Dear Editor,
THE prospect of Azruddin Mohamed entering government must be treated not just as a domestic political issue, but as a matter of national security, international compliance, and economic survival. His candidacy carries severe implications for Guyana’s relationship with the United States and the broader global financial system.
Mohamed has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for large-scale gold smuggling and money laundering. Association with a political party led by an OFAC-sanctioned individual raises significant red flags under international Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) standards.
As soon as someone is listed on a political party’s slate, they are classified as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP)—a designation that drastically increases scrutiny under AML/CFT law.
But it doesn’t end with the individual; the law also covers close associates and family members. In Mohamed’s case, the PEP classification comes layered with the gravity of U.S. sanctions—one of the highest-risk categories in the global compliance framework. OFAC has only about 17,000 sanctioned names out of 7 billion people globally. Being on that list is no trivial matter.
In 2014, Guyana was grey-listed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) due to failures in updating its AML laws. We were at the edge of financial collapse. The risk of full blacklisting led to the 2015 snap elections. Had that blacklisting occurred, Guyana would have faced economic consequences similar to Venezuela’s—pariah status in the global banking sector, a collapsed currency, and limited ability to trade. Do we really want to flirt with that fate again?
Those who claim government victimisation of Mohamed and his businesses ignore the facts. The state could have legally frozen all his assets under the AML/CFT Act following the OFAC sanctions, but chose restraint instead—allowing him to close accounts and withdraw funds. The narrative of political persecution is not only inaccurate but dangerously misleading.
President Irfaan Ali has emphasised that Mohamed’s sanctioned status poses a serious threat to Guyana’s financial integrity, diplomatic standing, and national security. Countrywide banks have reportedly closed all accounts linked to his enterprises to avoid legal or reputational exposure.
Additionally, commercial insurers and financial institutions have refused to transact with him. This isolation underscores how Mohamed’s ascent into public office could jeopardise international banking relations and our broader economic system.
Moreover, Guyana’s strategic reliance on U.S. support in safeguarding its territorial integrity—especially in light of Venezuela’s ongoing border claims—could be imperilled. President Ali has been clear that the U.S. has linked national security to diplomatic co-operation, and Mohamed’s political rise risks undermining these ties. As he stated, our national security is linked to our relationship with key allies like the US in defence of our border.
Further complicating matters, U.S. congressional voices have raised alarms. Representative Carlos Gimenez has warned that Mohamed may be a “pro-Maduro puppet,” calling attention to fears of Venezuelan interference in Guyana through a sanctioned political figure. FARA filings show that a U.S. lobbying firm, Continental Strategy LLC, actively promoted communications to amplify these concerns—urging attention on risks related to Venezuela and authoritarian influence.
Including a recent interview with U.S. ambassador Nicole Theriot, stating how concerning it would be if he were in government, as this would basically hinder any growth with Guyana further, since the U.S. would be unable to do anything with him.
Given these facts, Mohamed’s potential rise to power is not a mere domestic matter—it directly influences our standing with the United States. In the worst-case scenario, we could face more expansive financial sanctions, restricted access to U.S. aid, investment, and co-operation on security and economic fronts.
In contrast, a government led by individuals without such encumbrances would be better positioned to sustain and deepen diplomatic and financial co-operation with the United States. It’s essential that voters consider these long-term stakes before casting their ballots.

Sincerely,
Brian Azore