President Ali Refutes WIN’s Claims of Intentional Parliament Delay

President Ali Dismisses Claims of Delayed Parliament Amid Extradition Controversy

President Dr. Irfaan Ali has firmly rejected allegations that the reconvening of Guyana’s Parliament was deliberately delayed, describing such claims as “totally disconnected from the truth” and emphasizing that his government has acted within constitutional boundaries throughout the process.

In an interview with journalist Fareeza Haniff just before the 13th Parliament convened on Monday, President Ali addressed what he termed a “misinformation campaign” propagated by the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party and other critics who have attempted to link parliamentary scheduling to an ongoing international criminal investigation.

“Constitutionally, I had up to this point to reconvene the Parliament and I said from day one that I will act in accordance with the Constitution and I have,” President Ali stated. Under Article 69(1) of Guyana’s Constitution, Parliament must reconvene within four months of dissolution. With Parliament having been dissolved on July 3, 2025, the government’s November timeline falls well within constitutional requirements.

The controversy centers around claims that Parliament’s reconvening was postponed due to extradition proceedings involving businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed. Azruddin, who leads the WIN party and is expected to be sworn in as a Member of Parliament and potentially become the next Leader of the Opposition, has been implicated in an international investigation.

President Ali characterized these allegations as “mischievous” and “politically motivated,” emphasizing that the investigation predates his administration’s 2020 assumption of office. “This is not an investigation that originated from here (Guyana); it is international in nature,” he clarified. “So this notion that Parliament was delayed for an extradition is totally disconnected from the truth. It’s a narrative created for a specific intention and purpose.”

The case against the Mohameds reportedly involves serious allegations including gold smuggling and money laundering. President Ali highlighted that the United States government has been working collaboratively with Guyanese authorities throughout the investigation, stressing that extradition requests and indictments follow strict legal protocols independent of political considerations.

“An indictment is not arrived at in a simple way. The court has to be convinced that a clear case has been laid out,” the President explained. “This has nothing to do with political persecution or victim syndrome — it’s a straightforward legal matter.”

In a significant revelation, President Ali disclosed that evidence shared by U.S. authorities indicates the Mohameds may have deprived Guyana of substantial tax revenue through various schemes. “We have evidence where the country was robbed of taxes and the GRA [Guyana Revenue Authority] is pursuing those matters,” he confirmed, adding that authorities are also investigating evidence of undervalued vehicle invoices.

The President accused Azruddin Mohamed of attempting to create a “victimhood syndrome” as part of what he described as a broader disinformation strategy. “Some of this misinformation is designed for a specific purpose,” he warned, contextualizing the situation within what he termed a global “pandemic of misinformation and disinformation.”

Throughout the interview, President Ali emphasized his administration’s commitment to international cooperation on criminal matters and maintaining the rule of law. “This investigation started long before 2020. We came in and met it; we cooperated and followed all the legal and administrative mechanisms,” he explained.

The controversy highlights tensions within Guyana’s political landscape as the newly convened Parliament begins its session. While the People’s Progressive Party/Civic government defends its actions as constitutionally sound and procedurally correct, opposition figures continue to question the timing and motives behind the government’s decisions.

The case also underscores the increasing complexity of transnational investigations and their potential impact on domestic politics, particularly in resource-rich nations like Guyana where allegations of financial crimes often intersect with questions of governance and national interest.