Archive for category: PRESS RELEASE

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TIGI Demands Independent Probe Into Allegations Against SOCU Head; Calls on President to Act

---

5 October 2026

Transparency International Guyana Inc. (TIGI) is gravely concerned by the handling to date of allegations of rape and threatening behavior involving Deputy Commissioner of Police Fazil  Karimbaksh, Head of the Special Organized Crime Unit.

The allegations are of the utmost seriousness. The accused is not an ordinary member of the Guyana Police Force. He is a Deputy Commissioner and head of a major specialized unit. The complainant is reportedly a serving, ranked police officer. In such circumstances, an investigation conducted by an undisclosed internal police team cannot simply be accepted as independent, impartial, or capable of commanding public confidence. The Police Service Commission is constitutionally responsible for disciplinary control over officers at or above the rank of Inspector, while the Commissioner of Police controls disciplinary matters below that rank.

TIGI therefore calls for an immediate, credible and independent investigation, with investigators and oversight demonstrably outside the authority, professional orbit and institutional influence of Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh.

The Guyana Police Force has announced only that the Commissioner of Police established a team to investigate. It has not identified the composition of that team, its reporting structure, whether its members are junior to the Deputy Commissioner, the measures adopted to protect the complainant and witnesses, or the safeguards against interference—actual or perceived. Minister Oneidge Walrond has similarly said that a police team would investigate, take statements and conduct what she described as a “formal confrontation.”

Those omissions are not minor administrative details. They go to the integrity of the investigation.

No Confidence in an Opaque Internal Team

TIGI has no confidence in an unnamed police investigative unit tasked with examining allegations against one of the Force’s most senior officers while he remains in office and continues to exercise rank, influence and institutional standing.

The public is being asked to trust a process without being told who will conduct it, whether the investigators are subordinate to the accused, what independent oversight exists, or how the complainant will be protected from intimidation, retaliation or re-traumatization.

That is unacceptable.

A Deputy Commissioner cannot remain at work as though nothing has occurred while officers—who may be his juniors, colleagues or subordinates—are expected to investigate allegations against him. No credible anti-corruption, human-rights or rule-of-law framework would regard that as an adequate safeguard.

Administrative leave is not punishment. It is not a finding of guilt. It is an essential protective measure to preserve evidence, protect witnesses and complainants, prevent real or perceived interference, and protect the integrity of a process whose credibility is already in question.

Minister Walrond herself has said that Karimbaksh should be sent on administrative leave pending the investigation.  TIGI agrees—and insists that the Government now move beyond expressions of personal opinion to decisive action.

“Confrontation” Must Be Clarified

TIGI is equally alarmed by the Minister’s reference to a “formal confrontation” between the complainant and the accused.

Section 42 of Guyana’s Sexual Offences Act expressly protects complainants from being required to recount their complaint in the accused’s presence unless they wish to do so. It further restricts circumstances in which a complainant may be required to view or be in the presence of an alleged perpetrator.

The Government and the Guyana Police Force must state immediately whether any direct encounter has been proposed between the complainant and Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh. If so, they must disclose the legal basis for it, the complainant’s fully voluntary consent, the safeguards in place, and whether she has access to independent legal and psychosocial support.

No complainant in a sexual-offence investigation should be compelled, pressured, persuaded or procedurally maneuvered into facing the person she alleges raped or threatened her.

President Must Act

The President cannot remain a spectator.

The Police Service Commission is not presently constituted, although its constitutional role includes disciplinary control over senior police officers. The Commission’s absence cannot be allowed to become a convenient excuse for executive paralysis while a Deputy Commissioner facing grave allegations continues to serve in an active operational capacity.

TIGI therefore calls on President Irfaan Ali, as Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and joint services, to urgently exercise the leadership required to protect public confidence in the Guyana Police Force and the administration of justice.

The President must ensure that the constitutional process to establish a functioning Police Service Commission is completed without further delay. Public reporting has indicated that the appointment process for new constitutional commissions had been initiated after prior terms expired; that process must now be treated as urgent, not routine.

Pending that reconstitution, the President, the Commissioner of Police, the Attorney General and the Minister of Home Affairs must identify and publicly disclose the lawful administrative mechanism by which Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh can be immediately relieved of operational duties, without prejudice to his constitutional right to due process.

The absence of the PSC is not an excuse for inaction. It is a governance failure that must be remedied, not invoked.

TIGI’s Demands

TIGI calls for the following immediate measures:

1.An independent investigation led by persons demonstrably outside the operational structure, influence and chain of command of the Guyana Police Force.

2.Immediate removal of Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh from operational duties pending the conclusion of the investigation, without prejudging the allegations.

3.Full disclosure of the investigation’s independence safeguards, including its reporting line, external supervision and arrangements to prevent interference.

4.A clear public statement that the complainant will not be compelled to participate in any face-to-face “confrontation” with the accused.

5.Independent legal, psychosocial and protective support for the complainant, as well as safeguards for all potential witnesses.

6.Immediate preservation of potentially relevant records, including communications, duty rosters, electronic data, CCTV footage, access logs and other material.

7.An urgent timetable for the reconstitution of the Police Service Commission and public confirmation of the steps being taken to achieve it.

This matter will test whether Guyana’s institutions can investigate serious allegations against the powerful without fear, favour, opacity or delay.

Due process for the accused must be respected. But due process does not mean institutional passivity. It does not mean keeping a senior officer in place while junior officers investigate him behind a veil of secrecy. And it does not mean treating the complainant’s statutory protections as a matter of convenience.

The country deserves a process that is independent in fact, credible in appearance and accountable to the public. Anything less will deepen the already serious crisis of confidence in the Guyana Police Force.

