A New and United Guyana (ANUG) has formally demanded an independent investigation into an agricultural estate said to belong to President Irfaan Ali, with the property's value estimated at more than GYD $2 billion. The allegations were initially raised by the Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed, and have since prompted ANUG to call for scrutiny at the highest level of government.

At the centre of the dispute is a question of legal process. Under Guyana's State Lands Act, authority to lease state lands rests exclusively with the President, rather than with the lands commission or any subordinate body. ANUG has posed a series of direct questions about how and when 150 acres came to be transferred to Irfaan Ali. The party wants to know whether the land was granted under a previous administration, during the presidencies of David Granger, Donald Ramotar or Bharrat Jagdeo, at a time when Ali served as a Member of Parliament, or whether more recent use of executive power was involved. The distinction matters, ANUG argues, because it determines whether the transaction predates Ali's presidency or was conducted while he held the very authority the State Lands Act places in the president's hands.

Beyond the question of how the land was acquired, ANUG has raised concerns about how it might have been developed. The party has pointed to the scale of investment apparently required to build out a private agricultural estate of this size, and has questioned whether public resources or state funds were diverted for that purpose. This is framed as a matter of fiduciary duty rather than a settled conclusion. ANUG's argument rests on the premise that a standard presidential salary would be insufficient to fund a project of this magnitude through legitimate means alone, and that this discrepancy warrants formal examination rather than assumption.

The party has also sought to place the allegations in a wider social context. It has drawn a contrast between the reported $2.2 billion private investment and the everyday conditions faced by many Guyanese citizens, pointing specifically to St Cuthbert's Mission, a rural community that continues to lack reliable access to electricity. ANUG contends that such disparities, when set against allegations of this scale involving the country's most senior official, risk deepening public cynicism and a sense of betrayal among voters who see little evidence of comparable investment reaching their own communities.

ANUG has further warned that the implications extend beyond any individual case. Failing to investigate allegations against a sitting president, the party argues, risks establishing a precedent in which senior officials are treated as beyond scrutiny. This, it says, could embolden further corruption, erode the mechanisms of democratic oversight, and damage Guyana's standing among foreign investors who weigh institutional integrity when assessing where to commit capital. The party has framed this as a risk not only to domestic governance but to the country's international reputation at a time when Guyana's oil sector has drawn growing global attention.

ANUG has issued what it describes as a clear demand to the relevant authorities: that a transparent and impartial investigation be launched without delay. The party has been careful to characterise its position as one grounded in accountability rather than political point scoring, describing the matter as a test of whether Guyana's institutions are prepared to apply the rule of law equally, regardless of rank or office.

The presidency has not yet issued a detailed public response to the specific allegations. It remains to be seen whether the government will address ANUG's questions directly or whether the matter will proceed further through political or legal channels within Guyana.

‍