By: Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News|
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — In a landmark ruling that will likely send ripples through Guyana’s financial sector, the High Court has declared that the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) acted unlawfully when it summarily closed the bank accounts of candidates linked to the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party.
The decision, delivered by Justice Nicola Pierre on March 30, 2026, clarifies the limits of a bank’s “commercial discretion” when dealing with sanctions-related risks and sets a precedent that now applies to four affected WIN candidates.
The “Sanctions” Defense
The legal battle began after GBTI terminated the banking relationships of several WIN party members. The bank argued that its actions were a necessary precaution following U.S. sanctions imposed on the party’s leader, fearing that the candidates’ accounts could be used as indirect financial channels to bypass those restrictions.
- Court’s Findings: Justice Pierre accepted that the bank has a legitimate right to assess and protect itself from sanctions-related exposure.
- Dismissed Claims: The court dismissed the candidates’ arguments regarding unlawful discrimination, breach of natural justice, and violations of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws.
The Breach of “Good Faith”
Despite the bank’s right to manage risk, the Court found that GBTI crossed a legal line in how it executed the closures.
- Contractual Duty: The ruling centered on the duty of good faith inherent in contract law. The judge found that GBTI failed to exercise its discretion fairly and rationally when it moved to sever ties with the candidates.
- Invalid Termination: Consequently, the termination of the account belonging to the lead litigant, Vanessa Bagot, was declared invalid.
- Damages Awarded: The Court awarded Bagot US$20,000 in damages along with $300,000 in legal costs, a signal that banks cannot hide behind “risk assessment” to treat clients unfairly.
A Precedent for Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs)
While the case was brought by Bagot, the High Court clarified that the ruling extends across the board to the three other WIN candidates whose accounts were closed under identical circumstances.
- Broad Application: This “blanket” application of the ruling means all four candidates now have a legal basis to challenge their account status and seek similar redress.
- Impact on Banking: The judgment reinforces that while financial institutions are under immense international pressure to monitor “Politically Exposed Persons” (PEPs), those actions must still meet the legal standards of fairness and rationality.
A New Standard for Financial Fairness
This ruling serves as a stark warning to the local banking community. While the “U.S. Sanctions” umbrella is broad, the High Court has made it clear that it is not a “get out of jail free” card for banks to bypass the basic contractual rights of Guyanese citizens. As Local Government Elections approach, this decision ensures that political affiliation—even by association with sanctioned leaders—cannot be used as a sole, arbitrary reason to strip a citizen of their access to the financial system.
