The confrontation involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and Special Branch head Senior Superintendent Prem Narine has sharpened a question that the government can no longer answer with political denunciations: is the Guyana Police Force exercising its authority independently, or is it allowing itself to become an instrument in a bitter political rivalry?
One distinction must be established at the outset. The American extradition request concerning Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed belongs before the courts. Separate from that proceeding is the government’s domestic treatment of the Mohameds and the appearance that public institutions are being mobilised against a political opponent. It is this second matter that demands scrutiny.
The October shooting incident makes that scrutiny urgent. Mohamed alleges that Narine fired at the vehicle in which he and his employees were travelling. Police subsequently reported recovering a firearm, and the three men were charged with firearm and ammunition offences and attempting to obstruct justice. They pleaded not guilty and were granted conditional bail. These allegations remain contested, but the conduct of the investigation is already a legitimate matter of public concern.
The political history gives the confrontation particular significance. The Mohameds were once closely associated with the People’s Progressive Party. Azruddin Mohamed has publicly claimed substantial financial support for the party, including a $20 million contribution towards its 2024 congress. The precise extent of that support deserves disclosure. The transformation from political association to open hostility also deserves examination, particularly now that Mohamed leads a substantial parliamentary opposition.
WIN’s emergence changed the political landscape. With more than 109,000 votes and 16 parliamentary seats in the 2025 elections, Mohamed acquired an electoral constituency that the governing party cannot dismiss as personal following without democratic significance. His supporters are citizens entitled to representation, and any improper use of state power against their elected leader diminishes their political rights as well.
The issue is whether the hostility expressed from Freedom House is finding operational expression through institutions maintained by the national treasury. The PPP is entitled to contest Mohamed’s policies and challenge his credibility. Police personnel, investigative powers and official communications carry responsibilities that extend to every citizen. Their use must be justified by evidence and a lawful public purpose.
The reported circumstances surrounding the firearm recovery require a clear, independently verifiable explanation. At the bail hearing, the magistrate noted defence concerns about the initial search of the vehicle, its subsequent transfer to the police station by another officer and the location of the alleged possession stated in the charge. The reporting also recorded questions about footage connecting the alleged discharge to the defendants’ vehicle. Those matters do not establish fabrication. They do make the integrity of the search, recovery and custody of the evidence central to the case.
The police must account for each stage. Who searched the vehicle? What was found during the first search? Who controlled it afterwards? When and where was the weapon recovered? What recordings and contemporaneous records support that account? These are ordinary evidential questions. The political prominence of the accused makes a transparent answer more necessary.
Narine’s conduct must face the same scrutiny. His senior rank cannot place his account beyond examination. Where a senior officer is personally involved in an incident concerning the opposition leader, public confidence requires demonstrable impartiality in the investigation. Every relevant account must be tested against the available evidence.
The concern is heightened by Narine’s earlier testimony describing Mohamed as a national security threat. Under questioning in September, he denied awareness of derogatory statements against the Mohameds by senior government figures. The court must assess his testimony. The public is entitled to ask what independently established evidence supports so serious an official assessment of an opposition leader. Electoral competition and criticism of the government cannot provide its foundation.
A pliant police force becomes dangerous because it can give political hostility coercive effect. Politicians can denounce; police can search, arrest and detain. If those powers accommodate partisan objectives, an opponent confronts the governing party with the machinery of the state behind it. That is the institutional danger suggested by the apparent campaign against the Mohameds.
The force must answer that concern through its conduct. Consistent standards, properly preserved evidence and investigations capable of withstanding independent scrutiny will demonstrate professionalism. Repeated declarations of impartiality cannot compensate for unexplained decisions.
Taxpayers finance the personnel, vehicles, equipment, offices and communications through which these powers operate. Where those resources are used to intimidate, discredit or politically exhaust an opponent, citizens are effectively subsidising the governing party’s campaign. The expenditure attributable to any such misuse has not been established. That makes disclosure of authorisations, deployments and costs essential.
The public cost also extends beyond expenditure. Repeated accusations can damage a reputation before they are tested. Investigations can consume time and resources while an elected representative attempts to perform his duties. If such pressure is politically directed, its purpose can be achieved long before a court delivers any verdict.
This is why the appearance of a political witch hunt demands a substantive response. The government should explain how the public interest is served by its actions. The police should demonstrate that their decisions arise from evidence and professional judgment. Neither institution should expect citizens to accept political hostility as a substitute for accountability.
The Mohameds’ political standing provides no immunity from lawful investigation. Equally, their conflict with the government provides no licence for targeting. The standard must remain consistent regardless of who holds office, who finances a party or who later becomes its opponent.
Public authority is entrusted to an administration for the service of the country. It cannot properly be converted into an advantage in a private political feud. Guyanese taxpayers should not be compelled to finance a campaign against someone the governing party regards as a threat to its hold on power.
Discussion