Fresh revelations of internal discord at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) have intensified political and legal scrutiny in Guyana, after Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed pointed to correspondence among judges suggesting deep divisions, concerns over judicial independence, and alleged interference in his extradition case.
The controversy follows a report in the Trinidad Sunday Express, which exposed serious tensions within the court, indicating that five of its six judges had raised concerns about the leadership of CCJ President Winston Anderson. According to the report, judges accused Anderson of an overly controlling management style and attempting to sway judicial outcomes. The claims also point to alleged manipulation of case panels and describe a strained working environment, with disputes emerging in part over a proposed dress code and the reassignment of a judge from a hearing panel.
In a statement issued August 9, Mohamed said his office was “deeply disturbed” by what he described as “extraordinary revelations” emerging from within the court itself. He emphasized that the concerns were not isolated, but reflected the views of an “overwhelming majority” of the bench, including Justices Chile Eboe-Osuji, Chantal Ononaiwu, Arif Bulkan, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee and Peter Jamadar.
Extradition case under the spotlight
At the center of the dispute is the extradition matter involving Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, which has been before the CCJ amid controversy linked to United States- related sanctions /extradition and Authority to Proceed-related issues. Only last month, the court ruled there was no bias in the handling of their case — a determination now being revisited in the court of public opinion in light of the internal concerns.
Justice Peter Jamadar, in correspondence cited by Mohamed’s office, described an increasingly “toxic” atmosphere within the CCJ and identified the Mohamed case as one impacting “the rule of law and the due administration of justice.”
“an attempt to influence the opinions of colleagues that differed”
Jamadar said he experienced such conduct during deliberations, adding that it was “far beyond anything” encountered in his judicial career and noting that other judges present shared concerns. He also warned of “emerging or creeping patterns of anti-democratic approaches” affecting judicial decision-making.
Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji endorsed those concerns in correspondence circulated among judges, delivering an even sharper critique of the court’s internal climate.
“never seen before the level of dictatorship in the administration of a judiciary”
Eboe-Osuji wrote, while alleging that interference in outcomes was not unique. Turning directly to the Mohamed case, he added:
“In the Mohameds’ case, it was stunning to hear Winston pointedly inform us that he was going to announce a decision of the court at a time and in a manner in which a clear majority of his colleagues had very strongly communicated to him as inappropriate.”
Questions over process and credibility
Mohamed’s statement argues that these disclosures raise fundamental questions about whether proper judicial procedures were followed and whether any attempt was made to influence dissenting judges. It also questions why a majority reportedly objected to the timing and manner of the court’s decision.
The issue is particularly sensitive given the CCJ’s role as Guyana’s final appellate court and a key judicial authority across CARICOM. Public confidence in the institution depends heavily on the perception — and reality — of independence, transparency and adherence to due process.
“When five of six sitting judges raise concerns about the leadership and governance of the Caribbean’s highest court… silence is not an adequate institutional response,” the statement said.
It further cited reports that Justice Eboe-Osuji called for an urgent meeting of judges, warning that internal dissatisfaction could be “approaching a crisis point if left unaddressed.”
Call for independent examination
Mohamed is now calling for “full transparency” and an independent probe into the allegations, particularly regarding the deliberations and proposed announcement of the decision in his extradition case.
“This is bigger than any individual litigant, judge, government or political party,” the statement said, framing the controversy as a test of institutional credibility for the region’s highest court.
With Guyana’s political climate already polarized and the Mohamed case carrying significant legal and diplomatic implications, the fallout from the CCJ revelations is likely to reverberate beyond the courtroom.
“The integrity of the CCJ is too important… to remain unanswered,” the statement concluded, warning that judicial independence “must exist in practice” and be demonstrably protected.
