WIN Candidates Sue Banks Over Account Closures, Citing Political Discrimination

By Mark DaCosta- In a significant move highlighting the tensions surrounding political freedoms in our nation, members of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party have launched lawsuits against three major banks for terminating their accounts. This action has raised serious concerns regarding the suppression of political rights and the impact of United States (U.S.) sanctions.

The candidates, who include Azruddin Mohamed — sanctioned by the U.S. government — claim their accounts were closed unjustly due to their political affiliation. This decision, affecting approximately 40 individuals linked to the WIN party, raises questions about the current banking practices in relation to political engagement and participation in our country’s democratic processes. The banks involved — Citizens Bank Guyana, Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry, and Demerara Bank Limited — have faced allegations of acting unlawfully and discriminatorily against the candidates who assert they engaged in no suspicious activities.

Initiating separate legal proceedings with the assistance of their lawyer, Darren Wade, the former account holders argue that their accounts were maintained in good standing, yet the banks provided no reasonable explanation for the abrupt termination. They contend that the banks’ actions exemplify a breach of trust and a failure to adhere to legal obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, specifically regarding their duty to file suspicious transaction reports if any concerns existed. Despite being linked to a sanctioned member, the candidates assert that their accounts should not have been impacted solely on that basis.

The Carter Center, an international monitoring organisation, has expressed alarm over the implications of these account closures, framing them within a broader context of intimidation and suppression of political dissent. The Centre’s assessment highlights not only the disproportionate caution adopted by the banks but also the fear that has gripped public sector employees and local businesses, who are reportedly wary of adverse consequences should they oppose the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP). Such an environment of coercion fosters a political landscape where dissenting voices are stifled, potentially jeopardising the upcoming elections’ integrity.

Evidence suggests that since Azruddin Mohamed became the presidential candidate for WIN, the banks have responded to the U.S. sanctions imposed on him and his associates by adopting extreme measures. The Carter Center points out that the unfounded closures of accounts restrict candidates’ financial access and send a clear message deterring the electorate from engaging with opposition parties. They have urged financial institutions to strike a balance between compliance with regulations and respecting the democratic rights of citizens.

This trend of overcompliance with U.S. sanctions has far-reaching consequences. Representatives of the PPP, including Bharrat Jagdeo, have distanced themselves from responsibility, arguing that the banks are merely safeguarding their financial interests. Such claims, however, starkly contrast with assertions from civil society organisations, which argue that these measures are tantamount to infringements on the rights of political participation and a veiled attempt to control opposition activities.

Patterns emerge that suggest increasing barriers against the WIN party and its candidates. Reports indicate that they have faced obstructions in their campaign efforts, including denied flights for political events and restricted access to venues for meetings. The latest incident involving Air Services Limited, which allegedly barred certain WIN members from boarding a flight to a rally, illustrates the mounting pressures faced by opposition candidates. That the airline claims not to engage in discriminatory practices begs credence to the accusations of a culture of fear and coercion.

The Carter Center passionately argues that while banks and other institutions have responsibilities to comply with certain regulations, they must also prioritise transparent and fair treatment for all political participants. The ongoing clampdown on dissent sends a troubling message about the growing authoritarian grip on our nation’s democratic processes. The chilling effect of such actions on political participation cannot be overstated, as citizens become increasingly dissuaded from engaging in opposition politics.

As our nation approaches pivotal elections, the need for all entities — political parties, financial institutions, and government agencies — to uphold the principles of equality, fairness, and the right to free political association is more pressing than ever. Abandoning these principles in favour of regime compliance risks not only the integrity of our electoral process but jeopardises the very democratic freedoms for which many citizens have fought. The pattern of intimidation intertwined with financial pressures paints a bleak picture of current political dynamics, underscoring the urgency for a return to foundational democratic values.