Mohamed Aqtar Ali, brother of Guyanese President Dr Irfaan Ali, has issued a formal threat of legal action against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed. The dispute follows a widely circulated social media video in which the opposition leader made a series of allegations regarding Ali's business ties and alleged influence within the state apparatus. Ali's legal team has denied the claims, describing them as baseless and defamatory.

The controversy began with a video uploaded to an affiliated Facebook page by the opposition leader. The broadcast gathered hundreds of thousands of views within days and prompted extensive public commentary. Much of the video focused on Ali's professional relationship with Sigma Engineer Limited, a Bangladeshi firm registered in Guyana in late 2022.

According to legal correspondence detailing the dispute, the opposition leader's broadcast made several specific assertions against Ali. One claim held that Ali is the true owner and financial beneficiary of Sigma Engineers Limited, using a foreign associate to front the company on paper. A related allegation suggested the enterprise was established with the intent to misappropriate taxpayer funds.

The broadcast also asserted that Ali resides at the official State House, a claim the opposition leader linked to a degree of influence over government staff that he described as unsettling. A further allegation concerned land acquisition, with the opposition leader claiming Ali bypassed standard procedures to secure community land for commercial storage, at a time when ordinary citizens face difficulty obtaining property through conventional channels.

In a formal response, Ali's legal counsel, Kashir A. Khan, issued a letter demanding the immediate withdrawal of the remarks. The letter set out Ali's actual professional standing, stating that he is engaged strictly as a senior technical consultant for the engineering firm and holds no shares or directorial positions within the company. This distinction, according to the correspondence, undermines the central premise of the ownership allegations made in the video.

Khan's letter went further, characterising the broadcast as a calculated attempt to damage his client's character and mislead the public. The correspondence did not limit itself to disputing individual claims but framed the broadcast as part of a pattern intended to cause reputational harm through repetition and wide distribution on social media.

The letter concluded with a firm ultimatum. Should the opposition leader fail to retract the statements and cease further publication of the claims, Ali will initiate formal legal proceedings to protect his reputation. No specific deadline for compliance was disclosed in the portions of the correspondence made public.

The dispute arrives amid heightened political tension in Guyana, where scrutiny of business dealings connected to figures close to the presidency has become a recurring feature of opposition messaging. Sigma Engineer Limited's role in state related contracts has drawn attention since its registration in the country, though the company itself has not issued a public statement in response to the allegations raised in the video.

Azruddin Mohamed has not yet responded publicly to the legal threat. It remains unclear whether the opposition leader intends to retract or amend his statements, or whether he will maintain the allegations and await further legal steps from Ali's representatives.

The outcome of the dispute may carry implications beyond the individuals involved. Defamation cases touching on the president's family have the potential to shape public discourse ahead of future political contests, particularly where allegations concern land, state contracts and access to those close to power. Guyana's legal system has handled a number of high profile defamation claims in recent years, though few have involved family members of a sitting president so directly.

For now, the matter rests with the opposition leader and his response to the ultimatum issued on Ali's behalf. Legal observers in Georgetown suggest that any court proceedings, should they materialise, would likely centre on the specific ownership and land acquisition claims, given the more easily verifiable nature of corporate registration records and land title documentation compared with broader assertions about influence within government.

‍