Attorney Pieters denies role in ‘Team Mohameds’ Facebook shutdown
October 6 2026
Attorney-at-Law Selwyn A. Pieters has rejected Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s claim that he was involved in the deactivation of the “Team Mohamed” Facebook page, challenging Mohamed to publicly produce evidence to support the allegation.
Pieters said he had no role, directly or indirectly, in the deactivation of the page, which is owned and operated by Mohamed.
“Any assertion by Mr. Mohamed that I caused, requested or was otherwise responsible for the deactivation of that page is false. No evidence has been produced to support such a claim, and I challenge Mr. Mohamed to make public any evidence upon which he relies,” Pieters said.
Pieters said Mohamed had offered different explanations for the temporary disappearance of the page, including initially attributing responsibility to the Guyana Police Force following his detention in connection with an investigation involving an allegedly unlicensed fast boat and an invalid captain’s licence.
He said Mohamed subsequently blamed the PPP, before another explanation emerged that Meta had deactivated the page over alleged copyright infringement.
Pieters further noted that Mohamed had stated the page was restored after his attorneys engaged Meta.
“His legal representatives should therefore be in a position to disclose any communication received from Meta concerning the reason for the page’s deactivation or suspension. I accordingly call on Mr. Mohamed to make that response public so that the facts can speak for themselves.”
The dispute intensified following a separate matter involving a social media post made by Mohamed on October 3 concerning a CANU operation and President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali.
Pieters said that, in his professional judgment, the contents of the post were defamatory and went beyond legitimate political criticism or public commentary.
He said he contacted Mohamed directly at about 5:50 p.m. and requested that the post be removed. Mohamed referred him to his attorney, Siand Dhurjon.
At about 6:45 p.m., Pieters said he spoke with Dhurjon and communicated his position that the post was defamatory and should be removed, failing which he would pursue legal remedies.
According to Pieters, Dhurjon said he would raise the matter with Mohamed but could not guarantee that the post would be removed.
The post remained online. Pieters said that at the time he last reviewed it, it had received approximately 1.8K likes, 218 comments and 618 shares.
Pieters subsequently submitted the matter to Meta under its applicable processes and policies.
“Having first provided notice and an opportunity for the matter to be addressed without further action, I subsequently exercised the authority vested in me as counsel for His Excellency the President and submitted the matter to Meta for its consideration under its applicable processes and policies. Meta independently considered the submission and took whatever action it deemed appropriate based on its own assessment. I did not determine Meta’s decision, nor did I have the power to do so.”
He stressed that the action concerning Mohamed’s post was separate from the earlier deactivation of the Team Mohamed Facebook page.
“There is therefore an important distinction that must be maintained: my professional action in relation to a specific publication concerning my client is entirely separate from the earlier deactivation of the “Team Mohamed’s Facebook page”.”
Mohamed, however, has sought to link the two developments, saying Pieters’ warning about possible action by Meta demonstrated who was involved in the disappearance of the pages.
In his statement, Mohamed said his attorney, Siand Dhurjon, was contacted by Pieters on October 3 concerning a post on the “Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition” page about a CANU operation involving the property of Ernesto Choo.
According to Mohamed, when Dhurjon asked Pieters whom he represented, Pieters responded:
“His Excellency the President.”
Mohamed said Pieters then warned:
“Let me be very clear. If those defamatory comments are not removed, particularly the reference to His Excellency, Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali, I will have to deal with this in the context o defamation. Mr, Mohamed cannot cry victimization if I am forced to have Meta suspend his page. Again.”
Mohamed said the sequence of events was troubling, arguing that several pages associated with him and his political movement subsequently disappeared.
The pages identified by Mohamed include Team Mohamed’s, which he said had 540,000 followers; We Invest in Nationhood, with 40,000 followers; and “Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition,” with 59,000 followers.
He said he was temporarily using another page, “Hon. Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition,” which has approximately 14,000 followers.
“We will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced or afraid, and we must continue to stand for what is true and just.”
Pieters maintained that his actions concerning the October 3 post were undertaken strictly in his professional capacity and not at the direction of any political party.
“My actions were not political, nor were they undertaken at the direction of a political party. They were taken in my professional capacity as an attorney, based on my assessment of the publication and the authority granted to me to protect my client’s legal interests.”
He added that freedom of expression and freedom of the press remain fundamental rights, but said those rights do not place anyone beyond the law, including laws relating to defamation.
“Where I determine, in the proper exercise of my professional judgement, that my client’s legal rights have been infringed, I am entitled and professionally obligated to pursue the lawful remedies available to him,” said Mr Pieters.
The competing claims over the Facebook pages have not established that Pieters or President Ali caused Meta to remove the Team Mohamed page. Meta’s stated reason for the page action has also not been publicly established in the material cited above.
See both statements below:
STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY-AT-LAW SELWYN A. PIETERS
“I, Selwyn A. Pieters, Attorney-at-Law, wish to state unequivocally that I had no role, directly or indirectly, in the deactivation of the “Team Mohamed’s Facebook page”, owned and operated by Leader of the Opposition Mr. Azruddin Mohamed.
