A Mandate Betrayed: When Personal Vendettas Replace Public Service

A Mandate Betrayed: When Personal Vendettas Replace Public Service

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

More than 109,000 Guyanese voters gave Azruddin Mohamed and the We Invest in Nationhood party a mandate. They did not vote merely for a personality, a livestream, or a stream of confrontations with the State. They voted because many wanted representation. They wanted someone to challenge waste, expose corruption, question government decisions, defend ordinary citizens, and force greater accountability in the management of Guyana’s wealth.

That mandate carries a serious obligation.

The Leader of the Opposition is not simply another political commentator, social-media influencer, or businessman with a following. It is a constitutional office with national significance. The holder of that office must be prepared to scrutinize budgets, interrogate legislation, represent public concerns, offer credible policy alternatives, and serve as a stabilising national voice when institutions come under strain.

But recent events suggest an alarming divergence between the mandate Mr. Mohamed received and the role he appears determined to play. Instead of consistently demonstrating a commitment to policy, parliamentary scrutiny, and organised political representation, he appears increasingly drawn toward personal confrontations, dramatic standoffs, and a politics centred on himself.

That is not leadership. It is a dangerous misdirection of public trust.

The Kitty Incident Raises Serious Questions

The confrontation in Kitty on Monday, October 12, 2026, must be examined carefully and independently. Mr. Mohamed has alleged that police attempted to assassinate him, that he was assaulted by ranks, and that a handgun reportedly found in his vehicle was planted. Those are grave allegations.

They require a credible, transparent, and independent investigation. No citizen—whether wealthy, poor, politically connected, or politically opposed—should be subjected to unlawful violence, fabricated evidence, or abuse by the security forces.

But those questions cannot erase the disturbing conduct that reportedly preceded the confrontation.

By his own public explanations, Mr. Mohamed and members of his team were outside the private residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Special Branch and one of the country’s senior intelligence officials. They were reportedly circling, filming, and conducting what was presented as an effort to expose alleged government waste.

That decision displays a troubling absence of judgment.

A political leader has every right to question public expenditure. He has every right to investigate allegations of misuse of public funds. He has every right to demand answers about official residences, security arrangements, procurement, and the use of State resources. But there are lawful, responsible, and politically serious ways to do that work.

Circling and filming the residence of the country’s intelligence chief is not serious oversight. It is provocation dressed up as accountability.

Senior Superintendent Narine is not an ordinary public official. He occupies a senior national-security role. The protection of such an official, including the security protocols around his residence, cannot be treated casually by anyone—least of all the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Mohamed should have known that his actions could be perceived as suspicious or threatening. He should have understood that security personnel around a senior intelligence official would be alert to unusual activity. He should have recognised that he was placing himself, his team, and potentially police ranks in an environment where a misunderstanding could turn deadly.

Leadership requires anticipating consequences before they happen. It requires asking not only, “Can I do this?” but also, “Should I do this, and what risks does it create for others?” That kind of strategic thinking appears to have been absent.

A Pattern of Confrontation

The Kitty incident does not stand alone. It follows other episodes in which Mr. Mohamed, his employees and party associates have found themselves in dramatic encounters with security forces, at Pres. Ali’s private residence and  the river incident following a visit to Port Kaituma and Mabaruma.

In the Demerara River case, Joint Services personnel reportedly attempted to stop a vessel carrying Mr. Mohamed and WIN parliamentarians. The vessel allegedly failed to stop, leading to a pursuit and claims that a bag was thrown overboard. No illegal items were ultimately recovered, but the political response was immediate: the incident was cast as harassment and persecution by the government.

Again, the principle must be clear. The State must never weaponize its police, military, or security services against political opponents. If ranks acted improperly, they must be held accountable. If there was political interference, the public deserves to know.

However, political leaders also have a duty not to create unnecessary confrontations and then portray every consequence as proof of victimisation.

The public deserves more than an endless cycle of confrontation, livestream, accusation, denial, and political mobilisation. Guyanese need leadership that lowers the national temperature—not leadership that appears to thrive on keeping it at boiling point.

Mr. Mohamed campaigned as an alternative to the political establishment. His message resonated because many Guyanese are exhausted by arrogance, neglect, corruption, inequality, and a political culture that often treats citizens as voting blocs rather than human beings with real needs.

But an alternative cannot merely reproduce the same politics in a different colour, with a different party symbol, or with a louder online presence.

If the central purpose of politics becomes the protection of one leader’s image, legal interests, commercial interests, or personal grievances, then the people’s mandate has been hijacked.

The Work Voters Expected

The people who voted for WIN did not all do so because they wanted spectacle. Many did so because they wanted their circumstances changed.

They wanted answers about the rising cost of living. They wanted jobs and business opportunities that do not depend on political connections. They wanted safer communities, better roads, reliable drainage, functioning hospitals, quality schools, fairer policing, land access, and meaningful local development.

They wanted a serious voice on the management of oil revenues. They wanted someone to ask why, despite unprecedented national wealth, so many Guyanese still struggle with basic necessities. They wanted effective scrutiny of contracts, public procurement, land distribution, infrastructure spending, environmental safeguards, and the widening gap between the political class and the ordinary citizen.

That is the work of an opposition.

It is not glamorous work. It does not always produce viral videos. It does not guarantee cheering crowds or trending livestreams. But it is the work that matters.

Instead, too much of the public attention around Mr. Mohamed appears consumed by his personal confrontations with the authorities.

That is a betrayal of priorities.

A Revolving Door of Political Failure

Guyana’s politics is increasingly becoming a revolving door. One side fails the people, loses credibility, and is replaced or challenged by another side that promises transformation. But too often, the new actors adopt the same habits: personality worship, political victimhood, selective outrage, patronage, confrontation, and a belief that public office exists to serve the leader before it serves the country.

The faces change. The slogans change. The social-media platforms change. But the people remain burdened by the same realities.

Citizens are still waiting for reliable public services. Communities are still waiting for infrastructure. Young people are still looking for decent work. Families are still struggling with high prices. Rural and hinterland communities are still demanding equal treatment. The poor are still expected to survive on promises while those at the top fight over power, influence, and public attention.

This is the tragedy of Guyanese politics: too many leaders treat public support as a personal asset rather than a public trust.

The electorate gives a mandate, but receives drama. Citizens demand representation, but are offered rivalry. Communities seek solutions, but are drawn into political theatre. And when the theatre ends, it is ordinary Guyanese who are left to fend for themselves.

The Standard Must Be Higher

Mr. Mohamed cannot demand to be treated as a future national leader while behaving as though every institution, security protocol, or public encounter exists only as a backdrop to his personal political performance.

He cannot campaign against waste and mismanagement while bypassing the very mechanisms through which evidence-based accountability is supposed to be pursued. He cannot condemn reckless governance while repeatedly engaging in conduct that puts himself, his supporters, and public officers at unnecessary risk.

The country needs an opposition that is forceful but responsible; fearless but disciplined; aggressive in scrutiny but mature in judgment.

Guyana does not need another political strongman convinced that the nation’s future depends on his personal battles. It needs representatives who understand that power is borrowed from the people and must be used in their interest.

If he continues to place personal grievances above public responsibility, then he will not merely fail his supporters. He will reinforce the same destructive political cycle that Guyana has been trying, for far too long, to escape.

Mr. Mohamed entered politics professing a commitment to serve the people. Yet his tenure has been marked not by meaningful service, but by profound disappointment—a gross disservice to the very citizens whose trust and expectations brought him into public life.