High Court orders Magistrate Tamieka Clarke to recuse herself from SOCU cases over apparent bias
The High Court has ordered Magistrate Tamieka Clarke to recuse herself from five cases brought by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), after finding that her continued involvement created an appearance of bias.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, January 9, 2026, Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh granted judicial review orders in favour of SOCU, including declarations and an order of mandamus compelling Magistrate Clarke to step aside from the matters and for the cases to be reassigned to another sitting magistrate.
The judicial review application was filed by Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh, Head of SOCU, following Magistrate Clarke’s refusal to recuse herself from the cases despite a previous personal legal dispute with the unit.
SOCU told the court that in November 2022, Clarke, while in private legal practice, had filed constitutional proceedings against SOCU. In November 2023, the State accepted liability and damages were awarded to her. In July 2024, SOCU later instituted money laundering charges against Ian Jacobis and three others, and separately charged Ivor Scipio with illegal gold export offences.
Those matters were assigned to Magistrate Clarke in September 2025 and scheduled for trial in October 2025. SOCU subsequently applied for her recusal, citing the prior civil action and what it described as adverse and improper rulings against the unit. Magistrate Clarke refused the application, prompting SOCU to approach the High Court.
After hearing arguments from all parties, Acting Chief Justice Singh ruled that the prior legal dispute between Magistrate Clarke and SOCU was personal in nature and not a professional disagreement arising during the ordinary course of legal practice.
The Chief Justice stressed that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. He referenced Guyana’s Code of Ethics for Judicial Officers, which requires a judicial officer to disqualify himself or herself where prior personal involvement could reasonably give rise to an appearance of bias.
As a result, the court granted SOCU’s application and issued an order of mandamus compelling Magistrate Clarke to recuse herself from the cases involving Ian Jacobis, Ashauna Sakarlal, Shammam Ahmad, and Inez Selvan. The court further ordered that the matters be reassigned to another magistrate.
The High Court also declared that Magistrate Clarke acted illegally, irrationally and arbitrarily, and exercised her discretion wrongly when she refused to recuse herself. The court ruled that her decision amounted to an improper, unreasonable, and unfair exercise of discretion.
Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh, in addressing the outcome, said it was unfortunate that SOCU had to resort to court action, emphasising that magistrates must not act illegally or arbitrarily, particularly where there is an appearance of bias in the execution of their statutory duties.
SOCU was represented by attorney-at-law David Braithwaite. Magistrate Clarke was represented by Solicitor General Nigel Hawke and other attorneys from the Attorney General’s Chambers.
The ruling warns that failure to comply with the court’s order could result in contempt proceedings.
