标签： Guyana

On Tuesday, 8 September 2026, a landmark legal action targeting historical transatlantic chattel slavery entered a new phase when a team of three high-profile lawyers led in part by Ulele Burnham submitted an unprecedented reparations petition on behalf of the Jamaican government to King Charles III.

Ulele Burnham carries deep regional political heritage: she is the daughter of Guyana’s iconic founding leader Forbes Burnham, who established the People’s National Congress, led the South American nation to independence from Britain in 1966, and served as its first executive president from 1980 until his death in 1985. Based at the UK’s renowned Doughty Street Chambers, Ulele Burnham is a widely respected legal expert, ranked as a Band 1 Court of Protection practitioner by Chambers and Partners 2026, with extensive experience in equality and anti-discrimination law. She joins co-counsel Edward Fitzgerald KC and Harj Narulla on the legal team, instructed by Lawrence Cartier of Keystone Law.

Doughty Street Chambers has framed the filing as a defining, never-before-seen milestone in the decades-long global movement for reparatory justice for victims of slavery and their descendants. A high-level Jamaican government delegation traveled to London to formally submit the petition, which invokes a little-used special jurisdiction granted to the British monarch under the 1833 Judicial Committee Act. This statute allows the King to refer questions of significant legal and constitutional importance to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the body that serves as the final appellate court for several Commonwealth nations including Jamaica.

Buckingham Palace confirmed receipt of the filing in an official statement, noting that the Jamaican government is seeking to have the petition considered by the Judicial Committee. “We understand the Jamaican government is seeking a petition to be heard before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” a palace spokesperson stated. “The process for seeking a petition is to lodge it with the Judicial Committee so that referral under section four of the 1833 Act can be considered. We also understand the Jamaican representatives will be received by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for bilateral discussions.”

The petition asks King Charles, in his capacity as Jamaica’s formal Head of State, to refer three core legal questions to the Judicial Committee for advisory determination: First, whether the mass abduction of African peoples, their forced transatlantic transport, and their enslavement as property in Jamaica was ever legal under English common law. Second, whether these same acts constituted, and remain, a violation of international law. Third, whether the United Kingdom holds a binding legal obligation to deliver reparations to the people of Jamaica for the ongoing harms of slavery.

This historic legal move has already garnered broad global and regional endorsement. Every head of government across the 15-nation Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has publicly backed the petition. Last month, Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama also expressed his public support during an address to the Jamaican parliament, and reaffirmed that backing in subsequent official correspondence with the Jamaican government.

The filing comes amid a growing global momentum for slavery reparations, marked by two major recent international actions. In March 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted landmark Resolution RES/80/250, which formally designated transatlantic chattel slavery as “the gravest crime against humanity” in international law. Just over a month prior to the petition filing, on 31 August 2026, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) released General Recommendation No. 40, a landmark guidance document that outlines reparatory justice frameworks for addressing the persistent harms of colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade, and racialized chattel slavery.

King Charles will now review the petition and determine whether to refer the three legal questions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for formal consideration. Legal observers note that whatever the monarch’s decision, the filing itself marks a watershed moment for the global reparations movement, bringing the legal question of accountability for historical slavery into one of the world’s most established legal forums.

On Monday, September 7, 2026, Guyana’s Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo gathered senior public sector leaders from across the country at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre for a high-stakes meeting centered on fixing governance gaps and strengthening public trust in state institutions. The gathering brought together cabinet ministers, Permanent Secretaries, Regional Executive Officers, chief accounting officers from leading semi-autonomous government agencies, and top leadership from key state bodies including the Guyana Prison Service, Guyana Police Force, Guyana Fire Service, Guyana Power and Light, Maritime Administration, multiple line ministries, the Guyana Energy Agency, Civil Defence Commission, and Cheddi Jagan International Airport. The core focus of the closed meeting was to align public sector leadership around new governance standards, with particular emphasis on reinforcing accountability and transparency across three high-risk areas: public procurement processes, government payment systems, and public communication of government activities. The ultimate goal of these reforms is to improve the delivery of public programs and services to Guyanese citizens. In his opening address to attendees, Vice President Jagdeo underscored the critical leadership responsibility held by Permanent Secretaries and Regional Executive Officers, noting that these officials are the frontline stewards of public funds allocated to their respective ministries, regions, and agencies. He stressed that their primary duty is to ensure all operations align with existing national laws and regulations, while also driving sound, efficient management of the public resources entrusted to them. According to an official statement released by the Office of the President following the meeting, participants also collaborated to discuss a series of new initiatives designed to strengthen ongoing compliance tracking, specifically for procurement activities and government payment protocols. During the discussion, senior officials issued a clear caution to all attending accounting and administrative leaders: any deliberate breach or violation of governance rules will result in formal consequences for the individuals responsible for the misconduct. Vice President Jagdeo also used the meeting as an opportunity to reaffirm the unwavering commitment of the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic government to delivering high-quality, accessible public services to all Guyanese. He highlighted that the administration is prioritizing the integration of modern digital technology into government operations as a key strategy to streamline citizen interactions with state institutions, reduce bureaucratic delays, improve the overall quality of public services, and ultimately help all Guyanese achieve a higher quality of life.

