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.
