The deepening crisis at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), centred on its President, Justice Winston Anderson, is forcing renewed scrutiny of concerns that have shadowed the regional court since its establishment: whether it is sufficiently independent, institutionally secure and insulated from political or internal influence to serve as the Caribbean’s highest court.
Those concerns are not new, nor are they confined to Guyana.
Anderson is at the centre of an unprecedented internal dispute after leaked correspondence revealed that five of the CCJ’s six sitting judges raised serious concerns about his leadership, including allegations of dictatorial management, “panel fixing” and attempts to influence judicial outcomes. The disclosures, reported by the Trinidad Sunday Express on August 9, have transformed longstanding external criticism into an internal judicial crisis involving a majority of the court’s judges.
Anderson previously served as General Counsel of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat from 2003 to 2006 before becoming a CCJ judge and later its president, placing him at the intersection of the region’s political and judicial institutions for years.
The controversy has also revived questions about the CCJ’s role in several major Guyanese matters.
The 2020 election controversy
A former A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) minister, commenting on the current crisis, described the CCJ’s intervention in Guyana’s disputed 2020 election as “judicial heresy.”
He pointed to Article 177(4) of Guyana’s Constitution, which provides that a decision of the Court of Appeal made under that provision is final.
Yet the then Opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo and then presidential candidate Irfaan Ali approached the CCJ seeking special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision arising from the disputed election. The CCJ granted the application and proceeded to hear the matter, overturning the Court of Appeals’ decision prompting a continuing debate over the scope of its jurisdiction.
For analysis the episode raised a fundamental constitutional question: if Guyana’s Constitution declares the Court of Appeal’s decision final, on what basis could another court assume appellate jurisdiction?
The issue remains unresolved and continues to shape concerns about the CCJ’s authority in Guyana.
He also pointed to Anderson’s record. In Attorney General of Guyana v. Cedric Richardson, the CCJ in 2018 upheld by a 6-1 majority Guyana’s constitutional two-term presidential limit. Anderson was the lone dissenter, arguing that the amendment restricted voters’ choice and required a referendum.
The former minister also questioned whether Anderson has adequately addressed concerns about his alleged role, if any, in the removal of Guyana’s former acting Chancellor.
Doubts beyond Guyana
Concerns about the CCJ have surfaced elsewhere in the Caribbean.
In May 2018, then-Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Stuart threatened to withdraw Barbados from the CCJ if his Democratic Labour Party returned to office. He accused some judges of treating Barbados, its litigants and its justice system disrespectfully and said he would not allow Barbados to be “disrespected by any politicians wearing robes.”
The DLP lost that election, and the threatened withdrawal did not occur.
More recently, Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has expressed reservations about replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ as her country’s final court of appeal, citing concerns surrounding the regional court and judicial independence.
That position is particularly notable because the CCJ is headquartered in Port of Spain, yet Trinidad and Tobago continues to retain the London-based Privy Council as its final appellate court.
Since the CCJ’s establishment in 2005, only a minority of CARICOM states have adopted it as their final court of appeal. They are: Dominica, Guyana; Saint Lucia; Barbados and Belize. Others participate in its original jurisdiction but continue to retain the Privy Council for domestic appeals.
Mohamed case intensifies scrutiny
The current controversy has acquired added significance in Guyana because the leaked correspondence reportedly touched on the extradition case involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
The CCJ recently ruled that extradition proceedings against the two men, who are sanctioned by the United States, could proceed.
Following the Sunday Express revelations, Mohamed has demanded answers and an inquiry.
“When five of six sitting judges raised concerns about the leadership and governance of the Caribbean’s highest court, and themselves allege attempts to influence judicial opinions in a matter involving Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition, silence is not an adequate institutional response,” Mohamed said.
The former minister warned that the controversy could have consequences beyond Anderson’s leadership.
“With no recourse for review,” he said, questions surrounding the court’s integrity and rulings “may well harden the stance of those who have refused to join the court as well as cause those who have joined already to reconsider.”
The Anderson controversy has therefore reopened an old regional question with new force: Can a court that has never secured universal Caribbean confidence now convince the region that its own house is in order?
