No harm in checking!

Mar 13, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- In a previous column, I had opined that OFAC’s sanctions explicitly block the Mohameds’ property and financial interests within the United States or in the possession of U.S. persons. Also, U.S. persons, entities, and financial institutions are prohibited from engaging in transactions involving the sanctioned individuals.

However, I noted that there is no explicit provision prohibiting the Government of Guyana or Guyanese businesses from engaging with the Mohameds, unless those transactions involve U.S. persons, U.S. banks, or the U.S. financial system. The secondary sanctions outlined in the OFAC statement focus on financial institutions and “other persons” engaging in “certain transactions” with the sanctioned individuals. I argued that the government of Guyana has a duty to seek clarification from OFAC if it believes there is uncertainty as to how far these secondary sanctions extend.

It was my view that the PPPC government appears to be misrepresenting the scope of these sanctions, implying that all Guyanese or any association with the Mohameds could lead to sanctions. This position, however, is not supported by the OFAC statement. There is no indication that local individuals or businesses are automatically prohibited from transacting business with the Mohameds.

Furthermore, I alluded to the fact that the secondary sanctions have not been applied to the Government of Guyana, as was explicitly done with Venezuela and Iran. Or, as I may now add, as was done via Executive Order 14024 (2022) and related OFAC directives that had imposed sanctions on key Russian companies and oligarchs. Those directives had warned that any entity—including the Russian government—could face penalties for materially supporting them.

There is no such explicit prohibition against the Government of Guyana doing business with the Mohameds. This means the government is not outright prohibited from doing business with the Mohameds unless such transactions involve U.S.-linked financial systems US business, citizens, or US permanent residents. While the U.S. could later determine that certain dealings fall under secondary sanctions, there is currently no blanket restriction on Guyana’s government in relation to the Mohameds.

And I concluded that given the lack of specificity as to what constitutes “certain transactions of activities” in OFAC’s paragraph on secondary sanctions,  the prudent course of action would be for the government to seek official clarification from OFAC, rather than making premature or misleading assumptions about the extent of the restrictions.

The Mohameds and their companies were not the only persons and entities ‘designated’ by OFAC. There is another person who was also designated by OFAC. A government official was also designated. Is this government still dealing with that individual? Is the person still being paid a salary by the government, and if so, would this not constitute the government dealing with that person?

Then there is a broader issue of national sovereignty. No one denies that the government must act in the national interest but foremost in that is respect for national sovereignty – which concerns the right of the government to administer the affairs of the state without undue external pressure, interference or influence.

The government also has a duty to its citizens and to ensure that they are treated fairly. The United States has so far failed to advance any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Mohameds. It may have such evidence but its failure to share that information with the government while seeking to impose sanctions of our nationals is contemptuous.

Vice President Jagdeo does not have to bow to any US pressure, especially when no evidence has been forthcoming. He also ought to know that secondary sanctions, which extend beyond a sanctioning country’s jurisdiction, to penalize third parties engaging in lawful trade with sanctioned entities, are illegal under international law. These measures, which have extraterritorial reach, infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations and contravene the principles of non-intervention. No state has the right to impose its domestic laws on another sovereign nation.

At the core of international law is the principle of state sovereignty, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which prohibits interference in the internal affairs of other states. Secondary sanctions, by coercing foreign governments, businesses, and individuals into compliance with a sanctioning state’s policies, constitute an unlawful extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction.

Jagdeo cannot be oblivious to the fact that the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution affirming that unilateral economic measures infringing on the sovereignty of other states violate international law. How therefore can a sovereign state, with any self-respect, accept that the actions of a foreign country dictate whom it can conduct business with among its own citizens?

(No harm in checking!)

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• financial interests, Government of Guyana, Mohameds’ property, Peeping Tom, sanctions

---