On Monday, September 7, 2026, 25-year-old Dwayne Ross, a video editor employed by Guyana’s Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, formally signaled his intention to force law enforcement to produce concrete evidence to support charges that he illegally operated a drone near the private residence of President Irfaan Ali in Leonora, West Coast Demerara. Ross appeared before Vreed-en-Hoop Magistrate Ravindranauth Singh to enter a plea on three criminal charges brought under Guyana’s Civil Aviation Act: two counts of unlawful operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle under separate statutory provisions, and a third count of operating an aircraft without official authorization. He pleaded not guilty to all three counts.

Following the plea, Magistrate Singh granted bail to Ross, setting bail at GY$200,000 for each individual charge. As conditions of his release, Ross was ordered to surrender his passport to the court, check in with local law enforcement on a monthly basis, and return for a preliminary hearing at the Leonora Magistrates’ Court on September 30.

In court submissions ahead of the upcoming trial, Ross’s defense counsel Eusi Anderson argued that the charges against his client are legally flawed and factually dubious, noting that Guyana’s existing Civil Aviation Act does not include a formal legal definition of a drone, undermining the validity of the prosecution’s case. Anderson formally requested the court to order the full preservation and disclosure of all evidence related to the alleged incident, which authorities say occurred on the previous Thursday. This includes all closed-circuit television footage from the area surrounding the President’s private residence, any private video recordings captured by third parties, all body camera footage generated by arresting officers, and dashboard camera footage from police vehicles involved in the stop and search.

Prosecutors pushed back against the defense’s narrative, rejecting Ross’s claim that he was merely seated as a passenger in a parked vehicle on a roadside parapet at the time of the incident. According to the prosecution, Ross’s vehicle was only intercepted at Goed Fortuin after law enforcement conducted a high-speed chase to stop the vehicle. Prosecutors also told the court that Ross confessed to owning the drone in question during a formal forensic interview, adding that members of the presidential guard witnessed Ross standing on the access road to the residence holding a drone remote control, while the unmanned aircraft hovered roughly 30 feet above President Ali’s private property.

Anderson disputed the prosecution’s account, telling the court that Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has already offered to let law enforcement inspect the seized drone at a local police station to pull its flight log data, which the defense says will prove the drone was never flown over the President’s residence at the date and time prosecutors claim. He added that the drone in question was already broken when it was seized during a search of Ross’s Georgetown home. Anderson also noted that police conducted the warrantless search of Ross’s residence on suspicion he was hiding illegal firearms and ammunition, not drone-related evidence, and only claimed the broken drone as evidence after failing to find any weapons.

Further procedural friction emerged in court during the hearing: when pressed repeatedly by Magistrate Singh, the prosecuting attorney was unable to state the statutory maximum penalties for the charges Ross faces. The magistrate also urged Anderson to avoid laying out full substantive defense arguments during the initial bail hearing, keeping the proceeding focused on the release application rather than the full merits of the case.

Defense counsel also laid out his client’s version of events, stating that when police first approached a vehicle parked near a local mosque in Leonora to question individuals about reports of drone operation, Ross was seated in the back of the vehicle with no connection to any drone operation in the area. Anderson emphasized that his client never intended any harm to President Ali, never conducted surveillance of the President or his private property, and vehemently rejects all charges brought against him. “These charges are bad at law and they are wholly denied,” Anderson told the court.

In a formal five-page memorandum dated September 5, 2026, Azruddin Mohamed, leader of Guyana’s main opposition party Working People’s Alliance (WIN), has issued an urgent appeal for international intervention to address what he frames as escalating unconstitutional state interference targeting his political bloc. The appeal comes on the heels of a series of contentious actions against Mohamed, his staff, and allied elected officials, including arrests, impoundment of personal vehicles, seizure of digital communication devices, and the unexplained removal of his 500,000-follower political platform from Facebook.

