THE scenes outside the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court and across Stabroek on Monday were not a spontaneous outpouring of grief.
Missiles were hurled at police ranks, barricades were charged, and fires were set along roadways. The morning demonstration was largely orderly. It deteriorated only as police prepared to return Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed to Lusignan Prison, where he is on remand under the Cybercrime Act.
This was not a flare-up. Just a day earlier, a livestream featuring Melissa Atwell, Bradly Sampson and Michael Williams called for violent resistance, threatened police, and urged supporters to target ExxonMobil’s local office.
Atwell, who is wanted over cybercrime and libel matters, said she was prepared for an uproar. Within 24 hours, the rhetoric became reality. Add the illegal demonstration near State House led by the Mohamed family/WIN, and the pattern is one of escalation, not accident.
Yet WIN officials and the Mohamed family insisted that the protest was peaceful, even as cameras captured the aggression.
Guyanese should be cognisant of this habit of denying what the public can see for itself, because it is the same habit that sustains WIN’s central claim that the extradition of Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed is political persecution.
The record says otherwise. US Ambassador Nicole Theriot has said the case rests on strong, prosecutable evidence, not politics, and that the Government of Guyana did not indict the Mohameds.
The United States formally submitted its extradition request on October 30, 2025, which started proceedings under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act. The alleged offences include wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and customs-related violations linked to the Mohameds’ gold-trading operations.
The Ambassador added that even if the request fails in court, the Mohameds will remain under US sanctions. That is not how a local political vendetta behaves. It is Washington pursuing its own indictment.
The courts have also heard these arguments. The Mohameds sought to overturn earlier decisions by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed their claims. On Monday, Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman refused to revoke Mr. Mohamed’s bail in the extradition matter, ruling that separate pending charges were insufficient grounds. A judiciary that rules against the State’s position is hardly a tool of persecution.
Mr. Mohamed is also entitled to the presumption of innocence on the separate Cybercrime Act charge, to which he has pleaded not guilty. Police allege that a constable supplied him with surveillance footage related to the October 12 shooting in exchange for payment. Those allegations belong in a courtroom, not on the streets of Stabroek.
The persecution story survives only because it is repeated loudly and tested rarely. Neither Mr. Mohamed, his family, nor WIN has mounted any serious rebuttal to the 11-count Florida indictment, while repeatedly calling the extradition politically motivated. Slogans are not a defence, and a burning barricade is not an argument.
Guyanese are entitled to dissent, to assemble peacefully, and to criticise the government. Those rights are not what is at issue. What is at issue is whether a family’s legal troubles can be dressed up as a national grievance and used to justify attacks on police officers and calls to burn buildings.
The people who urged violence must answer for it, and the police deserve credit for restraint under provocation.
To those tempted to follow WIN’s narrative, ask who is actually seeking this extradition, and ask why those who claim persecution are so quick to threaten, and so slow to answer the charges. The facts point to the United States, to the courts, and to due process. They do not point to persecution.