Clarity needed on Justice Persaud’s visa matter

The High Court today granted several orders quashing the Guyana Revenue Authority’s (GRA’s) imposition of taxes totaling more than $800 million against Hana and Bibi Mohamed over the import and use of two luxury vehicles, after it found that the Tax Authority did not act lawfully in the handling of the matters involving the two re-migrants. ... In March 2025, the Guyana Revenue Authority accused Hana Mohamed of breaching the conditions of the Tax Exemptions granted for the importation of a Ferrari motor car. The GRA contended that Hana Mohamed – the sister of the Leader of the Opposition Azruddin Mohamed – failed to reside in Guyana for the mandatory period of at least 183 days annually during the concession period. It later moved to impose more that $400 million in taxes against her. ... But today, Justice Gino Persaud ruled that the Commissioner General failed to lawfully consider and apply his discretion in regards to the reasons proffered by Hana Mohamed with regards to her temporary absence from Guyana. The Judge said the actions of the Commissioner General of GRA were “unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, unfair, and unlawful.” The Court therefore granted an order quashing the Tax Authority’s imposition of taxes in the sum of $479.7 million in respect of Hana Mohamed’s use of a 2020 Ferrari motor vehicle. It also granted another order quashing GRA’s requirement for Hana Mohamed to surrender the vehicle to the Law Enforcement Division of the Revenue Authority. A permanent injunction was also granted retraining GRA from seizing the Ferrari. ... In the case of Bibi Mohamed, the Court ruled that the requirement set out by GRA that a 2023 Rolls Royce vehicle, which was imported by her under the re-migrant scheme, ought to have been used solely by her as her primary mode of transportation, was unlawful. ... Justice Persaud ruled that the requirement for Bibi Mohamed to report in person to the Tax Authority every six months was also unlawful. ... In Bibi Mohamed’s case, an order was also granted quashing the imposition of taxes by GRA to the tune of approximately $320 million. He also ordered permanent injunction preventing GRA from seizing the vehicle from her. ... case involving Bibi Mohamed, the Court ruled that the six-month reporting requirement set out by GRA “is not authorized by the Customs Act,” and was therefore “arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unlawful and ultra vires the Customs Act.” ... In light of his decision, Justice Persaud sent the matter back to the Commissioner General for reconsideration in accordance with the Law. He said the GRA must fairly consider the reasons provided by Hana Mohamed for her temporary absences from Guyana. ... Justice Persaud said the GRA must also consider Hana Mohamed’s reasons for non-compliance, afford her the opportunity to be heard with reasonable opportunity to make any further written representation, and take into account all legally relevant matters. ... The Judge said nothing in his ruling compels GRA to decide the matter in favor of the applicant. Noting that the Commissioner General remains the primary decision maker, the Court maintained that he must exercise his powers lawfully, fairly, and rationally in accordance with the orders of the Court.

# Chief Magistrate offers caution against rushing of Mohameds' extradition proceedings - News Source Guyana Author: News Source Guyana Published: 2026-09-10T16:56:50+00:00 Source: newssourcegy.com (newssourcegy.com) Language: en ## Story Chief Magistrate offers caution against rushing of Mohameds' extradition proceedings - News Source Guyana # Chief Magistrate offers caution against rushing of Mohameds’ extradition proceedings By News Source Guyana on September 10, 2026 Stating clearly that the Court will not take orders from persons inside or outside of the Courtroom, Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman today warned against rushing the extradition proceedings involving the Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. She also cautioned Special Prosecutor, Glen Hanoman, who had complained about the length of time that the case was taking to be completed. “This Court will not be controlled by any mortal within inside of this Court or outside of this Court. The Court will never be controlled by any mortal being, only by divine intervention. This Court will control its own pace,” the Chief Magistrate said. Noting that the case is of great national importance, Chief Magistrate Latchman said it deserves “quality and “careful” attention, and should not be rushed. “I am well aware of the timeline; I need no reminder of the timeline. Justice delayed is justice denied but again we must also recognize that rushed justice is crushed justice,” the Chief Magistrate said. She said the case is a complicated matter with complicated issues, and ought to be carefully considered, warning that “justice in pace” can give rise to complications and mistakes, and the Court needs to get it right “We need to get it right, the court needs to get it right, and this court will not take orders within or outside,” the Chief Magistrate iterated. But even as she spoke, Hanoman attempted to interject, and it was then that she inquired whether she should leave, so he can speak. The issue arose following written submissions by both the Prosecution and Defence on a question initially posed to Senior Superintendent Prem Narine as he was being cross-examined by Defence Attorney Siand Dhurjon during occasion. But as the Court today sought clarification on a number of the submissions made by the Defence, Attorney Dhurjon indicated to the Court that he would be withdrawing the question, which did not sit well with the Prosecution. Hanoman told the Court that it would appear as though the Defence is on “fishing expedition,” with its questions. With the cross-examination of the witness ongoing for days, Hanoman told the Court that he thinks the Court is losing sight. The Chief Magistrate interjected and made it clear that it is for the Prosecution to advocate, and for the Court to adjudicate. The Defence Attorney said that his team was on no fishing expedition, even as the Special Prosecutor accused the Attorneys for the Mohameds of abusing the Court process. It was while Hanoman was lamenting the issue, and complaining about the lengthy cross-examinations being done by the Defence that the Chief Magistrate offered her words of caution.

