‘A Sanction Need Not Announce Its Name’: Former Belize Judge Warns U.S. Visa Action Against Justice Gino Persaud Threatens Judicial Independence

By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA / KINGSTON, JAMAICA — The international controversy surrounding the unexplained United States visa review affecting High Court Judge Justice Gino Persaud has been placed squarely into a regional debate on judicial independence, the reach of foreign executive power, and subtle pressures facing Commonwealth jurists.

Addressing the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) Annual Conference in Jamaica, prominent Guyana-born jurist and former Belize High Court Judge Professor Justice Courtney Abel warned that the travel restriction imposed on a sitting judge cannot simply be dismissed as a routine consular matter.

Justice Abel, who currently serves as Head of the Department of Law at the University of Guyana, argued before the international assembly of judges that while there is no definitive proof connecting Washington’s decision to Persaud’s bench rulings, the confluence of timing, context, and official silence creates a chilling dynamic for the wider judiciary.

‘Operates Like a Sanction’: The Miami Airport Bar

Justice Abel recounted the sequence of events that disrupted Justice Persaud’s intended transit on Saturday, September 19, 2026, as he attempted to travel through Miami International Airport to attend the CMJA conference:

• The Airport Block: Airline personnel at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport informed Justice Persaud that his name had been electronically flagged, that his U.S. visa had been placed under administrative review, and that he was barred from boarding the flight.
• The Nature of Coercion: While Washington has not designated the move as an official sanction, Abel submitted that the real-world effect of an unexplained travel ban on a serving superior court judge mirrors one.

“A sanction need not announce its name,” Justice Abel declared to the conference.

Sensitive Jurisprudence: The Mohamed Tax Cases and Executive Criticism

Turning to the domestic backdrop, Justice Abel observed that Justice Persaud has presided over several high-profile, politically contentious matters in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana:

• Rulings Adverse to the State: Persaud delivered key judgments against the state and the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), including litigation involving members of the prominent Mohamed family and disputed duty valuations on imported luxury motor vehicles.
• Executive Displeasure: Abel pointed out that certain decisions rendered by Justice Persaud had previously attracted open, sharp public criticism from senior government officials, including the President of Guyana.
• Allegations of Domestic Collusion: Acknowledging persistent public speculation that domestic political actors may have fed derogatory dossiers to foreign embassies to trigger retribution, Abel emphasized that such claims remain unproven. Washington has offered no official justification, and the Government of Guyana has formally denied having any role or influence in U.S. visa determinations.

“Suspicion is not evidence. But neither is silence an answer,” Justice Abel said.

‘The Modern Assault May Leave No Fingerprints’

In one of the most resonant passages of his address, Justice Abel warned Commonwealth magistrates and judges that contemporary threats to the rule of law rarely present themselves as overt threats or crude instructions:

• The Architecture of Intimidation: External pressure is rarely applied by directly instructing a jurist how to decide an active docket. Instead, unchecked sovereign actions create an insidious climate where judges learn that certain rulings against power carry personal consequences.
• Beyond One Individual: Abel noted that while judges enjoy no special immunity from immigration statutes, the unexplained closure of travel corridors to a serving judge sends an intimidating signal to peers handling politically sensitive litigation.

“The modern assault may leave no fingerprints,” Abel warned, emphasizing that an environment can be engineered wherein judicial officers subtly internalize the hazards of ruling against powerful interests.

Abel concluded that while the U.S. review might ultimately turn out to be administrative, mistaken, or entirely unrelated to judicial output, the absence of an appropriate, transparent process leaves a profound constitutional shadow over the administration of justice:

“Judicial independence requires that the judge—and not government, opposition, the press, a foreign power or any other outside force—remain the true author of the judgment.”