Guyana Anti Corruption Network

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

**GEORGETOWN – February 11, 2026** – The Guyana Anti-Corruption Network (GACN) today issued an urgent call for the protection of its members and an immediate cessation of what it describes as a coordinated campaign of harassment, intimidation, and threats. These actions, the Network alleges, are being orchestrated by persons affiliated with the Guyana government in direct response to GACN’s ongoing investigations into the assets of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and systemic corruption within state agencies.

Since the Network intensified its forensic examination of public officials’ wealth and procurement practices within government ministries, GACN has come under what it terms “blistering attacks.” According to the organization, these attacks originate directly from the Office of the President, as well as from the President’s Canadian legal representative, Selwyn Pieters, members of the Cabinet, and other individuals and entities sympathetic to the ruling administration’s ideology.

**Mark Jacobs Under Fire**
At the forefront of these efforts is Mark Jacobs, the public face of the Guyana Anti-Corruption Network. Mr. Jacobs has become the primary target of this campaign, enduring what the organization describes as a barrage of personal defamation, cyberbullying, and veiled threats intended to silence his advocacy.

“Mr. Jacobs has shown immense courage in the face of relentless pressure,” a spokesperson for GACN stated. “However, this is not merely an attack on one man; it is an attack on the right of every Guyanese to demand accountability from their government.”

—

**WEAPONIZATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW: A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT**

The Network further revealed that the President, through his legal representatives, has filed numerous copyright infringement claims against Mark Jacobs for his use of images distributed by the Presidency and other government agencies. GACN asserts that these claims represent a clear and dangerous overreach of intellectual property law, weaponized not to protect creative works, but to suppress criticism, intimidate journalists, and chill public discourse.

**Public Servants, Public Duties, Public Interest**
Copyright law is intended to protect the original works of artists, authors, and creators. It is not a tool for public officials to control their own likeness or to restrict the dissemination of records created in the course of carrying out governmental functions.

Images taken of public officials—particularly those funded by public resources, distributed by state agencies, or captured during official duties—are matters of public record. In democratic societies, such materials are generally understood to reside in the public domain or are subject to fair use and public interest exemptions. The assertion of private copyright ownership over such materials by the subjects themselves is legally dubious and ethically indefensible.

“The President cannot have it both ways,” the statement reads. “He cannot claim to be a servant of the people while simultaneously asserting private ownership over the visual record of his public service. These images do not belong to Dr. Ali; they belong to the Guyanese people.”

**The Buckingham Palace Photograph: A Case Study in Legal Overreach**
In what the Network describes as a particularly egregious example of legal misconduct, President Ali and his lawyer Selwyn Pieters have falsely claimed to Facebook copyright ownership of an image taken by **Royal Family Chief Photographer Aaron Chown** and released by the Office of the Royal Family during the President’s recent official visit to England. Facebook immediately deleted the photograph and the attached commentary.

The original release of this photograph carries a clear and unequivocal copyright notice: **”Aaron Chown/PA Wire/PA Images.”** Despite this, the President and his legal representative asserted ownership over the image to Facebook and threatened legal action against Mr. Jacobs for its use. Facebook immediately removed the image and attached commentary.

This claim is legally indefensible on multiple grounds:

1. **Lack of Ownership:** Copyright vests in the creator of the work. Aaron Chown, PA Wire, and PA Images own the copyright. Neither President Ali nor his legal representatives hold any proprietary interest in the image.
2. **Subject vs. Creator:** Being the subject of a photograph confers no copyright interest. A person cannot own an image simply because they appear in it.
3. **Foreign Jurisdiction:** The image was created in the United Kingdom by a British photographer working for British news agencies and is governed by UK copyright law. A Canadian lawyer, acting on behalf of a foreign head of state, cannot assert ownership over a British-copyrighted work.
4. **Public Record:** The image was released by the Office of the Royal Family for public dissemination, further underscoring the impropriety of a private individual claiming exclusive ownership.

**Legal and Professional Misconduct**
The Network asserts that Mr. Pieters’ conduct in pursuing these claims against Mr. Jacobs, a US-based activist, may constitute multiple violations of professional and legal standards across several jurisdictions:

**Under United States Law:**
– **Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Abuse:** Knowingly submitting a false takedown notice under the DMCA is a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing is liable for damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees. If Mr. Pieters or his client have submitted or threatened DMCA takedowns against Mr. Jacobs based on false ownership claims, they may be civilly liable.
– **Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP):** Mr. Jacobs resides in the United States, where numerous states have enacted robust anti-SLAPP statutes to protect activists and journalists from meritless litigation intended to silence criticism. These claims would likely be subject to immediate dismissal with prevailing party attorneys’ fees awarded to Mr. Jacobs.
– **Abuse of Process:** Filing frivolous legal claims for an improper collateral purpose—namely, to intimidate and silence a critic—constitutes the tort of abuse of process under US law.
– **Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO):** While a high bar, the pattern of using interstate and international communications to pursue baseless legal claims in furtherance of a scheme to suppress protected speech may, in extreme circumstances, implicate federal racketeering statutes.

