An international engineering firm operating in Guyana has announced its intention to pursue legal action against the Leader of the Opposition following public allegations concerning the company's origins and its award of a state contract. Sigma Engineers, whose parent company was founded in Bangladesh, issued a detailed public statement disputing claims made by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed regarding the timeline of its incorporation and the manner in which it secured government work.

The dispute centres on questions of corporate legitimacy and procurement. Mohamed had suggested that the firm's rapid acquisition of a contract raised concerns about how the award was made. Sigma Engineers has rejected this characterisation outright, describing the claims as serious misrepresentations of its history and operations, and says it is now preparing formal legal proceedings in response.

The allegations against the company centred on several specific points, each of which the firm addressed individually in its statement.

The first concerned the age of the business. Mohamed's claim implied that Sigma Engineers had been established only days before it was awarded a state contract, suggesting an irregular or hastily arranged relationship between the company's founding and its public work. The firm disputes this account. According to its statement, the parent company has operated in Bangladesh since 2003, giving it more than two decades of experience in the engineering sector before any involvement in Guyana.

The second point concerned the timeline of its Guyanese operations specifically. The local subsidiary was registered in October 2022, the company said, and did not receive its first government contract until 2026. Sigma Engineers maintains that the contract was secured through a standard national tender process, open to competitive bidding and overseen by the country's public procurement authority. The gap of several years between registration and the contract award, the firm argues, undermines any suggestion of an improperly rushed process.

A further element of the allegations involved Mohamed Aqtar Ali, an individual named in connection with the company. Sigma Engineers clarified his role in its response, stating that he serves as a senior technical consultant attached to the Guyanese branch alone. The firm said he has no connection to the founding or early operations of the parent company in Bangladesh, and that his position should not be read as evidence of any irregularity in the company's establishment.

In its statement, Sigma Engineers reiterated its commitment to operating within Guyanese law and regulatory requirements. The company described adherence to local compliance standards as central to how it conducts business in the country, and said it takes its obligations as a corporate entity seriously.

The firm also used its statement to comment more broadly on the nature of public discourse surrounding local commerce. It called for claims made in political or public settings to be grounded in verifiable evidence rather than assertion, arguing that unsubstantiated allegations carry consequences for businesses operating in good faith. The statement did not name other companies or individuals beyond those directly involved in the dispute with Mohamed.

On the question of what happens next, Sigma Engineers indicated that it does not intend to engage further with the allegations through public statements for the time being. The company said it would defer additional comment while it proceeds with legal counsel, signalling that any further response to Mohamed's claims will most likely take place through formal legal channels rather than public exchanges.

Neither Mohamed's office nor other political figures had issued a public response to the company's statement at the time of writing. The dispute adds to a wider pattern of scrutiny facing firms awarded government contracts in Guyana, where procurement processes have periodically drawn political attention. How the disagreement between Sigma Engineers and the Opposition Leader develops will likely depend on whether the matter proceeds to formal litigation, and on any documentation either party produces to support its account of events.

‍