The deep-rooted political friction between Mohamed’s bloc and the ruling People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) government led by President Irfan Ali traces back to 2025, when the United States Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Mohamed, his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, and their son Azruddin Mohamed Jr. over allegations of a US$50 million tax evasion scheme tied to the smuggling of more than 10 kilograms of gold. Later that year, a U.S. Grand Jury indicted the trio on charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering linked to their gold trading enterprise. The family is currently contesting an extradition request to stand trial in a Florida federal court. Despite repeated public warnings about the Mohameds issued to voters by the PPPC during the 2025 general and regional elections, WIN secured 109,075 votes and 16 parliamentary seats, catapulting the party to the position of official opposition.

The most recent escalation began last week, when Mohamed and two other opposition figures were taken into custody near President Ali’s official residence in Leonora, West Coast Demerara. Authorities alleged the group was traveling in vehicles with illegally dark tinted windows. Mohamed was eventually released from custody, but law enforcement has retained his personal mobile phone and a laptop belonging to his daughter. Mohamed alleges that during the period his devices were held by police, his official political Facebook page, Team Mohamed’s, was permanently deleted.

In the memorandum, Mohamed’s office emphasizes that the search and seizure of communication devices belonging to elected representatives carries unique constitutional weight, as these devices regularly store confidential political strategy, privileged legal correspondence, and private communications with constituents. The ability of opposition leaders, parliamentarians, and locally elected regional councillors to carry out their constitutionally mandated roles without intimidation or unlawful state interference is, the brief argues, directly tied to the legitimacy and integrity of Guyana’s entire democratic system.

At the core of the opposition’s demands for clarification is a critical question: what specific legal authority authorizes the Guyanese state to seize, access, and review the private communications of the country’s duly elected opposition leader. The brief notes that the seized devices hold a wide range of sensitive information, including legally protected attorney-client communications, confidential internal political discussions, correspondence with sitting members of parliament, journalists and ordinary voters, and sensitive materials related to opposition political organizing.

On the subject of the deleted Facebook page, labeled “a vital political communication outlet” for Mohamed’s movement, the brief outlines that the page remained fully operational until after Mohamed’s devices were taken into state custody, and became inaccessible only while law enforcement held control of his accounts. The circumstances of the page’s disappearance raise urgent red flags about deliberate state interference with opposition political speech, the document argues. At minimum, the opposition is calling for an independent forensic digital investigation to determine whether state actors accessed the account credentials from the seized devices, and whether the page was intentionally disabled or deleted through official action. The brief also demands that all relevant digital evidence be preserved pending the outcome of this probe.

Beyond these two core issues, the opposition memorandum asks the international community to press the Guyanese government for clarification on three key fronts: the legal foundation for the detention of the opposition leader, elected representatives, and political staff; the legal authority justifying the seizure and ongoing retention of electronic devices belonging to opposition officials; and the chain of custody for all seized items, including an explanation for the disappearance of a regional councillor Nelson’s phone following his release from custody.

Mohamed’s office stresses that the incidents outlined in the brief should not be dismissed as isolated disputes involving individual politicians. The cumulative effect of these actions, the document argues, raises systemic, serious concerns about the future of political pluralism in Guyana, the impartiality and independence of state institutions, the protection of private political speech, and the ability of the opposition to fulfill its constitutional oversight and representative functions without intimidation or improper interference.

WIN concludes the memorandum by reaffirming its unwavering commitment to peaceful, constitutional, and democratic political participation, and its mission to protect the right of all Guyanese citizens to exercise their democratic rights free from fear and intimidation. In closing, the brief argues that now is the moment for international democratic partners to act: it is far more effective to address threats to democratic norms before they are damaged beyond repair, rather than intervene after irreversible harm has been done.

As of Friday evening, September 4, 2026, a major political development has unfolded in Guyana: the official Facebook page of Team Mohamed, linked to opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed that boasted over 500,000 followers, has been permanently removed from the platform. This incident comes as Mohamed’s personal mobile devices remain in police custody, part of an ongoing investigation into allegations he operated an unauthorized drone near President Irfaan Ali’s private residence in Leonora, on the West Coast of Demerara. Details of the missing page were formally communicated to Police Commissioner Clifton Hicken by Mohamed’s legal representative, Attorney-at-Law Eusi Anderson.