ENDS

 

  

 

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM♦ GUYANA

REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  

  Telephone: (868) 612-5CCJ   Fax: (868) 624-4710 

  Website: www.ccj.org 

MEDIA RELEASE 

(For immediate release) 

 No. 30:2026 

30 July 2026 

 CCJ DISMISSES APPEAL, ALLOWS EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS TO 

CONTINUE AGAINST GUYANESE OPPOSITION LEADER AND FATHER  

 Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. On Wednesday, 29 July 2026, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ/Court) dismissed an appeal brought by Mr Azruddin Mohamed, Leader of the Opposition in Guyana, and his father, Mr Nazar Mohamed, challenging the validity of an Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act in connection with a request by the United States of America for their extradition. 

The extradition request was received by the Government of Guyana on 28 October 2025. Two days later, the Minister of Home Affairs issued an ATP, which initiated the extradition process before the courts. The Applicants subsequently sought judicial review of that decision, alleging that the ATP was invalid because it was tainted by actual or apparent bias arising from public statements made by senior government officials during the 2025 election campaign. They also contended that the Minister had improperly consulted the Attorney General, who was likewise alleged to be biased. 

The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge. The Applicants then sought special leave to appeal to the CCJ, which decided to hear the application for special leave and the substantive appeal at the same time. The Court also granted an interim stay of the extradition proceedings pending determination of the appeal. 

At the CCJ, President Anderson and Justice Barrow, in a joint judgment, held that special leave should be granted. On the merits, they held that while the broad rule against bias can apply to a ministerial decision to issue an ATP, mere political bias would not invalidate its grant. They further found that the Applicants had failed to establish that the issuance of the ATP was tainted by bias in any relevant sense and emphasised that an ATP is a preliminary administrative step in the extradition process. The Minister’s role is to engage in the decision-making process contemplated by the legislation. The Applicants did not allege that the Minister failed to consider relevant factors or had relied on irrelevant considerations. Instead, they relied solely on allegations of political bias. The Judges found those allegations insufficient to invalidate the ATP. 

President Anderson and Justice Barrow also expressed the view that challenges to an ATP may be filed before but, save in the most exceptional of circumstances, should be heard only after completion of the committal stage of the extradition process. Such an approach, they reasoned, would better align with Guyana’s extradition framework and international obligations.  

In separate reasons, Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, and Bulkan agreed that the appeal should be dismissed but held that there was no legal bar preventing an early judicial review challenge to an ATP where bias is alleged. While finding no appearance of bias on the part of the Minister, they concluded that there was a real possibility of apparent bias on the part of the Attorney General. Nevertheless, they determined that any such apparent bias did not contaminate the Minister’s decision-making process or invalidate the ATP. The CCJ Judges further ordered that each party bear its own costs and underscored the importance of judicial independence, cautioning against public comments by public officials on pending judicial proceedings. 

In a further separate opinion, Justices Ononaiwu and Eboe-Osuji agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. They stressed that allegations of bias must be assessed from the perspective of a fairminded and informed observer who considers all the surrounding circumstances. On that test, bias is not made out in the particular circumstances of the present case. The CCJ Judges also highlighted procedural considerations concerning the timing of challenges to an ATP, observing that extradition proceedings themselves provide mechanisms for addressing potential unfairness. 

Ultimately, the CCJ unanimously granted special leave to appeal but dismissed the substantive appeal. The interim stay of extradition proceedings previously granted by the Court was lifted. The Court further ordered that there be no order as to costs before the CCJ and reserved its decision on the costs in the courts below. 

The appeal was heard by the full CCJ Bench comprising the Honourable President Mr Justice Winston Anderson, and the Honourable Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji, and Bulkan. Mr Fyard Hosein, SC, Mr Roysdale A. Forde, SC, Mr Sasha Bridgemohansingh, Mr Siand Dhurjon, Mr Damien Da Silva, and Mr Aadam Hosein represented the Appellants. Mr Douglas L. Mendes, SC and Mr Clay J. Hackett represented the First Respondent, the Minister of Home Affairs. Mr Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, Attorney General, Mr Nigel O. Hawke, Solicitor General, Ms Shoshanna V. Lall, Deputy Solicitor General, and Ms Dishon Persaud represented the Second Respondent, the Attorney General. Mr Arudranauth Gossai represented the Third Respondent, Magistrate Judy Latchman. 

 

-End- 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ About the Caribbean Court of Justice 

 

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was inaugurated in Port of Spain, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on 16 April 2005 and presently has a Bench of seven judges presided over by CCJ President, the Honourable Mr Justice Winston Anderson. The CCJ has an Original and an Appellate Jurisdiction and is effectively, therefore, two courts in one. In its Original Jurisdiction, it is an international court with exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply the rules set out in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) and to decide disputes arising under it. The RTC established the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME). In its Original Jurisdiction, the CCJ is critical to the CSME and all 12 Member States which belong to the CSME (including their citizens, businesses, and governments) can access the Court’s Original Jurisdiction to protect their rights under the RTC. In its Appellate Jurisdiction, the CCJ is the final court of appeal for criminal and civil matters for those countries in the Caribbean that alter their national Constitutions to enable the CCJ to perform that role. At present, five states access the Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction, these being Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, and Saint Lucia. However, by signing and ratifying the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice, Member States of the Community have demonstrated a commitment to making the CCJ their final court of appeal. The Court is the realisation of a vision of our ancestors, an expression of independence and a signal of the region’s coming of age. 

 

For more information please contact:  

The Public Education & Protocol Unit 

Tel: (868) 612-5225 ext. 2260, 2246  

Email: ccjcomm@ccj.org