– rules Scotiabank acted within contractual rights
A High Court Judge has ruled that a We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) candidate failed to prove that his political affiliation was the reason a commercial bank terminated his accounts, finding that there was “no cogent evidence” to support the claim.
In a decision delivered by Justice Nicola Pierre in the Commercial Division, the Court dismissed Gobin Harbhajan’s discrimination claim against Scotiabank after determining that he did not establish that the account closure was motivated by his political opinion.
According to the judgment, “On 7 August 2025, the Respondent wrote stating that all banking services to the Applicant would be discontinued effective 6 September 2025”
Harbhajan, who is listed as a candidate for the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, contended that the termination was unlawful and discriminatory and sought declarations, damages in excess of $100 million, exemplary and aggravated damages, as well as other relief.
However, the Court rejected his claims across the board.
Justice Pierre ruled that the bank’s decision was not subject to public law review.
She stated, “On the authorities, a decision to terminate a bilateral banking relationship is not amenable to judicial review; no public law duty of natural justice arises.”
The Court further found that the banking relationship was governed by contract, specifically a Personal Financial Services Agreement which permitted termination without cause on notice.
As such, the judge held, “The PFSA governing the relationship between the applicant and respondent in this case permits termination without cause on notice. It is an unqualified contractual right and does not require the decision-maker to form a judgment or evaluation.”
On the issue of alleged political discrimination under the Prevention of Discrimination Act, the Court said that while membership in a political party is an expression of political opinion, the Applicant failed to prove that this was the reason for the account closure.
The judgment noted, “The Applicant has established that his account was terminated and that he is a WIN candidate.
However, to succeed he must show that the reason for termination was his political opinion. He has produced no cogent evidence that political opinion was the reason.”
The Court also clarified that discrimination under the Prevention of Discrimination Act is criminally enforceable and not pursued by civil proceedings in the High Court.
“The claim is dismissed for want of proof and jurisdiction,” the judge ruled.
With respect to alleged non-compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act (AMLCFTA), the Court found that the Applicant had not identified any provision conferring a private right of action.
The judge held that “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.”
In the conclusion and final orders, Justice Pierre stated:
“For the reasons above, it is ordered that:
(i) the procedural fairness claim fails because the decision to terminate the contract is not amenable to public law review; (ii) the contractual and implied good faith claims are not made out; (iii) The discrimination claim is dismissed for want of proof and jurisdiction; (iv) the AMLCFTA based claim discloses no private cause of action; (v) the declaration sought concerning the WIN party is refused;(vi) damages do not arise; and
(vii) each party is to bear their own costs.”
The Court also observed that while the contractual framework insulated banks from public law scrutiny in such cases, whether a statutory ombudsperson regime should be introduced in Guyana to review account closures is a matter for legislative consideration.
The ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny within the local banking sector following United States sanctions imposed in June 2024 by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against WIN leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
In October 2024, a federal grand jury in Miami returned an indictment charging the father and son with participating in a multi-year scheme to evade millions of dollars in taxes and royalties owed to the Government of Guyana through fraudulent gold export practices and related money laundering activities.
According to U.S. court documents, Nazar Mohamed, 72, and Azruddin Mohamed, 38, were owners of Mohamed’s Enterprise, a gold wholesaler and exporter in Guyana that sold gold to buyers in Miami and Dubai.
Following the sanctions, several local banks, including Demerara Bank, Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI), and Citizens Bank, closed the accounts of WIN candidates after conducting internal risk assessments tied to compliance exposure.
