THE arrest and detention of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed following the interception of a fast craft on the Demerara River has once again exposed a troubling weakness in Guyana’s political culture, which is that too many people now believe that political status, social-media popularity, wealth or a large following can place them beyond ordinary accountability. They simply cannot.
The facts emerging from the August 25–26 incident deserve to be separated from the political theatre surrounding it. The Guyana Police Force and Guyana Defence Force Coast Guard say a joint maritime patrol observed a “go-fast” vessel travelling at high speed near the mouth of the Demerara River at about 9:45 p.m. The vessel was allegedly signalled by siren to stop but did not immediately comply, resulting in a pursuit and interception at Friendship. Police also reported seeing a bag being thrown into the river, although its contents and the identity of whoever allegedly threw it remain unknown.
Mohamed and his colleagues dispute that version. They maintain that the boat was already docked when the lawmen arrived and that no high-speed chase occurred. They also say the vessel was searched and nothing illegal was found.
But one fact has now become particularly difficult to ignore: the Maritime Administration Department has stated that, according to its records, neither Mohamed nor the fast craft was licensed or authorised to operate. MARAD warned that operating unlicensed vessels or using unlicensed operators creates serious risks on Guyana’s waterways.
This clarification changes the political argument considerably.
Firstly, the government and the law-enforcement agencies therefore deserve to be defended against the simplistic accusation that this was merely a political attack on the Opposition Leader. The police and Coast Guard have a responsibility to enforce maritime laws. If a vessel is operating without the required documentation or authorisation, the fact that its owner happens to be an Opposition Leader does not give him immunity, nor does being an MP. Being the leader of WIN or having thousands of Facebook followers does not give one the authority to break the law. And certainly, wealth does not purchase exemption from the law.
Therefore, four questions must be answered. Did the vessel fail to stop when signalled by the joint maritime patrol, and did a pursuit actually occur? Was a bag thrown into the Demerara River, and if so, who threw it and what did it contain? Why were the required registration, fitness and captain’s licence documents not produced when requested?
That final question is important because Team Mohamed initially alleged that the boat had been deliberately damaged by the administration while under police control. Yet video footage from Region One, recorded before the vessel returned to Georgetown, appears to show the same damage already present. That evidence seriously undermines the claim that the damage was necessarily caused while the boat was in police custody. This is precisely why Guyana needs facts before Facebook narratives.
Secondly, there is also a serious issue concerning the conduct of MP Odessa Primus and Natasha ‘gun-isha’ Smith-Lewis. Parliamentary office should require restraint, especially when dealing with police officers and other uniformed personnel performing their duties. Challenging an officer’s authority is legitimate, but taunting, insulting or attempting to intimidate law-enforcement officers is not the standard expected from a Member of Parliament, comedian or a devout Muslim.
Afterall, opposition MPs should not behave as though the police are political enemies simply because an investigation involves their leader. The same principle applies to claims made for social-media effect. If statements are made suggesting that Mohamed was physically injured, or that the authorities deliberately damaged his property, those claims must be supported by evidence. If allegations are subsequently contradicted by available footage, the responsible response is correction, not doubling down for sympathy, outrage and Facebook engagement.
This, of course, is where Guyana’s political culture is becoming dangerous. Mohamed has mastered the politics of victimhood. Whenever government institutions investigate, challenge or confront him, the political message quickly becomes one of persecution: the businessman against the government, the Opposition Leader against the establishment, the wealthy philanthropist against an allegedly hostile state.
It is politically clever, and electorally useful. The danger is that every confrontation becomes political capital, content and every investigation becomes evidence of persecution. That is not healthy democratic politics.
Thirdly, the opposition’s increasingly rogue, unconventional and sometimes ghetto-style approach to politics must also be challenged. Guyana does not need opposition MPs behaving like social-media influencers looking for the next viral confrontation. Parliamentarians are holders of public office. They must conduct themselves with respect, decorum and seriousness befitting the institutions they represent. Political disorder is not healthy.
What is equally troubling is the relative silence of organisations and civic voices that should be demanding accountability from everyone, including powerful figures like Christoper Ram, Aubrey Norton, Anand Goolsarran, Andaye, Red Thread, APA, GHRA, Volda Lawrence, and Joseph Harmon. Guyana cannot selectively defend institutions depending on whose political interests are affected.
There should be serious public scrutiny of Mohamed’s political conduct, his extraordinary wealth, his controversial public statements and allegations surrounding his political rhetoric. His charitable work can be acknowledged without making charity a substitute for accountability. Wealth can be admired without becoming a shield from questions. Political popularity can be respected without becoming a licence for reckless behaviour.
Guyana must pull itself back from becoming a barbaric, social-media-driven society where an allegation made in a video is immediately treated as fact and where the truth has to chase behind the allegation. That road is dangerous.
Finally, there is an uncomfortable historical comparison here. Pablo Escobar understood the political power of wealth, popularity, charity and the cultivation of ordinary people’s loyalty. The comparison should not be stretched into saying Mohamed is Escobar or that Guyana is Colombia. That would be irresponsible. But the similarity worth noticing is the political danger when extraordinary personal wealth, philanthropy, mass popularity and confrontation with state institutions begin to combine into a personality-centred political movement.
Guyana must never allow that combination to mature into a political culture in which one individual becomes larger than institutions. We should move forward by lowering the temperature, demanding evidence, respecting the police, respecting Parliament, respecting the courts and allowing investigations to proceed without political interference.
The government must enforce the law without fear or favour. The Opposition must challenge the government without turning every enforcement action into political persecution and MPs must remember that their office is bigger than their Facebook pages. Guyana does not need louder politics, but it needs calmer, more disciplined and level-headed leadership.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.