Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall S.C., has launched a strong defence of Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President Justice Winston Anderson, condemning criticism of the regional court as “scurrilous” and warning that attacks on judges could bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
But Region 10 Regional Councillor and We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) member, Region 10 Vice Chairman Mark Goring has refused to back down from his call for Anderson to resign, saying his apology was limited to the tone of his earlier remarks and did not alter his concerns about the leadership of Guyana’s final court.
The confrontation comes amid mounting controversy at the CCJ following the Trinidad Sunday Express’s August 9 report on leaked internal correspondence in which several sitting judges reportedly accused Anderson of authoritarian and dictatorial leadership. The correspondence also raised concerns about the composition of judicial panels, court administration and alleged attempts to influence judicial outcomes.
Appearing on his weekly television programme- Issues In The News– on Tuesday night, Nandlall condemned a social media post by Goring directed at Anderson.
“This is a grossly disrespectful and scurrilous attack upon the President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, the highest-ranking judicial officer of the Judiciary of Guyana,” Nandlall said.
He described the publication as an attack on both the CCJ and the administration of justice, and called on “every right-thinking member of society” to condemn it.
Nandlall further argued that while citizens are entitled to criticise the Court and its judges, criticism must be expressed respectfully.
“To do so, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and constitute a contempt of Court,” he said.
He also endorsed statements from the Guyana Bar Council and judicial leaders from several Caribbean countries condemning the leak of the CCJ’s internal correspondence, while deliberately avoiding comment on the substance of the allegations contained in the documents.
Goring, however, responded- via statement- by offering an apology for the manner in which he previously expressed himself, while making clear that he had no intention of withdrawing his substantive criticism.
“I offer my respectful apology to the Honorable President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Justice Winston Anderson. My previous comments were disrespectful and out of order. I was raised by my mother to be a gentleman, and I regret the tone of my remarks.”
Goring’s statement mistakenly referred to Justice Adrian Saunders, the former CCJ president, rather than current President Justice Winston Anderson.
But Goring immediately drew a distinction between apologising for his language and abandoning his position.
“That apology, however, does not change my position. I stand by my call for the President of the CCJ to resign in order to preserve the integrity of the final appellate court for Guyana.”
Turning the Attorney General’s criticism back on him, Goring argued that Nandlall’s attention should extend beyond his defence of Anderson to what he described as more serious national problems.
“Mr. Attorney General, while you have taken issue with my words, there are far graver matters that demand your attention.”
Goring pointed to five areas he believes require urgent attention.
Law, order and good governance
“The people of Guyana are living with a growing sense of insecurity. The rule of law must be restored and applied without fear or favor.”
Goring also challenged the government over the political situation in Region 10, where he said democratic oversight remains incomplete.
“How can you be comfortable with your government presiding over the erosion of democratic norms? Region 10 is a prime example. It remains the only region without an elected Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and a properly constituted Regional Democratic Council to provide oversight of the Regional Administration.”
On the judiciary, Goring said the Attorney General should be concerned not only with defending judicial officials but with ensuring that the system commands public confidence.
“You must concern yourself with ensuring that our judicial system functions effectively and meets international standards of independence, timeliness, and fairness.”
He linked that concern to what he described as a growing crisis of confidence in the justice system.
“You must address the fact that a significant number of citizens have lost confidence in our judicial system. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.”
Goring also raised concerns about the perception that the law does not operate equally for everyone.
“Mr. Attorney General, how can we strive as a nation and present ourselves as an attractive tourist destination and the fastest-growing economy, when there appears to be one unwritten law for the ‘haves’ and another for the ‘have-nots’?”
He argued that such perceptions threaten Guyana’s development and social cohesion.
“That contradiction undermines development, investment, and national unity.”
Goring ended by framing his intervention as a broader call for accountability rather than simply a personal attack on the CCJ president.
“Guyana deserves better. The people deserve leadership that upholds the Constitution, defends democracy, and delivers justice equally to all.”
The increasingly public dispute comes at a sensitive time for the CCJ. As Guyana’s final court of appeal, the institution occupies a central position in the country’s justice system, making questions surrounding judicial independence, internal governance and public confidence particularly consequential.
The central issue now extends beyond the language used by Goring or Nandlall’s defence of Anderson: Can the serious concerns reportedly raised by members of the CCJ itself be addressed openly and credibly enough to restore confidence in the region’s highest court?