In his official statement to the country’s top law enforcement official, Anderson confirmed that the Team Mohamed page, which was primarily managed via one of the mobile devices now held by the Guyana Police Force (GPF), was no longer searchable or accessible on Facebook as of 5:00 p.m. that same day. The attorney deliberately stopped short of directly accusing the police force of orchestrating the page’s deletion, but made clear that Mohamed had no role in removing the platform himself. Anderson emphasized that Mohamed did not access any account to modify, disable, or delete the page, and called the sudden disappearance a disturbing violation of his client’s constitutionally protected civil liberties that cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.

The Team Mohamed Facebook page served as a key digital outreach tool for Mohamed to advance the policy and political agenda of his We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, which secured its position as Guyana’s official main opposition following the 2025 general and regional elections held one year prior. In recent months, Mohamed had used the high-traffic page to publish a series of explosive corruption allegations targeting multiple sitting government ministers, as well as President Ali himself – a one-time close personal ally of the opposition leader. All named individuals have forcefully denied the accusations leveled against them.

Anderson has issued a formal demand to Commissioner Hicken for the immediate return of all seized personal property, which includes not just Mohamed’s two mobile phones, but also a child’s laptop, personal keys, a driver’s license, and other items. The attorney warned that prolonged detention of the electronic devices poses severe risks to the anonymous whistleblowers who shared sensitive information with Mohamed in his oversight role as opposition leader. Anderson explained that the devices store a wealth of confidential, evidence-rich materials, including documentary and video proof of what Mohamed claims is large-scale corruption and fraud perpetrated by senior public officials.

Should this evidence be tampered with, altered, or removed while in police custody, Anderson argued, Mohamed’s ability to fulfill his core constitutional duty of holding the sitting government accountable would be irreparably harmed. Unlike standard digital records, many of these materials are one-of-a-kind submissions from confidential sources, and cannot be recreated or replaced if lost.

The current tensions between Mohamed and President Ali mark a sharp break from their formerly close relationship, which deteriorated rapidly in June 2024. That year, the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed sanctions on Azruddin Mohamed and his father over allegations they evaded more than US$50 million in taxes owed to the Guyanese government, connected to smuggling of over 10,000 kilograms of untaxed gold. Today, the father-son pair are fighting an extradition request from the United States, where they face charges of money laundering, wire fraud, and mail fraud. To date, they have lost multiple legal challenges aimed at suspending or canceling ongoing extradition hearings in Guyana.

In a developing political incident in Guyana, opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed was taken into custody for a second time late Thursday, just hours after his first arrest, and held at the Leonora Police Station on the West Coast Demerara. The arrest came as Mohamed led a group of people to the site where he was first detained by law enforcement earlier the same day.

Following the second arrest, Mohamed was again released from police custody, but authorities retained his mobile phone, confirmed Odessa Primus, general secretary of the main opposition party We Invest in Nationhood (WIN). Additional WIN representatives who were detained alongside the opposition leader have also been released without any formal charges, WIN executive member Tabita Sarabo-Halley confirmed in a post-arrest statement.

Three other detained party members — WIN parliamentarians Dr. Gordon Barker, Dr. Andre Lewis, and regional councillor Sean Nelson — were all freed without charges. While most of their personal electronic devices seized during processing were returned after custody, Nelson’s phone has not yet been given back, and he was scheduled to return to the station on Friday to collect it. To date, Mohamed’s personal laptop, mobile phone, and vehicle remain in police possession, Sarabo-Halley added.

Per footage broadcast via Facebook Live by Mohamed during the site visit, the opposition leader was showing attendees the area where he and his photographer were intercepted by police following their first stop in the region. According to an early statement from the Guyana Police Force, law enforcement observed two vehicles acting suspiciously near the private residence of Guyanese President Irfaan Ali in Leonora, though police did not explicitly name Mohamed in that initial release. Mohamed has publicly denied that he ever entered the street where President Ali’s private home is located.

After being granted self-bail following his first arrest, Mohamed led a walking group to the area he said he and his photographer visited earlier that evening to inspect ongoing public sea defense construction works. During the live broadcast, he pointed out a large, fenced parcel of land adjacent to a local masjid, enclosed by a tall, reinforced concrete fence running parallel to the Leonora Seawall. Mohamed claimed during the broadcast that the fenced area illegally encroaches on a public government reserve, and issued a direct challenge to the sitting president: “Like Irfaan Ali ain’t know the more he fights me down, the more I am going to expose things about him and his government?”

