Venezuela’s Attempts to Interfere in the September Guyana Election
In 2024, these suspicions led to legal consequences: the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Azruddin, his father, their companies (including Mohamed’s Enterprise), and a government official under the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), citing bribery schemes, tax evasion on US$50 million worth of gold exports, and corruption from 2019 to 2023.
Entry into Politics and Electoral Strategy
Despite these controversies, Azruddin Mohamed has recently positioned himself as a presidential contender:
In June 2025 he founded a new party called WIN (We Invest in Nationhood). Shortly thereafter, he entered an electoral alliance with A New and United Guyana (ANUG), creating the WIN–ANUG coalition.
He has embarked on a high-visibility campaign ahead of Guyana’s 1 September 2025 general election, traveling across the country donating cash, vehicles, and homes to communities.
His campaign platform emphasizes a “new Guyana” founded on equality, unity, and good governance, portraying himself as a watchdog against soaring costs of living. (“Eggs are too expensive for egg-fry … meat is too costly”—he has remarked in campaign messages).
Legal Challenges: Tax Fraud Allegations & Beyond
A. Sanctions and Corruption Allegations (U.S.)
The 2024 U.S. OFAC sanctions target both Mohamed and his father for alleged involvement in a multilayered scheme involving gold export duty evasion (~US $50 million), bribery of customs, and falsification of documents. The Mohameds have publicly denied all wrongdoing.
B. Criminal Charges in Guyana: “False Declaration” of a Lamborghini
May 2025: Azruddin was charged in Guyanese court with false tax declaration and tax evasion, relating to a December 2020 Lamborghini Aventador. He allegedly declared the vehicle’s value at US$76,000, though it was actually purchased for US$695,000.
He pleaded not guilty, was granted bail of GYD$500,000 (~US$2,500), and faces possible prison time of up to three years or substantial fines if convicted.
The Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) defended its case, citing cooperation with U.S. agencies under the Mutual Assistance Act and stating they obtained documentation supporting the higher valuation. Those documents were submitted in court—though a High Court judge initially refused to admit them, with a formal ruling expected in September 2025.
The matter is set for continuation, with trial activity pending over the summer and fall of 2025.
c. Other Enforcement Actions
In April 2025, the GRA attempted to seize multiple luxury vehicles registered in the names of Mohamed and his associates, accusing them of tax shortfalls totaling over GYD$1.2 billion. A crowd resisted the seizure, prompting legal action. A High Court judge issued an injunction preventing seizure, later upheld by the Full Court, which cited insufficient justification to lift it.
Separately, the Mohameds’ private security company (Enterprise Security Service) had its operating license suspended; firearms were seized, and services halted. Authorities cited violations under the Private Security Service Act—raising security concerns for Mohamed’s family and supporters, who allege politically motivated targeting.
Political & Legal Intersection
Mohamed claims the charges and sanctions are politically motivated, suggesting that his shift from prominent donor of the ruling PPP/C to challenger has triggered state-led retaliation. He asserts President Irfaan Ali once approved the vehicle’s lower valuation, implying the tax case is an example of selective enforcement.
The Attorney General counters that the case is founded on evidence from U.S. authorities, not the Guyanese government, emphasizing that the sanctions are external, and the legal processes in Guyana follow standard procedure.
Azruddin Mohamed emerges as a high-stakes political wildcardin the 2025 general election—bringing financial clout, a populist message, and a campaign built on visibility and philanthropy,but also facing serious legal uncertainties.
His campaign serves two conflicting narratives:
· The establishment sees a challenge to tax law and corruption norms.
· His supporters view him as a disruptive anti-establishment force,being targeted for daring to compete.
As Guyana navigates its transition amid oil wealth and political realignment, the unfolding of Mohamed’s cases—and public reaction to them—may prove pivotal for both the electoral outcomeand thecountry’s institutional future.
History of the Venezuela–Guyana Border Dispute
Colonial Origins & the 1899 Arbitration
The border conflict stems from colonial-era boundary definitions. Guyana (then British Guiana) and Venezuela disputed the rich region west of the Essequibo River. In 1899, an international tribunal awarded most of the disputed land to Britain, prompting Venezuelan rejection and claims of collusion.
Venezuela formally declared non-recognition of the arbitration outcome in 1962, arguing it had been unfairly influenced Wikipedia+1.
1966 Geneva Agreement & the Port of Spain Protocol
The 1966 Geneva Agreement established a Mixed Commission to resolve the dispute with UN oversight, but it failed to reach consensus.
In 1970, both countries signed the Port of Spain Protocol, placing a 12-year moratorium on Venezuelan claims to allow for dialogue and cooperation. However, in 1982, Venezuela opted not to renew, resuming its territorial claim.
Post–Cold War Tensions & Oil Discoveries
The discovery of substantial offshore oil reserves by ExxonMobil in 2015 supercharged the dispute. It transformed Essequibo from a sparsely inhabited region into a highly contested prize.
Guyana lodged its case with the ICJ in 2018. Although Venezuela challenged the court’s jurisdiction, the ICJ ruled in 2020 that it could proceed to adjudicate the dispute.
Escalation: Referendum, Annexation Moves and Military Posturing
In December 2023, Venezuela conducted a controversial referendum asserting its sovereignty over two-thirds of Guyana (the Essequibo region). Following the vote, Venezuela issued maps, enacted laws to incorporate the region, and even militarized border areas.
Surrounding countries—Brazil, the U.S., and the UK—expressed support for Guyana and warned Venezuela against further escalation. The ICJ also urged Venezuela to refrain from altering the status quo.
In early 2024, Venezuela went further by passing a law to formally designate Essequibo as a Venezuelan state—symbolizing a stark assertion of territorial ambition.
Continued Dispute and Diplomatic Stalemate
Despite ongoing ICJ proceedings, the conflict remains unresolved. Venezuela rejects the court’s authority, while Guyana continues to seek a legally binding resolution. Diplomatic efforts are ongoing, but tensions remain high.
