Concerns raised by People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) leader Aubrey Norton about Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President Justice Winston Anderson’s involvement in Guyana’s judicial affairs have resurfaced with greater force following revelations of a deepening internal dispute among judges of the regional court.
The Trinidad Sunday Express reported on Sunday, August 9, 2026, that leaked internal correspondence had exposed serious divisions within the CCJ over Anderson’s leadership. Five of the court’s six sitting judges reportedly raised concerns about his management of the institution, including allegations of “dictatorial” leadership, “panel fixing” and attempts to influence judicial decisions.
The reported concerns also involve the composition of judicial panels, the removal of a judge from a case, judicial deliberations, administrative management and a proposed judicial dress code. The allegations have not been independently established, but their reported source—correspondence among sitting judges—has raised serious questions about the court’s internal governance and judicial independence.
The revelations are particularly significant in Guyana because Norton’s concerns about Anderson did not originate with the recent case involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed. They followed a direct engagement between Norton, then Leader of the Opposition, and Anderson on October 15, 2025, concerning Guyana’s stalled judicial appointments.
Norton recalled the encounter with him during an interview published on his party’s Facebook page, making clear that his criticism of Anderson predates the Mohamed case.
“My concern with Justice Anderson, when I was dealing with him, had to do with what I perceived to be his involvement in Guyanese politics, when he should be an impartial actor.”
At the time of the October 2025 engagement, President Irfaan Ali and then Opposition Leader Norton were locked in a long-running impasse over the substantive appointment of a Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice. Norton said Anderson engaged him about the matter and that he expressed his opposition to any move that would supersede then-Acting Chancellor Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards.
Norton later disclosed that he terminated the engagement when he concluded that it was not in Guyana’s best interest.
“He engaged me. I stated the position and when I thought this wasn’t in the interest of Guyana, I discontinued to engage.”
Guyana has not had a substantive (confirmed) Chancellor of the Judiciary since 2005, and has lacked a substantive Chief Justice since 2001. Justice Désirée Bernard was the last confirmed Chief Justice (serving from 1996 to 2001) and the last confirmed Chancellor (serving from 2001 until she left for the Caribbean Court of Justice in 2005)
The significance of that intervention was that the matter concerned appointments within Guyana’s domestic judiciary—appointments requiring agreement between the President and Opposition Leader—while Anderson was president of the region’s apex court.
Norton subsequently questioned whether the CCJ president’s involvement was appropriate and whether it could affect perceptions of the court’s impartiality in matters involving Guyana.
“I would say to you this last set of engagement raises serious concerns about the impartiality of the Caribbean Court of Justice.”
He also said he suspected, although could not establish, that Anderson’s engagement with him may have been connected to President Ali.
“I would be hard-pressed to say I know. But I would say it would be reasonable to say I suspect so.”
Norton’s latest account provides further detail about what he considered troubling about the encounter. He said he was contacted about proposed appointments involving acting Chancellor Roxane George and acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh and was given information concerning the departure of then acting Chancellor Cummings-Edwards that he found difficult to reconcile.
He said he subsequently had further engagements with Anderson and was struck by the CCJ president’s apparent knowledge of discussions taking place within the Guyanese government.
“And he said to me that the President and them were waiting to see when these two persons.”
Norton said he asked Anderson how he knew what the government was waiting for.
“So I said, how you know that? And he said to me he was there.”
Norton said he understood Anderson to mean that he had been at the President’s office.
The account now assumes added significance against the backdrop of the internal allegations reported from the CCJ. The issues raised by the judges, if substantiated, go beyond disagreements over management style and touch on the fundamental question of whether the president of the regional court has exercised his authority in a manner consistent with judicial independence.
That concern is especially sensitive in Guyana, where Anderson has presided over or participated in proceedings involving politically consequential disputes.
The CCJ recently dismissed the extradition appeal involving businessman and political figure Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. Anderson was among the judges on the panel.
Norton, however, has expressly rejected any suggestion that his criticism of Anderson is a reaction to that ruling.
“I want to make it clear, it has nothing to do with this case with Mohammed.”
That distinction is important. Norton’s concern predates the Mohamed litigation by months and arose from his direct interaction with Anderson over Guyana’s judicial appointments.
What is now emerging from inside the CCJ, however, places that earlier episode in a broader and more troubling context.
The Sunday Express revelations have raised allegations involving panel composition, judicial deliberations and attempts to influence decisions—issues that strike directly at the credibility of a court whose authority depends on public confidence in its independence and impartiality.
For Norton, the question is therefore not simply whether Anderson disagreed with him over Guyana’s judicial appointments. It is whether the president of the Caribbean’s highest court crossed a line by becoming involved in a politically sensitive domestic judicial process—and whether the concerns now being voiced by a majority of his fellow judges point to a wider problem in the way the court is being led.
The allegations remain unproven. But the convergence of Norton’s longstanding concerns with the extraordinary internal criticisms now reported from within the CCJ has placed Anderson’s leadership under an unusually intense regional spotlight.