Any assertion by Mr. Mohamed that I caused, requested or was otherwise responsible for the deactivation of that page is false. No evidence has been produced to support such a claim, and I challenge Mr. Mohamed to make public any evidence upon which he relies.
There have been several differing explanations advanced by Mr. Mohamed concerning the temporary unavailability of his page. He initially claimed that the Guyana Police Force was responsible following his detention in relation to allegations concerning the operation of an unlicensed fast boat and the absence of a valid captain’s license. He subsequently accused the People’s Progressive Party of being responsible. Thereafter, he stated that Meta, the owner and operator of Facebook, had deactivated the page over alleged copyright infringement.
He has now sought to attribute responsibility to me. This I reject out of hand.
Mr. Mohamed has himself stated that his page was restored after his attorneys engaged Meta. His legal representatives should therefore be in a position to disclose any communication received from Meta concerning the reason for the page’s deactivation or suspension. I accordingly call on Mr. Mohamed to make that response public so that the facts can speak for themselves.
For completeness, I wish to address a separate matter which should not be conflated with the deactivation of the Team Mohamed page.
On Saturday October 3, 2026, I observed a social media post published by Mr. Mohamed concerning a Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU) operation and referring to His Excellency President Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali. I also read a press release sent out the very afternoon by CANU. In my considered professional judgement, the contents of that post were defamatory and went beyond the bounds of legitimate political criticism or public commentary.
I acted on that assessment independently and in the exercise of my professional judgement as the attorney authorized to represent His Excellency the President in relation to social media matters.
At approximately 5:50 p.m. that day, as a first course of action, I contacted Mr. Azruddin Mohamed directly on his cellular telephone and requested that the offending publication be removed. Mr. Mohamed referred me to his attorney, Mr. Siand Dhurjon.
At approximately 6:45 p.m., I spoke with Mr Dhurjon and formally communicated my position that the publication is defamatory and should be removed, failing which I would pursue the appropriate remedies available to my client. Mr. Durjohn indicated that he would raise the matter with Mr. Mohamed but could not guarantee that the request would be honoured.
The publication was not removed. The longer the defamatory material remains online the greater the harm to my client. At the point in time I last reviewed the page the offending post had 1.8K likes, 218 comments and 618 shares.
Having first provided notice and an opportunity for the matter to be addressed without further action, I subsequently exercised the authority vested in me as counsel for His Excellency the President and submitted the matter to Meta for its consideration under its applicable processes and policies.
Meta independently considered the submission and took whatever action it deemed appropriate based on its own assessment. I did not determine Meta’s decision, nor did I have the power to do so.
There is therefore an important distinction that must be maintained: my professional action in relation to a specific publication concerning my client is entirely separate from the earlier deactivation of the “Team Mohamed’s Facebook page”.
My actions were not political, nor were they undertaken at the direction of a political party. They were taken in my professional capacity as an attorney, based on my assessment of the publication and the authority granted to me to protect my client’s legal interests.
Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental rights that must be respected and protected. Those freedoms, however, do not place any individual beyond the ordinary application of the law, including the law relating to defamation.
Where I determine, in the proper exercise of my professional judgement, that my client’s legal rights have been infringed, I am entitled and professionally obligated to pursue the lawful remedies available to him.”
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario)
Attorney at Law (Guyana and Trinidad)
Statement by the Leader of the Opposition
”
“Mr. Mohamed cannot cry victimization if I am forced to have Meta suspend his page. Again.”- Attorney Selwyn Pieters.
On October 3, 2026, my attorney, Mr. Siand Dhurjon, was contacted by Mr. Selwyn Pieters concerning a post on my social media platform, “”Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition,’ referring to the raid of a property of Ernesto Choo , Mr. Dhurjon asked Mr. Picters directly who he was acting on behalf of. His response was unequivocal: “”His Excellency the President.”
Mr. Pieters stated, “Let me be very clear. If those defamatory comments are not removed, particularly the reference to His Excellency, Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali, I will have to deal with this in the context o defamation. Mr, Mohamed cannot cry victimization if I am forced to have Meta suspend his page. Again.”
By the admission of Attomey Selwyn Pieters, it is clear who was involved in the disappearance of Tean Mohamed’s page after the Leonora arrests and confiscation of the phones and vehicles of the Leader o the Opposition, MPs, and staff
The sequence is deeply troubling:
• A threat from President Irfan Ali’s Attomey to have the Leader of the Opposition’s page suspended again.
• An explicit identification of the President as the person on whose behalf the threat was made The subsequent disappearance of the Opposition Leader’s Facebook pages, Team Mohamed’s anc Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition
When those in power seek to silence the Opposition Leader because they object to what is being said democracy itself is under threat. Stifling the freedom of speech of anyone is authoritarianism; using power to silence political opposition is the conduct of a dictatorship.
As of the time of the release of this statement, the following pages have all been removed by META – Team Mohamed’s – 540,000 followers – We Invest in Nationhood – 40,000 followers – Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition- $9,000 followers
While we use every effort to restore these platforms, I encourage my fellow Guyanese to continue to use your voices and platforms to speak up and speak out against the PPP dictatorship. Until these platforms save been restored, I will be using the page Hon. Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition – 14,000 followers.
We will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced or afraid, and we must continue to stand for what is true and just.”
