Improper diplomatic intrusion?

Aug 14, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – In a development that raises serious concerns about diplomatic propriety and individual privacy, the Foreign Minister of Guyana recently summoned the Venezuelan Ambassador to explain the alleged visits of Mr. Nazar Mohamed and his son, presidential aspirant Azruddin Mohamed (AZMO), to the Venezuelan Embassy in Georgetown.  But in a bizarre twist, AZMO is claiming that he never visited the embassy and is asking that the evidence that he did be produced.

This latest twist however does not negate the concerns over the Ambassador being summoned by the Foreign Ministry, an action that strikes at the heart of established diplomatic practice. If true, then this summons diverges from protocol and also infringes on the privacy of individuals and creates alarming political implications given the younger Mohamed is a political rival to the incumbent PPPC regime.

By summoning the Ambassador to interrogate the reasons behind alleged visits to the embassy by private citizens, especially considering one being a political rival—the Foreign Ministry appears to have violated the spirit of the Vienna Convention under which embassies function under a protective umbrella.  Under that protective umbrella, the operations of foreign embassies are inviolable and cannot be subjected to scrutiny of the host state.

Foreign missions operate with a degree of independence from host-state scrutiny over their internal affairs—including who enters or visits. If the host state suspects improper conduct, it must rely on formal tools under diplomatic law (like persona non grata declarations and expulsions), not demands for information about the reasons for the alleged visits.

Such demands constitute fishing expeditions.  This is an overreach no different from what was committed under the APNU+AFC when foreign observers were threatened with having their diplomatic passes revoked. Further, to request that the Ambassador disclose the purpose why the Mohameds allegedly visited the embassy is tantamount to invading personal privacy on multiple fronts. Embassies may be accessed for many legitimate reasons—visa processing, passport renewal, consular assistance, or yes, business-related inquiries and even asylum-related concerns. Disclosing the purpose of such visits—particularly when involving a political opposition figure runs the risk of converting embassy operations into political ammunition.

Azmo says there was no such visit. But what if, hypothetically, the Mohameds were seeking asylum, rather than visas? Diplomatic norms permit consular staff to aid or consider asylum claims confidentially. Even if the visit was visa-related, acknowledging it risks politicizing what should be a private and protected process.

Diplomatic conventions place a duty on missions to conserve confidentiality regarding private visits. While there is no explicit provision forbidding all comment on visitors, the underlying principle of inviolability of mission archives and correspondence implies that operational information must remain confidential. The United States, for example, does not provide reasons why they would have revoked visas for persons.

If the Government of Guyana is genuinely concerned about potential interference or political maneuvering by the embassy, the proper remedy under the Vienna Convention is to declare the Ambassador persona non grata. Article 9 permits this action without justification.  Summoning the Ambassador to question him about citizens of the host country’s alleged contacts with his own mission is not a normatively legitimate exercise of diplomatic oversight, but a breach of decorum. If on the other hand, the government had irrefutable evidence that the embassy was interfering in Guyana’s internal affairs, it has every right to bring this to the attention of the Ambassador and to act in accordance with standard diplomatic practice. But to go fishing for information was improper.

The Foreign Ministry has since said that it was advised that the Mohameds were seeking visas. AZMO has denied this fact and challenged the embassy to produce any proof that he applied for anything. But even if a visit has been made, it would be equally improper for its purpose to have been stated as this would be tantamount to revealing sensitive consular information.

Let us, for arguments sake, say that someone went to the embassy for asylum, would the Ambassador be obliged to disclose the reason for the visit?

This past week several Ambassadors, around the world, were summoned by their host countries. Belgium summoned the Israeli Ambassador over that country’s plans for Gaza.  The British Ambassador to Iraq was summoned over remarks that were seen by the Iraqi government as being undiplomatic, and Brazil summoned a top US diplomat over the Us embassy’s post on the trial of former Brazilian President Bolsonaro. In the case of Guyana, however, interested in fishing for information, summonsing the Venezuela Ambassador was improper. The proper diplomatic route, if there were genuine concerns, would be to exercise persona non grata authority, not to summon the Ambassador for interrogation over alleged visits to the embassy. The Venezuelan government should dispatch an appropriate protest Note to the Government of Guyana over this incident.

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

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, diplomatic, intrusion, Nazar Mohamed, Peeping Tom, Venezuelan Ambassador

---