High Court orders Magistrate to recuse herself from SOCU’s cases over apparent bias

Chief Justice (acting) Navindra Singh, has granted judicial review orders to the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), including declarations and an order of Mandamus, compelling Magistrate Tameika Clarke to recuse herself from five of SOCU’s cases on the grounds of apparent bias.

SOCU recounted that in November 2022, Clarke, then an Attorney-at-Law in private practice, filed constitutional proceedings against SOCU.

In November 2023, the State accepted liability, and the Court awarded Clarke damages against the State.

In July 2024, SOCU instituted charges against Ian Jacobis and three others with money laundering, and separately charged Ivor Scipio with illegally exporting gold offences.

In September 2025, the cases were assigned to Magistrate Clarke for hearing.

In October 2025, the cases were set for the commencement of trial before Magistrate Clarke. SOCU Prosecutor made application for Magistrate Clarke to recuse herself from SOCU’s cases due to her previous civil dispute with SOCU inter alia and she refused the application.

SOCU then filed Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court seeking several declarations, and an order of Mandamus, compelling Magistrate Clarke, to recuse herself from five SOCU cases on the basis of apparent bias.

SOCU contended that the Magistrate’s decision not to recuse herself from the cases was improper, arbitrary and unfair, unreasonable and irrational, capricious and irregular given the circumstances surrounding the previous legal dispute, which she filed against SOCU, and her adverse and improper rulings against the Unit.

After the heated court battle between SOCU and Magistrate Clarke, Justice Singh found that the previous legal dispute between Clarke and SOCU was personal and not a professional disagreement during the course of her practice against the police. Chief Justice Singh ruled that justice must be seen to be done, and based on Guyana’s Code of Ethics for Judicial Officers, a judicial officer should disqualify himself/herself from a matter where he/she was a party to a prior personal involvement and where he/she may reasonably give the appearance of bias to any onlooker.

Consequently, the High Court granted SOCU’s application for judicial review and made a mandamus order compelling Magistrate Clarke to recuse herself from the said five SOCU cases on the ground of apparent bias and that the cases be assigned to another sitting Magistrate.

Chief Justice Singh, in his ruling, also declared that Magistrate Clarke acted irrationally, arbitrarily and exercised her discretion wrongly when she refused to recuse herself from the SOCU cases.

He further declared that Magistrate Clarke’s decision not to recuse herself from the SOCU cases, was irregular or improper exercise of discretion, reasonable and unfair.

Head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh has since said that it is unfortunate that the organisation had to resort to court action to ensure compliance of Magistrate Clarke since Magistrates should not act illegally, irrationally, arbitrarily in exercising their functions.

SOCU was represented by SOCU’s Attorney-at-Law and Prosecutor, David Brathwaite.

Magistrate Clarke was represented by State Solicitor General Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hawke and other attorneys of the Attorney General Chambers.