The High Court on Thursday dismissed a legal challenge filed by Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed seeking to overturn the revocation of their cambio licence by the Bank of Guyana.
In a decision delivered on March 5, 2026, Justice Damone Younge dismissed the Fixed Date Application brought by the Mohameds, ruling that the central bank acted lawfully and that the applicants were given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made.
As such, Justice Younge ordered the father-and-son duo to pay $250,000 in costs to the Bank of Guyana by April 10, 2026.
The case stemmed from the Bank of Guyana’s decision in June 2024 to revoke the cambio licence issued to the business under the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act, after the Mohameds were sanctioned by the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and placed on its Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.
The applicants argued that the central bank acted unfairly and breached the principles of natural justice by revoking the licence without giving them a proper opportunity to respond. They also contended that the Bank of Guyana improperly relied on a foreign designation when making the decision.
However, Justice Younge rejected those claims, finding that the Bank of Guyana had the legal authority to revoke the licence and did so in accordance with the law. The court noted that the central bank had invited the applicants to a hearing on June 13, 2024, to discuss its intention to revoke the licence.
Evidence before the court showed that the first applicant acknowledged the invitation by email and confirmed he would attend, but ultimately failed to appear. As a result, the court held that the Mohameds were given a reasonable opportunity to be heard but did not take advantage of it.
Justice Younge also ruled that the Bank of Guyana was entitled to consider the applicants’ placement on the OFAC sanctions list when assessing whether they remained “fit and proper” to operate a cambio business, as required under the licensing legislation.
Additionally, the court found that the applicants delayed too long before filing the judicial review proceedings. The challenge was brought one year after the licence had been revoked, and by that time the licence had already expired on December 31, 2024.
Given the delay and the lack of explanation for it, the court concluded that the applicants were not entitled to the relief they sought.
Attorney Darren Wade represented the Mohameds, while Pauline Chase represented the Bank of Guyana.
