EORGETOWN, Guyana, CMC – A High Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit from a member of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, who had challenged the decision of a bank to close his account.
In the run-up to the regional and general elections here last September, several commercial banks cancelled the accounts of customers linked to WIN, which is headed by billionaire, Azruddin Mohamed, who been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in June 2024 for allegedly evading US$50 million in taxes payable to the Guyana government on more than 10,000 kilogrammes of gold exports.
The Guyana Association of Bankers Inc. (GABI) had said that all licensed commercial banks here operate within a framework of national laws and international standards. It said the banks are guided by strict regulatory obligations, including Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) requirements, as well as global risk management practices.
Justice Nicola Pierre, in dismissing Gobin Harbhajan’s challenge, noted that the Personal Financial Services Agreement (PFSA) that was incorporated into the account application allowed Scotiabank to close accounts and cancel services without giving a reason, 30 days’ notice.
“It is an unqualified contractual right and does not require the decision-maker to form a judgment or evaluation,” the judge said, suggesting that the National Assembly consider passing legislation to allow for the appointment of an independent person to investigate complaints of account closures.
She said the purely contractual nature of the banker— customer relationship, which insulates the bank from liability at common law, is undesirable given the centrality of access to banking services in modern life and the move to make access to Government services digital.
“In other jurisdictions, this gap has been addressed by the creation of statutory financial services ombudspersons empowered to scrutinise account closures and terminations by reference, not to public law principles of natural justice, but to a statutory standard of whether the bank acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances,” she said.
Justice Pierre said Harbhajan could not successfully claim that the bank breached procedural fairness because its decision to terminate the contract could not be reviewed in accordance with public law.
She said the duty to observe procedural fairness is a public law duty, as the bank was not administering a government scheme, acting under a delegated statute, or otherwise performing a public function.
“The duty to observe procedural fairness is a public law duty,” she added.
The High Court also refused to issue a declaration that WIN remains a distinct entity from its individual members and that no sanctions have been imposed on the party or its other candidates.
“No evidence has been adduced to establish the sanction status of the party or its candidates,” the judge ruled, adding that on the issue of distinctness, she relied on a High Court decision that an unincorporated political party does not have legal personality.
Scotiabank had admitted the account was in good standing and that it was terminated by letter dated 7 August 2025. It denied that the letter stated “breach” as the cause; that the applicant suffered reputational harm; that termination was due to WIN affiliation; and that it lacked a lawful reason.
The judge’s decision noted that Scotiabank, through the affidavit of Vibert Jones, said he had no knowledge of Harbhajan’s WIN affiliation or the sanction status of the WIN leader, and had no knowledge that the bank closed the accounts of all WIN members. The bank denied any failure to follow policy or guidelines, any breach of natural justice, or any failure under the Anti-Money Laundering Countering of Financing of Terrorism (AMLCFT) Act.
The judge said that while Harbhajan established that his account was terminated and that he is a WIN candidate, to succeed, he must show that the termination was due to his political opinion.
“He has produced no cogent evidence that political opinion was the reason. His assertion that all WIN members’ accounts were closed by the Respondent is uncorroborated – mere assertion or correlation is insufficient,” the judge said.
On the issue of Harbhajan’s allegations of noncompliance with the AMLCFT Act and failure to file a Suspicious Transaction Report, the judge dismissed them, saying these are regulatory obligations owed primarily to the State and supervisory authorities.
Justice Pierre added that the applicant identifies no AMLCFT Act provision conferring a private right of action for damages for alleged noncompliance. She says a breach of a statutory duty does not automatically give rise to a private right of action, unless it can be shown that Parliament intended the statute to confer such a right on individuals.
and then 