The Caribbean Court of Justice has been plunged into an unprecedented crisis following the publication of internal correspondence in which five of its six sitting judges reportedly challenged the leadership of CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson.
The allegations extend far beyond disagreements over administrative style. According to an investigative report published by the Sunday Express, judges raised concerns about authoritarian leadership, “panel fixing” and attempts to influence the outcome of cases before the region’s highest court.
The disclosures strike at the foundation of judicial independence and are likely to trigger demands across the Caribbean for an independent investigation into how CCJ panels are selected, how judgments are deliberated and whether adequate safeguards exist to prevent any president of the court from exerting improper influence over fellow judges.
They will also inevitably raise difficult questions in Guyana, where CCJ decisions have played decisive roles in the country’s political and constitutional history.
One member of the bar to while Village Voice reached out for comment stated that, “Among the cases likely to return to public discussion is the CCJ’s July 2020 decision arising from Guyana’s disputed general and regional elections. That ruling overturned a decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal, invalidated a report submitted by then Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield and cleared the legal path for the declaration that brought the People’s Progressive Party/Civic to government.”
The local lawyer continued that, “There is presently no evidence in the material published by the Sunday Express that the 2020 Guyana elections decision was improperly influenced. Justice Anderson was also not a member of the panel that decided that case.”
The [official CCJ judgment](https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2020-CCJ-10-AJ.pdf) shows that the panel comprised then CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders and Justices Jacob Wit, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Denys Barrow and Peter Jamadar. The decision was unanimous, and the [CCJ’s official media release](https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Media-Release-Mohammed-Ifraan-Ali-et-al-v-Eslyn-David-et-al6.pdf) stated that all five sitting judges contributed to it.
Justice Anderson did not become president of the CCJ until July 6, 2025. Nevertheless, allegations of interference within any apex court are so grave that citizens will now ask whether the problem is confined to the specific recent cases identified by the judges or whether the court’s broader internal processes require independent examination.
Dress-code dispute opened deeper wounds
The controversy reportedly began with a June 22, 2026 email in which Justice Anderson circulated a proposed judicial dress-code policy that he intended to place before the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission.
Several judges objected that the proposal had not first been properly discussed and approved by the judges themselves.What initially appeared to be an internal disagreement over courtroom attire quickly exposed deep dissatisfaction with Anderson’s leadership and the administration of the court.
Justice Peter Jamadar reportedly described the internal environment as increasingly “toxic” and raised concerns connected to the core judicial functions of independence, impartiality and integrity. He identified two matters before the court, including the Mohamed extradition proceedings involving Guyanese businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed. Justice Jamadar reportedly alleged that he experienced an attempt to influence colleagues whose opinions differed from those of the CCJ president.
The Mohamed case was politically explosive in Guyana. The CCJ ultimately allowed extradition proceedings to continue, although three judges found apparent bias in public statements made by Attorney General Anil Nandlall. The court did not order the Mohameds’ extradition.
Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji reportedly endorsed Jamadar’s concerns and alleged that the experience was not unique. He also referred to another case, Barrow v CARICOM, in which he claimed that established conventions governing disagreements among judges were threatened.
These are allegations made by judges of the court itself. They cannot be dismissed as complaints from disappointed litigants, political opponents or members of the public who disagree with a judgment.
Public confidence now at risk
The CCJ is Guyana’s final court of appeal. Its authority depends heavily upon public confidence that cases are assigned impartially, judges are permitted to deliberate independently and no judicial officer is pressured to alter an opinion. Even the appearance that panels might be manipulated, or that a court president might attempt to shape judgments through authority rather than legal reasoning, can inflict lasting damage upon that confidence.
The allegations do not automatically invalidate any judgment. A party seeking to challenge a particular decision would require evidence connecting the alleged misconduct to that case and would have to overcome the important principle of finality. However, the disclosures create an urgent institutional responsibility.
The CCJ and the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission must now tell the Caribbean public whether the allegations will be independently investigated. They must also explain how panels are selected, whether the president can alter their composition, how disagreements among judges are handled and what protection exists for judges who believe their independence is being threatened.
Silence will deepen suspicion. The legitimacy of the Caribbean’s highest court now requires transparency, accountability and an investigation capable of commanding regional confidence.