**Under Canadian Law:**
– **Fraud on the Court:** Knowingly submitting false or misleading claims regarding copyright ownership may amount to an abuse of process.
– **Breach of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct:** Lawyers are duty-bound to act in good faith and not to mislead the court or opposing parties. Subsection 4.1(1) prohibits knowingly assisting or permitting a client to do anything that the lawyer believes to be dishonest or fraudulent. Asserting copyright ownership without a bona fide basis may violate this rule.
– **Maintenance and Champerty:** Using litigation not to vindicate a legitimate right but to harass, intimidate, or silence a critic may constitute an abuse of legal process.
– **Tort of Misuse of Legal Process:** Filing frivolous or baseless claims for an improper collateral purpose can expose a lawyer and their client to civil liability.
– **Ontario’s Anti-SLAPP Provisions:** Ontario’s Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015, provides for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits aimed at silencing expression on matters of public interest. These claims would squarely fall within its scope.

**Under United Kingdom Law:**
– **Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:** The copyright in the Buckingham Palace image is statutorily vested in the creator, Aaron Chown, and his agency. Any assertion of ownership by a third party is unlawful.
– **Abuse of Process:** UK courts have inherent jurisdiction to strike out claims that are an abuse of process, including those brought for collateral purposes such as harassment or intimidation.

**Under International and Comparative Law:**
– **Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP):** These claims bear all the hallmarks of SLAPP suits—litigation initiated not to succeed on the merits, but to intimidate and silence critics through the threat of legal expense and exposure. Multiple jurisdictions are moving toward anti-SLAPP legislation specifically to combat this form of legal abuse.

**Under Guyanese Law:**
– While Guyana’s copyright framework is still developing, the principle that public records and government-created works exist for public benefit is well-established in Commonwealth jurisprudence. Asserting private ownership over state-distributed materials subverts the public interest and undermines transparency. Furthermore, the Constitution of Guyana guarantees freedom of expression, which is imperiled by such intimidation tactics.

“It is improper, and potentially unlawful, for any lawyer to knowingly assert a copyright claim over a work they do not own,” the Network stated. “Such conduct not only abuses legal process but also brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Mr. Pieters and his client are attempting to erase the public record under the guise of intellectual property enforcement. They do not own Aaron Chown’s photograph, they cannot own it, and every lawyer involved knows this.”

—

**A GLOBAL NETWORK UNDETERRED**

The Network emphasized that while Mr. Jacobs is the visible leader, GACN is a robust, decentralized coalition comprised of Guyanese diaspora members spanning the globe. With active members concentrated in **Guyana, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Guyana’s sister republic of Suriname**, the organization asserts that it cannot be silenced by targeting individuals.

“We are the voice of Guyanese at home and abroad who are tired of watching our nation’s wealth being siphoned away while public servants live in opulence that dwarfs their salaries,” the release continued. “Our network is not confined to Georgetown. We are in Toronto, New York, London, Miami, Port of Spain and Paramaribo. We will continue our work regardless of the attempts to intimidate us.”

**SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS AND DEMAND FOR CONDUCT**

GACN specifically called out the conduct of **Selwyn Pieters**, the Canadian lawyer representing President Irfaan Ali. The Network alleges that Mr. Pieters has engaged in aggressive legal correspondence and public communications aimed at intimidating GACN and halting their investigative publications.

“It is deeply troubling that the President of Guyana is utilizing foreign legal resources to harass citizens who are exercising their fundamental right to expose corruption,” the Network stated. “We call on Mr. Pieters to cease these tactics immediately, and to withdraw all baseless copyright claims.”

**CALL TO ACTION**

The Guyana Anti-Corruption Network is calling on:

– **International Human Rights Organizations** to monitor the escalating hostility toward civil society in Guyana.
– **The Diplomatic Community** in Guyana to take note of the treatment of anti-corruption advocates and the misuse of foreign legal representation to silence dissent.
– **The Law Society of Ontario** to investigate whether Mr. Pieters’ conduct in pursuing baseless copyright claims against a foreign activist violates Canadian professional ethics rules.
– **United States Courts and Legal Authorities** to take notice of any DMCA abuses or SLAPP suits targeting Mr. Jacobs, a US resident engaged in protected speech on matters of international public concern.
– **The Intellectual Property Bar** to speak out against the weaponization of copyright law for political intimidation.
– **PA Wire, PA Images, and the Office of the Royal Family** to clarify the copyright status of Aaron Chown’s work and to publicly reject any unauthorized claims of ownership by third parties.
– **The Media** to resist being used as a vehicle for character assassination and to report fairly on the substance of the corruption allegations.

**COMMITMENT TO THE MISSION**

Despite the threats, GACN reaffirmed its commitment to transparency. The Network announced that its investigations are ongoing and that further dossiers regarding unexplained wealth and procurement irregularities will be released in the coming weeks.

“We will not be intimidated. We will not be silenced. The truth about the plunder of our nation’s resources will continue to be documented and shared with the Guyanese people,” the statement concluded.

**Contact:**
Guyana Anti-Corruption Network
media at guyanaintegrity dot com

###