist, not be lowered to accommodate them.
This is why the current agitation is so troubling. It suggests that for a certain class of powerful men, the answer to legal risk is not transparency and accountability but a bigger title and a louder crowd. If that script is allowed to succeed, Guyana will have announced to the world that the fastest way to bend the law is to get elected.
The people of Guyana must decide which headline they want to live with. Will future generations read about a country that used its institutions to shield one man’s reputation, or a Republic that insisted that political office is not a refuge from serious allegations? The placards may fade, but the headline will not.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.