ACTING Chief Justice Navindra Singh has ordered Magistrate Tameika Clarke to recuse herself from five cases brought by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), ruling that her continued involvement created an appearance of bias stemming from a previous personal legal dispute with the agency.
In a decision handed down on Friday, January 9, 2026, the High Court granted SOCU’s application for judicial review and issued an order of mandamus compelling Magistrate Clarke to step aside from the matters, which include money laundering and illegal gold export cases.
The ruling follows a protracted legal battle triggered by Magistrate Clarke’s refusal to disqualify herself from the proceedings, despite having previously sued SOCU in her former capacity as a private attorney.
In November 2022, Clarke, then in private practice, filed constitutional proceedings against SOCU. The State accepted liability in November 2023, and the court awarded her damages.
In July 2024, SOCU instituted charges against businessman Ian Jacobis and three others for money laundering, and separately charged Ivor Scipio in connection with illegal gold export offences.
The cases were assigned to Magistrate Clarke in September 2025 and scheduled to begin trial the following month.
Before the trials commenced, SOCU applied for Clarke to recuse herself, citing her prior legal action against the agency and what it described as adverse and improper rulings.
Clarke refused the application, prompting SOCU to approach the High Court for judicial review.
In his ruling, Acting Chief Justice Singh held that the earlier lawsuit filed by Clarke against SOCU was personal in nature and not merely a professional disagreement arising during her former legal practice.
He emphasised that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Citing Guyana’s Code of Ethics for Judicial Officers, the Chief Justice noted that a judicial officer should disqualify himself or herself from any matter where there was prior personal involvement that could reasonably give rise to an appearance of bias.
The court found that Magistrate Clarke acted “illegally, irrationally, arbitrarily and improperly” when she refused to recuse herself, and ruled that her decision amounted to an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
As a result, the court ordered that the five cases be reassigned to another magistrate.
Head of SOCU, Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh, said it was regrettable that the unit had to resort to court action to secure compliance.
He stressed that judicial officers must avoid acting irrationally or arbitrarily, particularly in circumstances where there is an appearance of bias in the exercise of their statutory duties.
SOCU was represented by Attorney-at-Law and prosecutor David Brathwaite.
Magistrate Clarke was represented by Solicitor General Nigel Hawke and other attorneys from the Attorney General’s Chambers.