The Mohamed Decision will have long reach – far beyond the Courts

Dear Editor,
Justice Gino Persaud’s recent ruling in favour of the Mohameds is being portrayed by some as a triumph of judicial independence and even as a political blow to the PPP. The anti-PPP commentators are already gloating. But in Washington, this ruling has triggered something far more serious: it has placed Guyana’s judiciary directly under the scrutiny of the United States Government. To U.S. officials, this ruling is not a victory for the rule of law — it is a warning that Guyana’s institutions may be buckling under pressure from one family’s influence.
Publicly, the U.S. Embassy will offer the predictable diplomatic nicety: “We continue to respect Guyana’s judicial process.” But privately, the reaction will be very different. Officials at the State Department, Treasury, and Department of Justice will interpret this outcome as confirmation that the Mohamed network — already sanctioned and indicted by U.S. authorities — still holds sway. They will see a regulatory system vulnerable to manipulation, and a justice system not yet equipped to confront the scale of transnational financial crime outlined in the OFAC sanctions and federal indictment.
But anyone celebrating this ruling as a first step toward defeating extradition is deeply mistaken. In strategic terms, the ruling strengthens — not weakens — the U.S. drive to remove the Mohameds from Guyana’s jurisdiction. Washington already believed that the Mohameds could not be effectively prosecuted or regulated at home. This ruling now cements that belief. Rather than delaying the proceedings, it will accelerate them: it gives the DOJ more ammunition, more justification, and more urgency to press for rapid judicial progress. In the eyes of Washington, Guyana has just signalled that it cannot reliably deliver accountability when politically connected defendants are involved.
While the ruling may lead to sharper diplomatic exchanges and more aggressive U.S. monitoring of Guyana’s financial enforcement landscape, it has also produced an unintended geopolitical consequence — one that will not favour the Mohameds. It has brought the PPP government and the United States into perfect alignment. Both Washington and the Ali administration share the same objective: the removal of the Mohameds from Guyana’s jurisdiction through extradition. Both see this not as a political matter, but as a test of whether Guyana can uphold the rule of law in an era of unprecedented economic transformation.
So although Justice Persaud’s ruling may have offered the Mohameds a short-term public-relations victory, it guarantees a far more consequential long-term defeat. It sets the stage for intensified cooperation between Washington and Georgetown, and it paves the way for the extradition proceedings to accelerate — not slow down.

Sincerely,
Suresh Dookhie