OPINION: Justice Persaud’s visa review: source and grounds, please

Last Updated on Saturday, 19 September 2026, 17:08 by Writer

by GHK Lall

Haven’t heard that one in a long time. Visa review. Certainly not for a sitting judge of Guyana’s Court. All that is known right now is that Guyana’s High Court Justice Gino Persaud’s U.S. visa is under review. He found this out in the worst way. Seemingly, at the point of travel to Jamaica via the U.S. If the intent was to send a cold warning to other travelers from Guyana’s justice system and its legal professionals, there was that chilling effect.

For now, all I have is a handful of questions. I think they have bearing, particularly when the temperature of the local environment is taken. Where did this “visa review” development originate from: official Guyana or the U.S? It has to be one of the two places, which then raises the next question. What are the grounds for Justice Persaud’s “visa review”? Before proceeding, I clear the air. A U.S. visa is a benefit, not an entitlement. It can be rescinded without any reason given, other than bland, vague sections of U.S. law cited.

Did his judicial rulings send some powerful people here or in the U.S. crazy? That is, did those decisions interfered with some carefully laid plans and timelines? Did one particular ruling involving one group of Guyanese make him into a marked man? Is he seen as too independent? Is this a move to get rid of him, i.e., off the bench, and out of sensitive people’s hair?

Whatever the answers to those questions, I have this to say. I have known Gino Persaud since my first months back in Guyana. There was some sharing. Unfortunately, there was a parting that has lasted several years. Perhaps, that’s better for both of us. But this I will say in public, and for the record. Gino Persaud is a jurist of caliber, is a person of integrity, and is one who I believe has been true to his profession, and the callings of his current role. Whatever this “visa review” means, it is where I stand.

In view of his place in the hierarchy of Guyanese society, it is surprising that he had to find out about this U.S. “visa review” development and the abrupt (embarrassing) curtailment of his travels in the way he did. How difficult could it have been for the U.S. Consulate to communicate to Justice Persaud that this is where his visa position stands. I think he was owed that courtesy. If the objective was to bring to a halt and then twist the knife, success has been recorded in both instances.

Casting my eyes outside of Guyana, I note that in Trinidad and Tobago, several opponents of the government have had their U.S. visa cancelled. The Trinidadian Government has cultivated close ties with the U.S. and is looked upon by Washington as a friend, if not a reliable ally. Were there such official overtures, or influence brought to bear, from Trinidad, that contributed to the yanking of those visas for Trinidad’s opposition members? More pointedly, is there such a situation here in Guyana, where there is a tight country-to-country bond? In asking these questions, I remind Guyanese of the real world. Today’s governments are in the business of staying in business. The U.S. government is all about business for itself and its people. In sum, whatever the country, whosoever the leader, interests more often than not (if not always) come out ahead of ideals. The visions and emphases are less on what should be done for all their grand outcomes, and more of what must be, if only to keep oneself in the seat of power, and helping self while at the helm.

If this visa review holds for a sitting judge with a solid reputation, where does that leave the regular man, or anyone, should he or she cross the wrong parties in Georgetown or Washington? As said, a chilling message is sent. Don’t mess with us.