Within minutes of Mohamed starting the live broadcast and his on-site remarks, police officers approached the group and escorted Mohamed back to the Leonora Police Station. Before entering the police compound, Mohamed repeatedly asked officers to specify what criminal offense he was accused of committing. A senior responding officer confirmed the allegation against him was a breach of security protocol, and ordered Mohamed to terminate the ongoing Facebook Live stream immediately. Alongside Mohamed, his photographer, the driver of a second vehicle (which Mohamed says is not affiliated with him), and multiple WIN parliamentary representatives were also taken into custody during the incident.

Law enforcement agencies globally maintain specialized technical equipment capable of bypassing security locks on mobile phones and personal electronic devices to access stored user data for investigative purposes.

In a recent development out of Guyana that has sparked political tension, Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has issued a firm denial of allegations that unregistered drones were found operating suspiciously near the private residence of sitting President Irfaan Ali.

The allegations, which first circulated following a police intercept of two vehicles in the West Coast Demerara region, claimed that multiple unregistered drones were recovered from the vehicles near Ali’s Leonora home. Speaking publicly to Demerara Waves Online News one day after the incident, Mohamed pushed back systematically against every core claim in the narrative.

Mohamed acknowledged that a single drone was recovered from one vehicle he was associated with, but emphasized that the unmanned aerial device does not belong to him. He further clarified that he never attempted to operate the drone during the trip, and has already offered law enforcement full access to the drone’s flight log data to verify his statement.

Contrary to claims that his group was loitering near President Ali’s private street, Mohamed explained his travel that day was focused on a planned trip to the local seawall. His stated purpose for the visit was to conduct an on-the-ground inspection of recent public works projects, as part of an opposition effort to flag alleged corruption in government contracting. He said he only passed through a public roadway adjacent to the presidential residence, and never entered the street where Ali’s home is located.

Mohadeh also rejected any connection to the second vehicle intercepted by police at Crane, West Demerara. He told reporters that the driver of that vehicle only stopped briefly to exchange a polite greeting with his group before continuing on unrelated personal business. Despite the minor interaction, that driver was taken into police custody, along with the driver of Mohamed’s vehicle and a press photographer accompanying the opposition leader. As of Thursday, all three individuals remain in police detention.

Following questioning, Mohamed was released on self-bail Thursday, with authorities ordering him to report back to the station for further questioning on Saturday. The incident has already drawn attention to ongoing political friction between the opposition and ruling government in Guyana, as the opposition continues its scrutiny of public infrastructure spending and governance practices.

On Thursday, 3 September 2026, a senior leader of Guyana’s national law enforcement acknowledged multiple critical discrepancies in his official sworn statement connected to a high-profile U.S. extradition request for two prominent Guyanese businessmen. Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch, made these admissions while undergoing cross-examination from lead defence counsel Siand Dhurjon during ongoing court proceedings.

Over the course of questioning, Narine attributed multiple factual inaccuracies in his November 2025 written statement to simple typographical errors, and attempted to clarify gaps in the original document by adding previously unrecorded details. The first inconsistency centered on the date Narine claimed he received the official Authority To Proceed (ATP) for the extradition from Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond. His written statement incorrectly listed the date of receipt as 31 October 2025, a mistake Narine dismissed as a typo when pressed by Dhurjon.

The second major discrepancy involved Narine’s original claim that he personally collected the full U.S. extradition request from Guyana’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, alongside the ATP from the Home Affairs Minister. When confronted with this claim, Narine once again stated the line was the result of a typographical error. Further questioning revealed a more consequential omission: Narine confirmed to the court that he never witnessed either minister sign the extradition-related documents in person on the day he collected them. Instead, he acknowledged he actually picked up both the ATP and required Section 6 Certificate from a female administrative staff member at the offices of the Attorney General of Guyana – a detail completely missing from his two-page official statement, with no mention of the visit to the Attorney General’s Carmichael Street premises at all.

In his explanation, Narine clarified that while the two documents were officially issued by the respective ministries, and he recognized the ministers’ signatures on the paperwork, they were routed through the Attorney General’s chambers for collection. The 26-year veteran police officer also agreed during cross-examination that drafting accurate, transparent statements after an investigation is one of the core responsibilities of any policing officer, and that official police statements are intended to be fully transparent records of first-hand information.

The two businessmen at the center of the extradition request, Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed, are wanted by U.S. federal authorities to stand trial on charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. The charges are linked to their billion-dollar international trading operation, making this one of the most high-stakes extradition matters Guyana’s legal system has handled in recent years.