Show cause after you done show force

May 07, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the horse, and then charging the horse for loitering, we now have one. It features the Mohammed family, and the police deserves front-row seats, popcorn, and maybe a small legal textbook for comic relief.

The police last Tuesday seized the Mohammeds’ personal firearms and then, with a straight face that deserves an acting award, turn around and say: “Kindly show cause why these same firearms licenses should not be revoked.”

Now, as far as I understand things, the police were required to ‘show cause’.  Asking someone to justify why something should not be taken—after you already taking it—is like a landlord changing the locks and then sliding a note under the door asking the tenant to explain why he should still be living there. This is high comedy.

To be fair the law does give the authorities wide room to manoeuvre. A firearm licence is not a birthright. It is a privilege. And under Section 8(a) of the Firearms Act, that privilege can be revoked if the holder is of intemperate habits, unsound mind, unfit, or poses a danger to public safety.

All sensible things. Nobody arguing with that.

In fact, I agree that the authorities don’t have to wait until a man start firing off rounds like it’s Old Year’s Night before acting. The power to revoke is preventive, not just punitive. Reasonable suspicion can be enough. You don’t need a smoking gun.  But—and this is where the comedy starts to wobble into confusion—reasonable suspicion of what, exactly?

It appears that the grounds for the revocation is that there is an indictment in a foreign land.  And this indictment is hanging over the heads of the Mohameds. Now, an indictment is a serious thing, no doubt. But it is also, in plain language, an allegation dressed up in legal clothes. It is not a conviction. It is not proof. It is not even, by itself, a demonstration that anybody in Guyana suddenly become a danger to the peace of the Republic. And to cap things off, it is not within the jurisdiction.

If indictment alone is the new yardstick, then dem boys suggest we might as well set up a fast lane at the airport: “Accused Abroad? Surrender Your Keys, Licence, and Possibly Your Favourite Chair.”

The danger with that approach is that it stretches “preventive” into “pre-emptive”. And while the law allows the authorities to act on suspicion, it does not invite them to act on speculation dressed as suspicion. Even if the police believe they have grounds. And maybe they do, maybe they don’t, the process must still make sense. It must follow a logic that even a man half-asleep in a minibus could understand. Instead, what we have here is a procedural somersault. First, there is a move to seize the firearms. Then second, there is a request asking owners to explain why the firearms should not be seized. Now how can you seize something and then ask the person why it should not have been seized? Nobody is saying the Mohammeds have a constitutional right to a firearm license. They don’t. The courts have made it clear that a firearm license is not property in the sacred sense, not something shielded by constitutional armour.

But what is protected, and what must always be protected, is fairness. And fairness, like good pepperpot, requires proper ingredients. First there must be some evidentiary basis. Then there must be a rational connection between facts and decision. And third there must be a procedure that does not look like it was designed in reverse

Take away those ingredients, and what you get is not justice. It is respectfully submitted that in this Mohammed saga, something is missing from the pot. Because if the only real seasoning is a foreign indictment, then the dish looking a little thin. And if the method is to seize first and ask the victim to justify why he should not be the victim, then the recipe itself needs revising.

At the end of the day, the State has power, plenty of it. But power, like a licensed firearm, must be handled carefully, responsibly, and with a clear line of sight. Otherwise, you end up firing procedural blanks and calling it public safety. And if this is the new standard, then everybody who has a firearm license, had better keep their receipts, their references, and maybe a written explanation in their back pocket. Just in case somebody seizes first and ask questions after.

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

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, firearm licence, Peeping Tom, Show cause

---