Georgetown, Guyana — The Carter Center has raised alarm over the treatment of candidates from the newly formed WIN party, warning that recent banking and employment actions risk undermining the right to political participation and free elections in Guyana.
In its latest pre-election observation statement, the Center stressed that equitable treatment of political parties and candidates is essential to protecting democratic integrity. Every citizen, it noted, has a universal right to seek elected office without facing unreasonable restrictions.
U.S. Sanctions and Their Fallout.
The controversy began in June 2024, when the United States government sanctioned WIN presidential candidate Azruddin Mohamed, his father Nazar Mohamed, several of their businesses, and a Guyanese government official, Mae Thomas Jr., for public corruption. The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) blocked Mohamed’s assets within the American financial system and prohibited transactions that could benefit him or his associates.
While the sanctions targeted a handful of individuals, their impact appears to have rippled through Guyana’s financial sector. After the approval of WIN’s candidate list in July 2025, three local commercial banks reportedly closed the personal bank accounts of around 40 WIN candidates, party members, and associates.
Some candidates also lost jobs in the private sector after their names appeared on WIN’s slate. The banks have not publicly detailed their reasons, but reports suggest they fear the consequences of secondary sanctions that could disrupt their ties with U.S. institutions.
Carter Center’s Concerns
The Carter Center acknowledged that Guyana’s banking system must comply with both national law and international standards designed to prevent abuse of the financial system. However, it cautioned against what it called “overcompliance” with U.S. sanctions.
International guidelines, including those from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and OFAC, recommend a risk-based approach, meaning institutions should evaluate transactions and relationships based on actual evidence of prohibited activity rather than applying blanket measures.
According to the Center, simply appearing on a political party’s candidate list does not constitute grounds for termination of bank accounts. By indiscriminately closing accounts and severing financial ties, the Center argued, banks may be discouraging citizens from active political participation.
This, in turn, threatens electoral integrity and weakens the principle of equal treatment for all parties.
The Bigger Picture
The Carter Center urged the private sector to recognize its role in safeguarding democracy, warning that decisions rooted in fear of sanctions must not override fundamental rights. “Mere political association, without evidence of prohibited transactions, should not serve as a basis for account closures,” the report said.
With elections drawing near, the Center’s findings highlight a growing tension between financial compliance and political freedoms. For ordinary Guyanese, it raises unsettling questions: can the pressure of international sanctions spill over into domestic politics, and if so, what does that mean for the country’s democratic future?
