GBTI to appeal High Court’s decision on closure of WIN party members accounts

Last Updated on Tuesday, 31 March 2026, 0:18 by Writer

The Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) on Monday said it would appeal a High Court decision that found that that financial institution wrongfully closed the bank accounts of four members of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) political party.

High Court Judge Nicole Pierre said the GBTI breached the contract of its implied duty to act in good faith in the exercise of its discretionary contractual powers.

Describing the award of damages of GY$20,000 and costs of GY300,000 to each of the applicants — Vanessa Bagot, Heerawattie Mangaldeen, Natalia Angela and Abdul Ally — as “nominal”, the GBTI said it would appeal the High Court’s decision.

“While GBTI respectfully notes the Court’s findings, GBTI has taken the decision to appeal certain findings in the ruling,” the bank said in a statement.

The WIN members had each asked the court for GY$100 million in damages along with exemplary and aggravated damages.

The GBTI said it remained “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.

The bank took credit for the court’s dismissal of the majority of the claims brought against the GBTI 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,” the GBTI said.

The GBTI says it appreciates the continued trust of its customers, stakeholders, and the wider public, and remains committed to delivering secure, transparent, and responsible banking services.

Justice Pierre found that while the GBTI was entitled to take steps to manage sanctions-related risk as a legitimate commercial objective, the manner in which it exercised its contractual power to terminate the Applicant’s account did not satisfy the minimum standards imposed by law.

“The decision was not based on any identified conduct or evidence specific to the Applicant, but on a generalised assumption arising from her association with a political party whose leader was sanctioned. In the absence of any inquiry, and where less intrusive measures were available but not considered, the termination cannot be characterised as a rational or good faith exercise of the Respondent’s discretion,” she added.

Justice Pierre, however, dismissed the WIN members’ claim of procedural fairness and natural justice, saying that the decision stemmed from a private contract and not amenable to public law review.

Also dismissed were claims for unlawful discrimination under the Prevention of Discrimination Act, and the alleged non-compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act for disclosing no private cause of action.