Pro bono or prohibited? Christopher Ram’s own admissions raise serious questions

Dear Editor,
Lallbachan Christopher Ram now claims that his engagement with Azruddin Mohamed and members of the WIN party was done pro bono. But even taking Mr Ram at his own word, that explanation does not resolve the serious issues raised by his actions.
Let’s deal with the facts. Mr Ram himself has confirmed:
– He knowingly met with an OFAC-sanctioned individual.
There is no dispute on this point. Mr Ram has acknowledged direct engagement.
– He provided material support to a sanctioned individual and his associates.
By his own admission, Mr Ram went beyond casual or incidental contact.
– “Pro bono” is not a defence under OFAC rules.
Pro bono services are considered “value in kind” – the equivalent of a donation. In other words, providing free professional services still constitutes financial or material support to a sanctioned person.
– His involvement went beyond communication.
Mr Ram did not merely observe or exchange information. He provided political and strategic guidance, which clearly falls within the scope of material support.
OFAC is explicit: material support to a sanctioned individual – whether paid or unpaid – can include services, advice, and assistance that advance that person’s interests.
So, the real issue is not whether Mr Ram was paid.
The issue is whether his actions violated international sanctions norms.
No amount of wordplay around “pro bono” can change that fundamental question.

Yours sincerely,
Erin Northe