While local banks rush to cut ties with opposition-linked businessmen following U.S. sanctions, questions are now swirling about whether the same rules are being quietly bent for government insiders.
Attorney Timothy Jonas is the latest to challenge what appears to be a troubling inconsistency. Speaking in a recent Facebook Live broadcast, Jonas zeroed in on the case of Mae Thomas, the former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, who was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department in July for alleged involvement in corruption. Yet despite the gravity of the accusations, Thomas appears to remain on the state payroll—and no bank, government agency, or official has offered a clear explanation of how that is possible.
“Is the government paying her by cash or cheque? Where does she cash it? Through which bank?” Jonas asked, warning that anyone who facilitates financial transactions for sanctioned individuals could themselves become targets of U.S. enforcement.
The silence around Thomas’ financial dealings stands in stark contrast to the treatment of Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed—key backers of the opposition WIN party—who, according to multiple reports, were promptly dropped by major banks after the same round of U.S. sanctions.
Jonas said if financial institutions severed ties with the Mohameds to preserve their relationships with U.S. correspondent banks, then the same must apply to Thomas. “Whatever net was cast for the Mohameds… I hope the same net is cast for Mae Thomas,” he said.
The attorney, known for his outspokenness, also lashed out at the Guyana Chronicle, accusing the state-owned newspaper of misrepresenting his comments and failing to seek clarification before publication. He called the outlet a “propaganda mouthpiece” and said it appeared more focused on scoring political points than informing the public.
“No one from Chronicle contacted me… It’s a rag, it’s not a newspaper,” he said.
Jonas clarified that his original comments were not aimed at defending sanctions, but at explaining how banks operate under international compliance rules. “If a bank runs afoul of the OFAC system… it would find itself bankrupt,” he explained, referring to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, which enforces financial sanctions globally.
But the controversy has exposed what many are calling a credibility gap in how the government and financial sector are responding to international sanctions. If the rules are applied selectively—aggressively for opposition figures and loosely or not at all for government affiliates—it could erode public trust and raise red flags in the international community.
With elections approaching and scrutiny on the rise, the question now is not whether sanctions will be enforced—but for whom.
