Azruddin Mohamed says party symbol is a leopard, not a jaguar; threatens legal action against GECOM

Last Updated on Saturday, 28 June 2025, 10:48 by Writer

Presidential candidate for the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), Azruddin Mohamed said the symbol of his political party is a leopard, not a jaguar, a few hours after the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) said it rejected the symbol because it is a jaguar which is an element of Guyana’s Coat of Arms.

“The symbol is not a jaguar. The symbol is another cat because the symbol that we submitted to GECOM, if you Google the image, it’s not a jaguar. It’s another species of a cat. It was a leopard,” he told Demerara Waves Online News.

Mr Mohamed told Demerara Waves Online News that after GECOM officially informs WIN of its decision, a reply would be sent stating that the image is not that of a jaguar but is a leopard’s.

He said if GECOM does not rescind its rejection, WIN would be moving to the High Court. “Once refused, ‘yes’, I will move to the High Court. For sure, the face that we submitted is a different species. We’ll write them, give them a fair hearing so they’ll respond and once they refuse…,” he said.

People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC)-aligned Election Commissioner Sase Gunraj said he could not recall whether political parties were required to state what their symbols are in their submissions. Pro-A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Vincent Alexander said parties did not have to state their parties’ symbols.

WIN party affiliate, Odessa Primus, also told Demerara Waves Online News that naming the image was not a requirement.

Mr Mohamed said this was the first time that GECOM had refused to accept a political party’s symbol, adding that the Ravi Dev-led Rise Organise and Rebuild party had previously used a jaguar as its symbol.

The already embattled businessman feared that Guyana’s elections would not be free and fair. “I’m getting worried if we’ll get a free and fair election because the position that was taken is biased against me,” he said.

Ruling People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC)-nominated Election Commissioner, Sase Gunraj confirmed that that was the decision taken by the seven-member Commission at its meeting earlier Friday. Mr Gunraj told Demerara Waves Online News that, “After discussion on the concerns regarding the use of Indigenous symbols by political parties, the Chair (Retired Justice Claudette Singh) ruled that pursuant to Article 7 of the Constitution of Guyana, the supreme law, which outlines the duty of citizens to respect national symbols, the use of the jaguar which is part of the Coat of Arms, is not acceptable.”

The commission was split three for the jaguar and three against, plus the Chairman’s ruling against.

Mr Alexander said Chair Justice Singh contended that the image of the Jaguar is a part of the Coat of Arms and as a consequence it cannot be used as a symbol.

Mr Alexander objected, saying that without any reference to the solemnity of the use of the jaguar as a symbol, it is beyond reason or logic for the Chair to have concluded that an element of the Coat of Arms, the “Jaguar”, is what the Constitution meant when it specified the Court of Arms, among other national symbols. “If an element was meant, then there is much to be undone, since other elements of the Coat of Arms, such as the pick-axe, the Canje Pheasant and Victoria Regia, among others, are frequently used by various organizations, including political parties, and on various occasions,” he added.

The GECOM Commissioner said GECOM has once again demonstrated its ineptitude, and probably its bias, in determining that the symbol submitted by the party “We Invest in Nationhood” be denied. The Chairperson specifically stated that based on article 7 of the Constitution: “It is the duty of every citizen of Guyana wherever he or she may be and of every person in Guyana to respect the national flag, the coat of arms, the national anthem, the national pledge and the Constitution of Guyana, and to treat them with due and proper solemnity on all occasions”.

Mr Alexander also noted that Friday’s decision was made against the background of the Government-appointed commissioners’ attribution of intellectual property rights, of the image of the jaguar, to the Amerindians, purportedly in keeping with the provisions of international conventions, and the arguments presented by the chairperson of the National Toshaos Council, and Mr. Shuman, in their respective letters. “This attribution effectively bastardised the concept of intellectual property, the core of which is the originality of an idea or invention.,” he added.