AZRUDDIN Mohamed’s supporters want Guyanese to see a political martyr. The record shows a man answering allegations that began well before he entered politics, through lawful processes that have so far given him every chance to be heard.
The campaign of “misinformation, disinformation, lies” that Attorney General Anil Nandlall describes is aimed at replacing that record with a story.
Start with the timeline. The US case concerns alleged conduct between 2017 and 2024: gold exported with false customs declarations and undervalued invoices, more than US$50 million in taxes and duties evaded, and a shipment worth about US$5.3 million intercepted in Miami. The OFAC sanctions on the Mohameds came in June 2024.
His political career began after all of that. A prosecution cannot be a reaction to politics that had not yet begun. The investigation reportedly involved years of co-operation between Guyanese and American agencies, including the FBI, DEA and Homeland Security, and it did not spring from a single press conference.
The extradition itself is plainly straightforward. The indictment, the prosecutor’s statements and the Secretary of State’s documents were authenticated by US officials and sent through the prescribed channel to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Washington has no control over timing or outcome. Those belong to Guyana’s courts, which are hearing the matter under a bilateral treaty. A US Embassy official has said America’s justice system operates independently of foreign politics.
The father and son were each granted $150,000 bail, with passports surrendered and weekly reporting. That is how a court treats an accused person, not a persecuted one. Even the defence’s attempts to halt the hearing have not produced any order suspending it, because the courts have not found grounds to stop it.
The remand tells a similar story. The magistrate did not act on a whim. Under the Bail Act 2022, she weighed the nature and seriousness of the allegation, and the fact that he was already on bail and now accused of another offence.
The charge is not trivial. It alleges that sensitive Safe City surveillance footage was obtained from a police officer for $800,000, which is a national-security matter. He has every right to appeal and has announced he will. That is the system working.
Then there are the prison claims. Solitary confinement, denied access to lawyers and family: these allegations travelled quickly online.
The Guyana Prison Service answered with documents. Its official records show he spent about nine hours and twenty minutes outside his holding area on November 1, contradicting the claim of 23 hours and 50 minutes in confinement.
The Attorney General, who attended the hearing, says no court ordered unrestricted family visits, and that he has seen the cell himself. When assertions meet records, the records should carry the day.
The pattern is familiar, cast every lawful step as persecution, so that no court ruling can ever count against you.
It is a political strategy, not a legal defence. Citizens should ask who benefits when an indictment is recast as a conspiracy, and why the loudest claims come through social media rather than through the courts, where evidence must be tested.
Guyana’s courts are more than capable of deciding this case. Mr Mohamed is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a full defence, and he is getting both. What he is not entitled to is a verdict by hashtag.