A deepening internal dispute at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has taken on greater significance after Justice Arif Bulkan warned that attempts by a single judge to override the majority could undermine the court’s appellate safeguards and ultimately threaten the institution itself.
The concerns were contained in a series of emails exchanged among CCJ judges in June 2026 amid complaints about the leadership of CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson. Express News, in a report by Mark Bassant, said the correspondence reveals concerns ranging from an allegedly imposed judicial dress code to accusations of “panel fixing” and attempts to influence case outcomes.
A majority of the court’s judges reportedly accused Anderson of managing the institution in an “authoritarian” and “dictatorial” manner.
Justice Bulkan, a Guyanese-born member of the court, raised fundamental questions about the implications of such leadership, particularly for judicial independence and the principle of collective decision-making.
Responding to a draft judicial dress code proposed by Anderson, Bulkan stressed that individual judges—not the president—retain authority over the substance of their judgments.
“…the content of our judgments is very clearly a matter within our sole discretion as independent office holders. What is more, the appellate process by its very definition requires a panel of more than one judge to consider an appeal and to independently come to a decision—if a President(sic) could overrule a majority there is no need for a panel.”
He explained that the involvement of several judges is itself a safeguard against individual bias and error.
“If one could simply say, I am doing X, even though 4 or 5 feel otherwise, the safeguard of the appellate process vanishes.”
Bulkan warned that such a development would have consequences beyond the CCJ’s internal administration, potentially reinforcing longstanding concerns among Caribbean governments and citizens about entrusting final appellate authority to a regional court.
“The fear of this happening in the Caribbean is precisely one of the fears that has held the majority of the region back from acceding to the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ.”
His comments are particularly significant in the context of Trinidad and Tobago, where Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has expressed reservations about the CCJ as the country’s final court of appeal. Trinidad and Tobago continues to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for final appeals.
Bulkan said concerns raised by Persad-Bissessar and citizens in countries that have rejected the CCJ’s appellate jurisdiction could be reinforced by the current controversy.
“The single incident of many that has caused me to speak out today and what has been for others a back-breaking straw, namely the process sought to be imposed on us in the Mohamed case, could validate that fear and the reservations about acceding to the CCJ.”
He issued an even stronger warning about the court’s future.
“If we were to continue along this anti-democratic path, the very survival of this institution will be threatened.”
The reference to the Mohamed case is particularly significant in Guyana, where the CCJ recently handed down a ruling in the high-profile extradition proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. The case arose from a United States extradition request and a challenge to the Authority to Proceed issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond. After the High Court and Court of Appeal rejected the Mohameds’ challenges, the CCJ on July 29, 2026, dismissed their appeal, holding that the minister had acted within her powers under the Fugitive Offenders Act and clearing the way for the extradition proceedings to resume.
Bulkan also challenged the approach to collegiality within the institution, arguing that judges must be treated as equals and given meaningful opportunities to contribute to decisions affecting the court.
“…there are constructive ways of fulfilling such obligations, one of which includes being respectful of colleagues’ opinions, recognizing peers as equals and treating them accordingly and not dismissing their concerns, and affording real opportunities for input and dialogue.”
The disclosures come amid growing public scrutiny of the CCJ’s independence and leadership. The allegations remain allegations and have not been independently established as fact.
Express News reported that questions were sent to Persad-Bissessar seeking her response to the allegations involving Anderson and whether the reported internal conflict has affected her confidence in the CCJ’s leadership.
