A political firestorm has erupted in Guyana after revelations that a U.S. lobbying firm contracted by the government targeted presidential candidate Azruddin Mohamed, linking him to Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in a series of inflammatory tweets. The controversy has drawn sharp criticism from Mohamed’s camp and raised questions about the government’s use of foreign lobbyists in domestic politics.
The Lobbying Firm’s Role
Documents filed under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) reveal that Continental Strategy, a Virginia-based firm hired by Guyana’s government, drafted tweets for Florida Congressman Carlos Gimenez, accusing Mohamed of being a “pro-Maduro puppet” and a threat to democracy. One such tweet, posted by Gimenez on June 23, claimed Mohamed’s candidacy was part of Venezuela’s “attempt to encroach into Guyana.”
- Advertisement -
The lobbying contract, signed in December 2024, was ostensibly meant to promote trade, financial sector improvements, and Guyana’s international profile—not to engage in domestic political attacks. Yet the firm’s communications with Gimenez explicitly targeted Mohamed, whose party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), has emerged as a challenger to the ruling PPP/C.
President Ali’s Defiant Response
When questioned by journalist Svetlana Marshall of News Source, President Irfaan Ali vehemently denied that the government had directed the lobbying firm to target Mohamed. “The government has hired no lobbying firm to target anyone,” he insisted, accusing the media of pushing a “political narrative.” However, when pressed on why Mohamed was mentioned in U.S. lobbying documents, Ali shifted focus, attacking Mohamed’s character.
“Azruddin Mohamed has been sanctioned by the U.S. government for defrauding Guyana of $50 million,” Ali declared, referencing OFAC sanctions imposed in June 2024 over alleged gold smuggling and tax evasion. “This is no saint—he’s dangerous to our society.” The president emphasized that the sanctions were imposed by Washington, not Georgetown, and accused Mohamed of misleading the public by claiming otherwise.
Yet Ali offered no explanation for how Continental Strategy’s lobbying efforts against Mohamed aligned with the government’s stated objectives. Instead, he framed the issue as a matter of national security, citing Venezuela’s territorial threats. “We have a serious danger with Venezuela,” he said. “Our diplomatic messaging must be intact.”
Mohamed Fights Back
Mohamed has rejected the allegations, calling them a politically motivated smear. “This is the PPP using a foreign nation to attack me,” he said in a statement, warning that the false claims endangered his safety. He accused the government of weaponizing U.S. sanctions to delegitimize his candidacy and vowed legal action.
“If they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone,” Mohamed said, urging Guyanese to reject what he called a “dangerous precedent.” His campaign has positioned the controversy as evidence of the government’s fear of electoral competition.
Broader Implications
The incident has sparked concerns about the blurring of foreign policy and domestic politics. While the government maintains that its engagement with Continental Strategy is focused on Guyana’s border dispute with Venezuela, the firm’s actions suggest a broader—and more contentious—agenda.
Congressman Gimenez, a hardliner on Venezuela, has not provided evidence for his claims about Mohamed’s ties to Maduro. Meanwhile, legal experts question whether the lobbying firm overstepped its mandate by meddling in Guyana’s elections.
As the September 1 election approaches, the scandal has intensified an already polarized political climate. With Mohamed threatening lawsuits and the government doubling down on its accusations, the fallout could extend far beyond campaign season—raising urgent questions about transparency, foreign influence, and the limits of political warfare.