# US Ambassador Theriot Must Address The Justice Persaud “Visa Review” Quagmire - Black Star News Author: Black Star Published: 2026-09-21T17:00:26+00:00 Source: blackstarnews.com (blackstarnews.com) Language: en ## Story US Ambassador Theriot Must Address The Justice Persaud “Visa Review” Quagmire - Black Star News # US Ambassador Theriot Must Address The Justice Persaud “Visa Review” Quagmire Sep 21, 2026 by Black Star By Albert Baldeo Photos: YouTube Screenshot|Wikimedia Commons The prevention of Justice Gino Persaud from boarding a Miami-bound flight while traveling to a judicial conference in Jamaica, on the ground that his United States visa was “under review,” raises serious questions-both public and private, national and international. Justice Persaud is a sitting High Court judge who has delivered decisions adverse to the Guyana Government and the Guyana Revenue Authority, including matters involving members of the Mohamed family. The timing and absence of an explanation create a troubling appearance and possible chilling effect, even if no improper motive is ultimately established. This is not a partisan issue. It concerns Guyana’s sovereignty, judicial independence and the treatment of its citizens. The U.S. Embassy should provide Justice Persaud, and the public, with: - His precise visa status. - The legal or administrative basis for the review. - The date and reason it began. - Whether information or recommendations were supplied by any Guyanese or other authority. - A fair opportunity to correct any misrepresentations, mistakes and/or allegations. The Guyana Government must likewise state whether any official, ministry, police, intelligence, revenue or immigration agency requested, encouraged or supplied information supporting adverse U.S. action against him. The Acting Chancellor and Judicial Service Commission should seek a formal diplomatic explanation and preserve all relevant correspondence. It is no longer a Justice Persaud issue, but a judicial event that goes to the heart of democracy and judicial independence in Guyana. An unavoidable question is being asked: Is this connected to the extradition proceedings against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, or could it be perceived as a warning to the presiding magistrate and other judicial officers handling politically sensitive cases? Ambassador Nicole D. Theriot, who has been shockingly vocal in pronouncing on Guyanese legal cases, must address these and other issues as to whether Justice Persaud’s visa review bears any relationship to his judicial decisions, the Mohamed family or the pending extradition case. The United States cannot punish, demote or dismiss a Guyanese judicial officer, but it controls their visas. Any use or threatened use of visa powers to influence a judicial decision would constitute a grave interference with Guyana’s judicial independence and warrant review by the U.S. Department of State and appropriate oversight authorities. Article 122A of Guyana’s Constitution requires every court and judicial officer to remain free from political, executive and other external direction. Justice Persaud’s treatment should therefore not be dismissed as a private inconvenience. It requires prompt, lawful and transparent clarification from both governments, especially since it has attracted national and international attention, and scrutiny. Justice Persaud, the Guyanese people, and all fair thinking persons deserve an explanation. Guyana’s judiciary deserves protection. The public deserves immediate answers from both the Guyana and US governments. We await your response, Madam Ambassador, and President Ali. Hon. Albert Baldeo Community Leader, Judicial Delegate (NY/USA) Fmr. Magistrate, Senior State Counsel, Police Legal Advisor (Guyana) President, GUYANA BEYOND BORDERS

DeMerieux in her work ‘Fundamental Rights in Commonwealth Caribbean Constitutions’. [Mr. Nandlall: She run mad, right.] Mr. Speaker: Insane. Mr. Nandlall you cannot use those words here. Mr. B. Williams: That always happens with brilliant people. Mr. Nandlall: So you agree that she run mad. Mr. B. Williams: You are not yet there. You are quite sane. Mr. Speaker: You go ahead Mr. Williams. Mr. B. Williams: I quote: “Set clear limits on the powers of the several arms of the state, and arising therefrom, creates a power in the courts to see that the institutions established in the documents function within the prescribed boundaries. Sir Fred Phillips in his book Commonwealth Caribbean Constitution on pages 18 and 19 proferred this: “The principle of the separation of powers deriving from our new constitutions has since 1960 been articulated in leading cases designed to highlight the fact that the executive and the legislative should not trench upon the preserves of the judiciary.” This is what we are trying to do in this motion, to maintain the purity of the independence of the judiciary of this country. Alas, let us see how it is going. In Hines the legislative purported to create the gun court and surmised to include and give the same jurisdiction as the Supreme Court in Jamaica, which was already established by the Constitution, Of course that was a collision and was held to be illegal and unlawful. In Guyana’s present Constitution Article 123 provides for the establishment of the supreme court of judicature consisting of a court of appeal and a high court with such powers as conferred on them by the Constitution. Pursuant to Article 123 of the Constitution, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was made our final court of appeal. The independence of the judiciary is provided for in Article 122A of the Constitution, and it is this article which forms the core of this motion. I am not sure why the Hon Minister of Finance kept insisting that it ought to be Article 222A. Article 122A(1) of the Constitution says this: “All courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority, and shall be free and independent from political, executive, and any other form of direction and control. You cannot hear it clearer than that. That is what the basis of this motion is, Article 122A. Article 122A(2) says this: “Subject to the provisions of Article 199 and 201 all courts shall be administratively autonomous and shall be funded by a direct charge upon the Consolidated Fund. Such courts shall operate in accordance with the principles of sound financial and administrative management.” Mr. Speaker, the appointments of the Chancellor and Chief Justice are provided for in Article 127 of the Constitution. It provides thus: “The Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the president, acting after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.” All these provisions seek to get to that reality, that dream, that aspiration, of insulating our judges from the reaches, from the grip, of the executive. I continue, Article 197 of the Constitution provides for the security of tenure of judges and the manner of their removal. Article 198 provides for the composition of the Judicial Service Commission, and Article 199(1) vests the jurisdiction to appoint, remove, and discipline judges in that Commission. The independence of the Judicial Service Commission is provided for in Article 226(1) and it provides as follows: “Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, in the exercise of its functions under this Constitution, a Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.” Not only the judiciary but the Judicial Service Commission, which has a remit to appoint judges, has to be free of political control and executive control. Article 226 (7) clarifies it and