A FARM OR A RANCH ?

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA♦EDITORIAL
Farm or Ranch: What Is Disputed, What Is Admitted, and What Remains Unverified

President Ali confirms owning a farm off the Soesdyke-Linden Highway predating his presidency. Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed alleges a GY$2.2 billion, corruption-tainted estate built since 2023. Both cannot be fully true. Here is what can actually be checked.

WHAT IS NOW ADMITTED
President Irfaan Ali has confirmed, on the record, that he owns a farm off the Soesdyke-Linden Highway.                              Responding directly to accusations from Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, Dr. Ali said the property predates his first election to the presidency in 2020 and disputed the characterisation of it as a “ranch,” the framing used throughout Mr. Mohamed’s video. He also rejected the suggestion that he used his office to build a new road to the property or to position himself for advantage in agricultural production.

This is a meaningful shift from where this matter stood a yesterday. The existence of a large agricultural development that sits at approximately coordinates 6°20’44″N, 58°15’18″W, identified by this publication is no longer in dispute — it has been confirmed by the property’s owner.

What remains contested is scale, value, timeline, financing, and whether the presidency was used to its advantage.

WHERE THE ACCOUNTS COLLIDE
Mr. Mohamed’s video places the development’s origin at 2023 — squarely within Dr. Ali’s presidency. Dr. Ali says the farm predates his 2020 election. These two timelines cannot both be correct as stated, and the discrepancy sits at the centre of the dispute: a pre-existing farm expanded using personal resources is a materially different matter from a presidential-era estate built with the benefits of office. This publication has not independently established which timeline is accurate, and neither man’s account should be treated as settled fact pending documentary verification.

Mr. Mohamed has alleged a GY$2.2 billion, corruption-linked investment, itemising an estimated GY$150-acre estate, a GY$75 million access road, a GY$55 million electricity transmission network, and GY$165 million in residential and recreational construction, including a two-storey concrete residence, swimming pool, gazebos, benabs, and an outdoor kitchen. He further projected substantial future revenue from poultry, Brazilian cattle, black-belly sheep, goats, hassar, and tambaqui production. Dr. Ali has denied the corruption characterisation and said he financed the property by borrowing from the banking system. As Demerara Waves reported in its account of the dispute, none of Mr. Mohamed’s cost or revenue estimates could be independently confirmed, and that remains the case here.

THE ST. CUTHBERT’S MISSION CONTRAST
One element of Mr. Mohamed’s allegation is independently verifiable in principle and carries genuine public-interest weight regardless of who is proven right on ownership and timeline: his claim that St. Cuthbert’s Mission, one of the villages nearest the disputed property, receives only four hours of daily electricity while the estate in question is said to be fully powered for livestock operations. If accurate, this is a legitimate rural-electrification equity question that stands on its own merits and deserves scrutiny independent of the ownership dispute. This publication has not yet verified current power-supply hours at St. Cuthbert’s Mission and will do so.

SOURCING AND CREDIBILITY, BOTH WAYS
Fairness requires disclosing what is publicly known about both men making claims in this dispute. Mr. Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, were sanctioned by the United States Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in June 2024 and separately charged by US authorities with wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering connected to their gold export business; OFAC alleges the exportation of more than 10,000 kilogrammes of gold and evasion of over US$50 million owed to the Guyanese state. Dr. Ali and Mr. Mohamed reportedly maintained a close relationship dating to their secondary school years, which ended following the 2024 sanctions. None of this establishes the truth or falsity of Mr. Mohamed’s specific allegations about the farm; it is relevant context for readers assessing the source and motive behind a serious corruption claim made by a now-estranged former associate under active US federal charges.

THE DRONE REPORT
Dr. Ali stated that no one was authorised to enter his farm, and that workers reported a drone hovering over the property continuously across four days, including an allegation that an object was dropped from it. He said the matter was reported to police and that he had not personally followed up beyond that.

This publication notes the report as a fact disclosed by Dr. Ali; it does not establish who operated the drone, what if anything was dropped, or the outcome of any police inquiry, and no inference of wrongdoing by any party should be drawn from it at this stage.

WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY SETTLE THIS
Several concrete, document-based steps could resolve the disputed timeline and financing questions without relying on either man’s characterisation:
Guyana Revenue Authority property tax records would show when the property was first assessed and in whose name, offering an independent marker for the ownership timeline. A search of the Official Gazette for the year in which ownership is claimed to have been established — 2023 per Mr. Mohamed, pre-2020 per Dr. Ali — could confirm or contradict either account, if the transfer or grant was gazetted as required. Dr. Ali’s Integrity Commission filings for the past three years, if made public, would show declared assets, their approximate value, and any material change in holdings during his presidency, directly bearing on both the timeline dispute and the financing claim he has now made — that the development was funded through a bank loan.

This publication is requesting: GRA confirmation of the property’s tax assessment history and filing name; a Gazette search for land transfer or grant notices matching the disputed years; and public disclosure of Dr. Ali’s Integrity Commission filings for the relevant period. We are also seeking comment from GL&SC on the property’s regulatory status, a request first made in connection with this matter and not yet answered.

WHERE THIS STANDS
What is now fact: a large agricultural development exists off the Soesdyke-Linden Highway, and its ownership by President Ali is confirmed by the President himself. What is disputed: when it originated, what it cost, how it was financed, and whether presidential office conferred any advantage in its construction or operation. What is alleged but unconfirmed: the GY$2.2 billion valuation, the specific infrastructure cost breakdown, and the corruption characterisation itself. What is verifiable and pending: GRA records, Gazette filings, and Integrity Commission disclosures. This publication will pursue each of these and report what they show, regardless of which man’s account they support.
This is a developing editorial matter. The 592 Guardian will publish any response received from GL&SC, GRA, or the Integrity Commission, and will correct the record as verified facts emerge.
— The Editortial Board