NATIONAL Border Patrol Director and former Region Four Chairman, Daniel Seeram, will remain in custody pending sentencing after the High Court on Monday upheld a magistrate’s decision to remand him to prison following his conviction for assaulting his former wife.
Justice Joy Persaud-Singh dismissed Seeram’s application for judicial review, finding no basis to conclude that Magistrate Abigail Gibbs had acted unlawfully, irrationally or outside her jurisdiction when she ordered his detention.
The ruling came after Seeram’s attorney, Nigel Hughes, challenged the magistrate’s decision to refuse his client bail following his conviction last Friday.

Seeram was immediately remanded to prison after Gibbs found him guilty and is scheduled to return to the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court on November 2, 2026, for sentencing.
In the Magistrate’s Court, Hughes had urged Gibbs to reconsider the decision to remand Seeram, pointing to his position as National Coordinator of the Border Patrol Protection Unit and the national responsibilities attached to the post.
The lawyer also highlighted that Seeram had attended every court hearing throughout the nearly three-year proceedings and relied on other grounds in seeking his release pending sentencing.
Prosecutor and Attorney-at-Law Ganesh Hira said the prosecution would abide by whatever decision the court made. However, he submitted that if bail were granted, Seeram should be required to report to the police once every week.
Gibbs was ultimately not persuaded by the defence’s submissions and ordered that Seeram remain in custody pending sentencing.
Hughes subsequently moved to the High Court, arguing that the magistrate had effectively prejudged the sentence by remanding Seeram before the court had received the probation report, victim impact statement and submissions on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case.
The defence also challenged the magistrate’s reliance on Section 9 of the Bail Act.
Hughes argued that the provision deals with bail pending an appeal and was therefore not applicable because Seeram had not appealed his conviction. He further submitted that none of the circumstances outlined under Section 7 of the Bail Act, which could justify the refusal of bail, had been established.
Deputy Solicitor General Shoshana Lall, who appeared for the respondents, agreed with the defence that Section 9 was not engaged, since the matter did not concern an appeal against conviction or sentence.
However, Lall maintained that this did not warrant the High Court interfering with the magistrate’s decision.

She argued that the offence for which Seeram was convicted does not carry a mandatory term of imprisonment. She also submitted that there was no new evidence to suggest that Seeram had become a flight risk or that there had been any material change in circumstances since he was initially granted bail.
In delivering her ruling, Justice Persaud-Singh emphasised that the High Court was not required to determine whether it agreed with Gibbs’ decision.
Rather, the question was whether the magistrate’s decision was so irrational that no properly directed and reasonable judicial officer could have reached it.
The judge found no basis to conclude that Gibbs had acted unlawfully, irrationally or outside the scope of her jurisdiction.
Justice Persaud-Singh therefore dismissed the judicial review application and upheld the decision to keep Seeram in custody pending sentencing.
Seeram’s legal team is expected to pursue a further challenge before the Court of Appeal in an effort to secure his release before he is sentenced.
The criminal charge stems from an incident on September 11, 2023, at the Cummings Lodge, Greater Georgetown residence Seeram and his then-wife shared.
Seeram was charged with assault causing grievous bodily harm. When the matter was initially brought before the court, he pleaded not guilty and was granted $50,000 bail.
According to reports at the time, the incident occurred around 03:00 hours after Seeram returned home and an argument developed between him and his wife.
The disagreement reportedly escalated into a physical confrontation, with reports indicating that both parties were involved in a scuffle.
Seeram was also accused of brandishing his licensed firearm during the confrontation. His then-wife subsequently went to the Turkeyen Police Station and made a report.
Police later reported that visible marks of violence were observed on her body.
The investigation was subsequently referred for legal advice, after which the Director of Public Prosecutions advised that Seeram be charged.