I HAVE watched the events surrounding King Charles III’s visit to Guyana with considerable concern. I believe citizens should not surrender their democratic right to protest, criticise government or demand accountability, but I also believe there are somethings called timing, national responsibility and political maturity.
And, frankly, this was not the time.
King Charles III arrived in Guyana on October 29 for a two-day state visit marking 60 years of bilateral relations between Guyana and the United Kingdom. His programme included discussions touching on investment, the environment, biodiversity, Indigenous communities and Guyana’s relationship with Britain.
Yet, instead of allowing the visit to provide Guyana with an opportunity to put some of the biggest historical and contemporary questions facing our country before the British Crown, the political drama surrounding Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his sister Hana Mohamed was moved to centre stage.
WIN supporters protested near State House while King Charles was attending a reception, with demonstrators calling for Mohamed’s release. Hana Mohamed was also involved in confrontations with the police during the protest. Different accounts describe the circumstances somewhat differently, but there is no dispute that the demonstration unfolded close to the royal reception and that police attempted to prevent protesters from proceeding nearer to State House.
My question is simple: was this really the moment to make everything about Azruddin Mohamed? I think Guyana deserved better.
Firstly, we had bigger questions! If Hana Mohamed and WIN wanted the King to hear the voice of Guyanese people, there were much bigger and more consequential issues to raise. We could have focused on reparatory justice, Britain’s historical responsibility for slavery and the devastating economic, social and psychological consequences of colonialism.
We should have focused our attention on talking about the King offering a formal apology for slavery or the continuing consequences of climate change, particularly for small developing countries such as Guyana and those in the wider Caribbean. What about forest protection, biodiversity and Indigenous communities? These issues are worthy of the international spotlight.
Indeed, President Irfaan Ali has publicly called for Britain to apologise for slavery, while regional leaders continue to debate reparations and Britain’s historical responsibility. Imagine, therefore, if Guyanese opposition politicians had used the King’s presence to make a disciplined, intellectually serious case about reparatory justice.
Imagine WIN standing peacefully with placards saying: “Remember Slavery,” “Justice for the Caribbean,” and “Climate Justice for Small States.” That would have been political messaging with international significance.
Instead, the immediate political narrative became the arrest of one politician. And that, in my view, is the tragedy.
Secondly, is this politics or permanent confrontation? I also find the increasingly confrontational style surrounding WIN difficult to understand.
Mohamed was arrested on October 28 as police investigated allegations surrounding government surveillance footage. The police allege that a 20-year-old constable obtained surveillance footage and provided it to Mohamed in exchange for GY$800,000. Mohamed has disputed the circumstances surrounding the footage, and the allegations remain matters for investigation and due process.
There have also been previous confrontations involving Mohamed and the police, including incidents in September that resulted in arrests and releases. These matters should be investigated properly.
If there is evidence of wrongdoing by government officials, expose it. If there is evidence of police misconduct, take it to court. If there is evidence of corruption, produce it. If there is evidence of political persecution, document it. That is politics.
What cannot become the norm is the appearance of politics being conducted primarily through confrontation, social-media mobilisation and street theatre.
Some critics have used extraordinarily harsh language to describe the conduct surrounding WIN and the Mohamed controversy. I would be more careful. Allegations of corruption, money laundering or criminality must be established through evidence and the courts, not through political commentary. The United States indictment involving Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed contains serious allegations including wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and conspiracy, but allegations are not convictions. That distinction matters.
Thirdly, Thatcher understood the danger. Interestingly, Margaret Thatcher, hardly a politician associated with political softness, understood the importance of the rule of law when political confrontation becomes disorder.
During the 1984 miners’ dispute, Thatcher warned against what she called “an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law.” She insisted that “the rule of law must prevail over the rule of the mob.” That is the part of Thatcher’s political philosophy worth remembering.
She also famously declared in another context: “Pennies don’t fall from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth.” Her broader political argument was that institutions matter, personal responsibility matters, and government cannot simply surrender to pressure because a sufficiently loud group demands it.
I am not suggesting Guyana should import Thatcherism, far from it, but her warning about the danger of allowing political disputes to descend into intimidation, disorder and the politics of the street deserves consideration.
Also, once politics become a competition over who can create the biggest confrontation, democracy becomes poorer.
Fourthly, I think that WIN has a bigger problem. The deeper problem, however, is not one demonstration but the emerging perception that WIN is becoming a movement about one man rather than about a nation. It could show that its agenda extends far beyond the personal legal and political difficulties of its leader. Where is the comprehensive economic programme? Where is the national education policy? Where is the healthcare vision? Where is the opposition’s detailed proposal for strengthening institutions? Where is the alternative development model?
If every political road leads back to Azruddin Mohamed, then people are entitled to ask whether WIN is genuinely building a national political movement or simply building a political vehicle around the fortunes of one individual. There are three serious problems with that approach.
First, it narrows the national conversation. Guyanese people have problems that existed before Mohamed entered politics and will exist after today’s controversy disappears.
Second, it weakens institutional politics. Political parties should be bigger than their leaders. When everything depends on one personality, institutions become secondary.
Third, it creates political fatigue. People eventually want solutions, not permanent confrontation.
Whether WIN is actually losing support is something that should be demonstrated through credible polling, elections, or other reliable evidence, not simply declared by political opponents. But if the movement wants to build durable support, it cannot assume that personal controversy alone is a substitute for a national programme.
Fifthly, I am deeply disturbed by Hana Mohamed’s reported use of the phrase “collateral damage.” In my view, those words should never have been used to describe a human being caught up in a serious criminal matter.
If Ryan Greene is behind bars because of actions allegedly connected to the interests of someone else, then describing him as “collateral damage” raises a profound moral question: When did human beings become expendable pieces in somebody else’s political or personal battle?
Politics cannot be allowed to strip people of their humanity. The law must apply equally, and every Guyanese, regardless of race, wealth, political affiliation or social standing, deserves to be treated as a human being, not as a disposable pawn.
This episode also forces us to confront a broader question about loyalty and political association. Some of the public statements attributed to members of the Mohamed family have already generated serious debate about race, identity and how certain communities are viewed. Those issues should not be brushed aside. They deserve scrutiny, context and honest public discussion.
And so I ask those Guyanese who continue to defend, campaign for, or place themselves on the front lines of this controversy: What exactly are you defending?
Is it worth risking your reputation, your freedom, or your relationship with the law for somebody else’s interests?
Is a few dollars, a meal, political association or social-media attention worth discovering that, when the dust settles, you may simply be regarded as expendable?
No Guyanese should ever allow himself or herself to become somebody else’s “collateral damage.”
Political loyalty should never require the surrender of your dignity, your judgment or your respect for the law. Stand for what you believe, but understand who ultimately bears the consequences of the battles you choose to fight.
Finally, my advice to WIN, Hana Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed is therefore straightforward. Stop making every national moment about yourselves. If you believe the government has failed, show the figures, produce the evidence and present the alternative. And if you want to lead Guyana, start behaving like people who intend to govern Guyana.
That means discipline, policy, restraint, respecting institutions, even when those institutions are investigating you, and understanding that a political leader does not have to win every argument on Facebook to win an argument in the court of public opinion.
Above all, it means understanding that Guyana is bigger than Azruddin Mohamed, bigger than Hana Mohamed and bigger than WIN.
The visit of King Charles offered Guyana a rare international platform. Our history, slavery, reparations, climate justice, biodiversity and the future of the Caribbean deserved that platform. Those issues belong to the whole nation.
The Mohamed controversy belongs to the courts, investigators, lawyers and the political process.
Guyana must never become so consumed by one political personality that we forget the country itself.
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.