IN governance, tough decisions must be made, especially when national interests are at stake. The recent statements by General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Bharrat Jagdeo, in response to allegations made by US-sanctioned businessman Nazar Mohamed, underline this very principle: Guyana’s welfare must always come before personal or business interests.

The decision to cut financial ties with Mohamed and his businesses is not one of political spite or personal vendetta, but one of national stability.
The US Treasury Department’s sanctions carry significant consequences, and ignoring them could jeopardise the entire financial system of the country.

As Jagdeo rightly pointed out, allowing Mohamed to continue operating a cambio would have put banks at risk of US sanctions, potentially leading to an economic catastrophe.
Mohamed’s attempts to cast himself as a victim of government hostility are misleading at best. Nowhere in his public statements does he acknowledge the full implications of the sanctions levied against him and his son, Azruddin Mohamed.

Instead, he has opted to make claims that conveniently sidestep the core issue: the US government found them culpable of serious financial misconduct following a two-and-a-half-year investigation.

The ramifications of US sanctions extend far beyond American borders. As Jagdeo explained, even non-American businesses and individuals transacting with sanctioned entities could face consequences. This is not a matter of perception—it is a documented reality under international financial regulations. The idea that Guyana should defy such sanctions for the benefit of one business family is absurd, as it would place the entire nation in jeopardy.

Furthermore, Mohamed’s assertion that a local businessman is allegedly purchasing gold from Venezuela—a sanctioned country—warrants serious scrutiny.
If he possesses evidence of such transactions, as he claims, then the responsible action would be to make this information public or share it with the relevant authorities, including the US government. The fight against corruption and financial malpractice cannot be selective; all allegations must be supported by verifiable proof.

As for his suggestion that his son is under threat of assassination, this is a matter best left to law enforcement authorities. Instead of fuelling speculation, Mohamed should engage with the Guyana Police Force to ensure a thorough investigation.

Ultimately, the Guyanese government’s position on this matter is clear: no individual or business, regardless of past affiliations, will be placed above the interests of the nation. The government’s priority remains the economic and social well-being of its citizens. The enforcement of international financial regulations is not an option—it is a necessity.

As Guyana continues on its path of growth and development, it is crucial that the principles of transparency, accountability, and national interest remain at the forefront of decision-making. Businesspersons must recognise that the integrity of the country’s financial system cannot be compromised for the sake of personal gain. In this regard, Jagdeo’s firm stance should be seen not as an act of hostility, but as a necessary step in safeguarding Guyana’s future.