GEORGETOWN, Guyana – High Court Judge, Damone Younge, has dismissed a case brought by Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed and his billionaire businessman father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, who were seeking to have their foreign exchange dealer’s licence restored.
Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed (right) and his businessman father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed (File Photo)The judge in dismissing the application also ordered the Mohameds to pay the GUY$250,000 (One Guyana dollar=US$0.008 cents) costs to the Bank of Guyana to be paid on or before April 10,, 2026.
The judge also credited the Bank of Guyana with taking into consideration the sanctions by the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in June 2024.
“The appearance of the applicants on the SDN (Specially Designated Nationals) list would and has, in this Court’s view, negatively impacted whatever good character the applicants may have enjoyed prior to the imposition of the OFAC sanction and at the time they were issued the licence. To argue otherwise would be insincere,” Justoce Younge said in her ruling.
The Bank of Guyana moved to revoke the license of the Mohameds after they were added on June 11, 2024, to the to the OFAC’s SDN List as sanctioned individuals and entities.
The judge noted that the Dealers in Foreign Currency Licensing Act states that the Central Bank, after consultation with minister, may grant or refuse to grant a licence based on, among other things, the character and antecedents of the applicant. She said the revocation of the
Mohameds’ licence by the Respondent was done in accordance with the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act.
As a result, Justice Younge said the Bank of Guyana had “every right” and “obligation” to consider the applicants’ sanctioned status and “having done so and found them no longer “fit and proper”, was empowered to revoke the Mohameds’ licence on that ground.
She also rejected the Mohameds’ contention that they were not afforded an opportunity to be heard prior to the revocation of their license since the letter attached to their own application of June 12, 2024 expressly invited them to a hearing on June 13, 2024, but for reasons known only to them, they did not avail themselves of the opportunity.
Justice Younge said she disagreed with the Mohameds’ submission that at the time that letter was sent, the Bank of Guyana general manager had already predetermined the matter, nor does this Court agree with their contention that the letter of the 12th June 2024 was a revocation of the licence.
“An expressed “intention” to do something is not a “final, non-reviewable” decision to do it. Nowhere was it stated in that letter that the Applicants’ licence was revoked, and any other interpretation of the contents of that letter cannot reasonably be sustained given the ordinary and plain meaning of the word “intends”.
The High Court, in its decision, said it also agreed with the Bank of Guyana that the Mohameds were guilty of undue delay in instituting the proceedings challenging the revocation of their license since the proceedings were, without explanation, filed one year after the revocation thereof; and after the license would have in any event expired almost six months before on December 31st, 2024.
“This fact alone would disentitle the Applicants to the Order of Mandamus which they seek to compel the Respondent to restore their licence, since the Court cannot properly restore a licence that had already expired. Added to that, there was no explanation forthcoming from the Applicants as to why they did not act sooner if they felt aggrieved by the decision taken by the Bank of Guyana.”
