Toshao apologises to councillors, allows Azruddin Mohamed to visit five villages

Last Updated on Wednesday, 14 May 2025, 21:14 by Writer

The Toshao of Annai, Ivor Daniels, on Wednesday apologised to senior councillors for signing a letter that prohibited Azruddin Mohamed from visiting their communities without first consulting them, and he has since informed them that the businessman could visit their villages.

“I would like to make it clear that the villages are free to accommodate Mr Mohamed and his team as they see fit,” Mr Daniels said in his letter to senior councillors.

The villages are Surama, Kwatamang, Wowetta, Rupertee, and Annai Central.

The Toshao of Annai said Mr Mohamed’s “work and his presence” in their villages should not lead to division but to an opportunity for them to collaborate and build a better future for their communities.

While Mr Mohamed has only hinted that he would contest the 2025 general and regional elections, his utterances and posture in several communities across the country also signal that he is politically ambitious.

The incumbent People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) has also scathingly lashed back at Mr Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed who were sanctioned by the United States last year for evading more than US$50 million in taxes on the export of more than 10,000 kilogrammes of gold.

He is also before the court for allegedly evading about GY$900 million in import duties for several vehicles.

Toshao Daniels begged for “forgiveness” for signing a letter along with other Toshaos effectively banning Mr Mohamed from visiting their communities because of his troubles with the US and Guyanese authorities.

He admitted that he should have consulted the senior councillors in the five villages before inking the letter.

In a separate letter to Team Mohamed, Toshao Daniels said Mr Mohamed would be welcomed to visit the villages in Annai.

“We look forward to receiving you on the agreed date and time, and we remain committed to fostering positive relations, mutual respect, and collaboration going forward,” he said.

Mr Daniels also issued a “heartfelt apology for this misjudgement” and “grave mistake” in signing the letter that prohibited Mr Mohamed from visiting their villages.

“I accept full responsibility for the confusion, distress and convenience it may have caused to Mr Mohamed and his team,” the Village leader said.

Prominent People’s National Congress Reform member, Mervyn Williams earlier Wednesday accused the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) of unconstitutionally instructing the toshaos to block certain persons from visiting their communities.

He said a Village Council has no authority to determine the innocence or guilt of any person, except a domestic village matter for which gazetted village rules apply, particularly where a person is not charged with any offence by Guyanese law enforcement authorities.

He said a Village Council has no right to deny entry to a person for “criminal allegations” not before the court.

Mr Williams, at the same time, distanced himself from Mr Mohamed but said he was only interested in ensuring that domestic and international rights of Indigenous Peoples are respected in Guyana.

“I wish to make it clear that my position on this matter has nothing to do with the particular applicant herein. My position has to do with the principle of village governance. It has to do with respect for and upholding the UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) provision with respect to Free Prior and Informed Consent. It has to do with compliance with the Amerindian Act and the Constitution of Guyana. It has to do with advocating for the cessation of PPP interference into the life of the village and general Village governance,” he said.

The National Toshaos Council (NTC) earlier this month said, according to the law, no one can enter an Amerindian community without the Village Council’s permission.

The NTC also said, “The NTC also takes this opportunity to express its grave concern regarding the continued violation of the Amerindian Act by a particular individual, who repeatedly enters Amerindian communities under the pretence of being invited by residents, yet continues to disregard the law and shows no remorse despite being publicly called out. This behaviour is unacceptable and undermines the principles of respect, accountability, and lawful engagement.”