THE political-shield argument: This is where the difficulty with the Mohamed political narrative begins. There is a distinction between challenging the government politically and answering allegations before a court. The two should not be confused, and neither should one be used to undermine the other.
Azruddin Mohamed is equally entitled to challenge President, Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali, Vice-president Dr Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP/C government, and to oppose the extradition request. That having been said, the public should be able to distinguish between his political activities and the legal proceedings involving him and his father.
The problem arises when every development in a criminal investigation is presented as an attack by the PPP, Ali or Jagdeo. That approach encourages supporters to interpret every police action, prosecutorial submission and judicial decision through a partisan lens.
The government’s defence rests on an important chronological argument: the United States investigation and the alleged conduct in the indictment predate Mohamed’s political career. The US has now publicly reiterated that position. Read the Kissadee News article. The extradition request is therefore not automatically transformed into political persecution simply because one of the people named in it subsequently became opposition leader.
Equally, the government must appreciate that public confidence depends on demonstrating that its institutions are independent. It cannot expect citizens to dismiss every concern about the process simply because the allegations originated with American authorities.
There is a more responsible course available to Mohamed: allow his lawyers to challenge the extradition request through the courts, pursue his political responsibilities separately, and avoid turning every development into a public confrontation.
Political leadership requires discipline. It requires knowing when to speak, when to allow legal representatives to speak, and when to let institutions perform their functions.
The police Must Do Their Job. The events surrounding Mohamed’s recent arrests have further complicated the political debate. On October 12 and October 28, 2026, he was arrested along with others for seemingly breaking the law. One must ask another important question: why should the police be expected to stand aside whenever an individual happens to occupy a prominent political position?
The Guyana Police Force has a responsibility to investigate suspected criminal conduct, gather evidence and bring matters before the courts. Its actions must be lawful, proportionate and subject to scrutiny. The same standards must apply whether the person being investigated is an ordinary citizen, a government minister, a businessman or the leader of the opposition.
Also, the suggestion that the government issues day-to-day instructions to police officers in individual investigations should not be accepted without evidence. Operational independence is essential to policing. The public deserves to know whether officers acted within the law, what evidence supported their actions and whether established procedures were followed.
At the same time, the government should not interfere with investigations, and the police must not become instruments of political competition. There is no contradiction between demanding an independent police force and expecting that force to enforce the law. And, I say that the police are independent and I challenge anyone with information to come forward.
There is also a political dimension that cannot be ignored. One interpretation of Mohamed’s repeated public confrontations is that they risk turning ordinary legal proceedings into a wider political spectacle. His frequent public commentary, social media posts, and presentations of himself as a victim have made it increasingly difficult to separate his political messaging from his personal legal difficulties.
Some critics may interpret the timing and publicity surrounding these incidents as an attempt to build a political martyrdom narrative. Nevertheless, the political consequences are obvious. When an opposition leader is arrested, his supporters can portray it as an assault on democracy. When he is released, he can present himself as having defeated an oppressive system. In either scenario, the underlying allegations risk becoming secondary to the political spectacle.
If Mohamed believes that the extradition proceedings are unlawful, he has lawyers. If he believes that the government has interfered, he has constitutional remedies. If he believes the police have violated his rights, he can pursue those complaints through the appropriate institutions.
What he cannot reasonably expect is that the country should suspend its ordinary legal processes because he has become a political figure. There is a difference between political courage and political recklessness. An opposition leader must understand that difference.
Additionally, the handling of the extradition proceedings by Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman also deserves scrutiny. The proceedings began in late 2025, with the substantive hearing commencing on January 6, 2026. Yet, by October 21, reports indicated that only two prosecution witnesses had testified. Several legal challenges, disclosure disputes, and adjournments have affected the progress of the matter. That is a considerable period for a matter of such national and international importance.
The public is entitled to ask: why has the case taken so long? Are the adjournments being granted on reasonable grounds? Are both sides being given adequate opportunities to present their cases without unnecessary delay? Is the court doing everything within its authority to ensure that proceedings move efficiently? And, perhaps most importantly, would the same pace and procedural accommodation be afforded to an ordinary Guyanese citizen facing similarly complex proceedings?
These are legitimate questions about equal treatment and access to justice.
There are Guyanese who have spent lengthy periods on remand while awaiting the resolution of criminal cases. The justice system must explain how it ensures that their circumstances receive equal attention. Comparisons must be based on the seriousness of the allegations, applicable bail laws, individual circumstances and the actual procedural histories of those cases.
On November 2, Latchman refused the American prosecution’s application to revoke Mohamed’s bail in the extradition proceedings. She reasoned that pending charges and past conduct without convictions were insufficient grounds to justify revocation. That ruling reflects the presumption of innocence, a principle that must protect every accused person.
One can question the overall pace of proceedings without demanding that a magistrate reach a particular conclusion. The judiciary must be independent, but independence must also be accompanied by efficiency, transparency and public confidence.
The public deserves a justice system that is neither influenced by political considerations nor unnecessarily slow in delivering justice.
Ultimately, when this controversy subsides, Guyana will return to the issues that determine the everyday lives of its people. The cost of living will still matter. Families will still have to pay electricity bills, purchase groceries, send children to school and meet their financial obligations. Workers will still demand better salaries, young people will still need employment opportunities, businesses will still require an environment in which they can grow, and communities will still expect improved infrastructure and public services.
These are the issues that deserve sustained national attention. Guyanese must also continue holding the government accountable. Development does not eliminate the responsibility of citizens to ask difficult questions. Public spending must be scrutinised, promises must be measured against delivery, and elected officials must remain answerable to the people, but the opposition must also demonstrate that it can contribute meaningfully to those conversations.
An opposition leader’s responsibility is not simply to criticise the president, create political confrontations or dominate social-media conversations. It is to scrutinise policy, propose alternatives, represent constituents and participate in the democratic process.
The position carries responsibilities that extend beyond personal legal difficulties.
Mohamed should be judged by the quality of his political contributions, his respect for democratic institutions and his ability to articulate policies that address the concerns of Guyanese. He should not expect his political title to exempt him from lawful investigations, nor should the public automatically interpret every investigation as proof of political persecution.
Guyana has had opposition leaders such as Aubrey Norton, David Granger, Joseph Harmon, Robert Corbin, Desmond Hoyte, Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham. Their political histories and approaches were different, but the office itself has always carried an expectation of national leadership and responsibility. Historical comparisons should be grounded in their actual records, not used as excuses for the conduct of any present officeholder.
The rule of law must be bigger than politics, and political office must never become a personal shield.
Nobody should be prejudged. Nobody should be above scrutiny. And nobody should be allowed to turn the administration of justice into a substitute for political debate.
Come 2028, Guyanese will again have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process. Until then, the country has work to do, and its political institutions have responsibilities to fulfil.
The extradition matter must be resolved through the law, not through social-media campaigns, political accusations, or public pressure. There is a country beyond this controversy. There are thousands of ordinary concerns beyond one politician and his legal battles.
That is where the national conversation must eventually return.
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.
