Demerara Bank loses appeal against closure of WIN party members account

May 08, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The Full Court of the High Court on Thursday dismissed appeals brought by Demerara Bank Limited, upholding a previous ruling that candidates of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party have a valid legal standing to challenge the abrupt closure of their bank accounts.

The ruling by Chief Justice Navindra Singh, Justice Deborah Kumar-Chetty, and Justice Nigel Niles marks a victory for the fledgling political movement. WIN has alleged that its members are victims of a coordinated campaign of “political discrimination and financial intimidation” orchestrated to undermine a party viewed as a threat to the PPP. The appeal was dismissed in the decisions of Justices Niles and Kumar Chetty, while a dissenting ruling was offered by the Acting Chief Justice.

The case arose after several WIN candidates, including Dexter George, Joel Ramesh, Lester Benjamin, Denitta Parkes, Gobin Harbhajan, and Denodra Park, were notified by Demerara Bank Limited that all banking services would be discontinued. The bank cited “internal banking policies and regulatory requirements” but reportedly provided no specific details regarding any breaches.

The bank moved to strike out the candidates’ Fixed Date Applications (FDAs), arguing they were “frivolous and vexatious” and disclosed no viable cause of action. However, the Full Court today affirmed the position of the initial Trial Judge, Justice Nicole Pierre, who had found that the allegations were capable of constituting a claim for breach of contract.

In his ruling, Chief Justice Singh noted “This Court finds that this is an acknowledgement that there was a banker-customer relationship which by nature, is fundamentally contractual… the Court finds that the FDA discloses an arguable cause of action.”

Following the ruling, the WIN Political Party issued a scathing statement, welcoming the decision as a vindication of their long-held stance. The party asserts that directives were issued from within the PPP Government, resulting in local banks “arbitrarily targeting” their candidates.

“Our candidates were unfairly and politically discriminated against in an orchestrated effort to intimidate and undermine a rapidly growing political movement,” the party stated. “At a time when the PPP speaks about democracy and inclusion, our candidates were being financially targeted, humiliated, and denied fair treatment simply for offering themselves to serve the people of Guyana.”

WIN maintains that the closures were a direct response to the party’s “influence, popularity, and nationwide support,” which they claim has unsettled the current administration. The Full Court’s decision effectively ends the bank’s attempt to dismiss the cases prematurely. The court has issued the following orders the Appellant (Demerara Bank) must file an Affidavit in Defence on or before May 21, 2026.The Bank is ordered to pay costs to each Respondent in the sum of $100,000 by June 1, 2026. The substantive issues, including whether the bank complied with statutory obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, will now be dealt with on their merits. The ruling emphasizes that while private financial institutions have the right to determine their clientele, those powers are not absolute and cannot be exercised in bad faith.

High Court Judge, Nicola Pierre previously ruled that the Guyana Bank of Trade and Industry (GBTI) breached its duty to act in good faith when it closed the bank accounts of members of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party.

Members of the main opposition party, WIN had taken GBTI to court over the bank’s decision to terminate their accounts owing to their affiliation with US-sanctioned businessman Azruddin Mohamed. The members had made a number of claims against the bank including that of unlawfulness and discrimination. In separate claims members of the party who were affected by the closure sought declaratory and monetary remedies arising out of the termination of her banking relationship with GBTI. These include declarations that the WIN party is a distinct legal entity separate from its members, that no sanctions have been imposed on the party or its candidates (save for its leader), that the bank’s actions were unlawful, improper and discriminatory, and that GBTI breached duties of good faith and mutual trust and confidence.

Further, the WIN members held that their accounts were in good standing and that all transactions were conducted in accordance with the correct banking policies. In her decision delivered on Monday, presiding Justice Pierre noted that while the matter is not explicitly dealt with in common law, Guyana’s apex court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) provides the authoritative framework for it in a recent ruling. In its decision of Cara Investment Limited versus Christopher Ram et al, the CCJ made it clear that the common law of contract in this jurisdiction is evolving toward recognition of good faith as a foundational organising principle.

“In particular, the Court affirmed that contractual performance requires that parties act honestly, reasonably, and fairly, and not capriciously or arbitrarily. That articulation represents the starting point for any development of the law in Guyana,” the judge pointed out in her decision. Beyond the CCJ, Justice Pierre noted that the Court has considered a range of English and wider Commonwealth authorities. “While these are not binding,” she said, “They are persuasive and demonstrate a consistent and incremental development of the common law.”

“Those authorities reveal a more structured and disciplined approach to good faith, not as a free-standing, open-ended duty of fairness, but as a constraint operating through implied terms controlling the exercise of contractual discretions,” the judge said.

She continued, “synthesizing the CCJ’s jurisprudence with these persuasive authorities, this Court considers that, in Guyana, the proper approach is as follows. Where a bank exercises a contractual power to terminate a customer relationship-particularly where that power involves evaluative judgment such as risk assessment-the law implies a minimum duty of good faith governing the exercise of that power. That duty requires that the bank acts honestly and in good faith-that is, without dishonesty, bad faith, or knowing misrepresentation…”

The bank noted that the Court dismissed the majority of the claims brought against it, including allegations of unlawfulness, discrimination, breach of statutory obligations under anti-money laundering legislation, and claims for substantial damages.

“These findings affirm the bank’s adherence to its regulatory responsibilities and its commitment to operating within the framework of Guyana’s financial laws and international compliance standards,” GBTI said.

However, the bank pointed out that the Court determined that the Bank breached “an implied contractual duty of good faith” in its handling of the termination of certain banking relationships, and awarded nominal damages and costs in each matter.

GBTI said while it respectfully noted the Court’s findings it has taken the decision to appeal some of those findings, remaining unwavering in its commitment to upholding the highest standards of regulatory compliance and risk management, acting responsibly and prudently in protecting the financial system and continuously strengthening its policies, procedures, and decision-making frameworks.

In the case the WIN members were represented by attorney, Darren Wade. GBTI was represented by Stephen Fraser, SC, Shontel Scott, Sydney Fraser, and Shakisa Harvey.

---

• appeal, Demerara Bank, GBTI bank, Gobin Harbhajan, Navindra Singh, WIN Party

---