Mohamed cannot credibly claim political persecution while admitting his troubles stem from US sanctions and a Reuters probe

Dear Editor,
Nazar Mohamed’s letter published in Kaieteur News on January 10, 2025, contains a fundamental contradiction that cannot be ignored, more so since a local media house platformed Mr Mohamed via a full-page news article on the same day.
Mr Mohamed claims that he and his family are victims of political persecution. Yet, in his own words, he concedes that what he describes as persecution only began after international attention was drawn to his business activities in 2024 — not because of any local political rivalry.
Mr Mohamed states: “This campaign of persecution began after the Reuters article on Mohamed’s Enterprise, which referenced sanctions allegedly confirmed by a senior Government source. From that moment, the full weight of state machinery was unleashed…”
This admission is telling. The Reuters article referenced United States sanctions imposed in June 2024 by the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), citing allegations of tax evasion, trade-based money laundering, and gold smuggling. These sanctions were the result of US investigations, not Guyanese political maneuvering.
Even more striking is the timeline Mr Mohamed himself presents. The alleged persecution he complains of began in 2024, while his son, Azruddin Mohamed, only launched his political party in 2025. It is therefore illogical to claim political persecution tied to domestic electoral rivalry when the supposed acts predate the existence of that political movement.
Further undermining Mr Mohamed’s narrative are the facts surrounding the US criminal case. The Mohameds face an 11-count indictment unsealed by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida, alleging wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and customs violations connected to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme. The indictment alleges that these activities occurred between 2017 and June 2024 — years before any political ambitions were declared.
Additionally, US investigations into the Mohameds reportedly began as far back as 2016–2017, involving intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation between Guyana and the US. This further dispels the notion that the matter is a sudden, politically motivated vendetta.
Mr Mohamed cannot credibly argue political persecution while simultaneously admitting that the catalyst was US sanctions and a Reuters report grounded in long-running international investigations. The facts, including his own statements, point not to politics, but to serious legal and regulatory scrutiny that long predates any political involvement by his family.
Public discourse deserves clarity and consistency. On this issue, Mr Mohamed’s account provides neither.

Yours truly,
Annalise Humphrey