Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President Justice Winston Anderson has mounted a detailed defence of his leadership, flatly rejecting allegations that he manipulated judicial panels or attempted to influence judges, while acknowledging that he may have handled aspects of his administration differently.
Anderson’s nine-page statement, issued on August 14, comes five days after the Trinidad Sunday Express on August 9 exposed an extraordinary internal dispute among CCJ judges, based on confidential correspondence that raised allegations about Anderson’s ‘dictatorial” management of the Court, panel composition and the handling of judicial deliberations.
The controversy has particular significance for Guyana because the CCJ is the country’s final court of appeal. The dispute also touches directly on the Court’s recent handling of the extradition case involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, in which the seven-member Court unanimously dismissed their appeal on July 29. The CCJ ruled no bias exists in the issuance of the Minister of Home Affairs’ Authority to Proceed (ATP) on the extradition matter.
Anderson began his response by attacking the leaking of internal correspondence rather than the allegations themselves.
“I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the unauthorised disclosure and publication of confidential material relating to the internal deliberations and confidential correspondence of the Court.”
He said the disclosures damage both the institution and public confidence in the judiciary.
“It erodes trust in the sanctity of judicial deliberations and judicial collegiality. It erodes public trust and confidence in the third branch.”
But with allegations now publicly aired, Anderson said he would address them individually and acknowledge his own shortcomings where appropriate.
Panel-fixing allegation
Perhaps the most serious allegation concerns claims that judicial panels were constituted or altered to influence outcomes.
Anderson rejected the allegation categorically.
“The allegation is wholly untrue.”
The case at the centre of that controversy is D’Almada v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago. Anderson confirmed that he removed a judge from an interlocutory panel, but said the decision had nothing to do with the judge’s legal views or the merits of the case.
Instead, he said the judge had refused to follow what Anderson considered established CCJ practice concerning judicial attire.
Anderson said he had made the basis for the decision clear in writing and later included the same judge on the Full Bench for the substantive hearing.
“At no time was the alteration motivated by any consideration relating to the merits of the case or the anticipated outcome of the proceedings.”
He acknowledged, however, that he may have approached the dress-code issue too forcefully.
The controversy has now prompted an institutional change. Anderson announced that, going forward, every CCJ judge will sit on every panel unless the judge opts out for a legitimate reason and is excused.
Mohamed case raises fresh questions
Anderson also addressed allegations surrounding the preparation of the judgment in Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed v Minister of Home Affairs and others.
Internal correspondence reported by the Sunday Express had raised concerns about alleged attempts to influence judicial views during deliberations. The Mohamed case was specifically cited by judges in correspondence concerning Anderson’s leadership.
Anderson said robust disagreements during appellate deliberations are normal and necessary.
“Such exchanges are not evidence of disagreement within the institution; they are evidence of Judges conscientiously performing their judicial functions.”
He insisted that no judge was directed to reach a particular conclusion.
“No Judge worthy of being on the CCJ Bench would ever allow himself or herself to be unduly influenced by any other Judge including the President.”
Anderson stressed that the Mohamed appeal ended in “COMPLETE UNANIMITY” among the seven judges on the disposition of the case. That is consistent with the Court’s publicly announced July 29 decision.
Guyana intervention defended—and reconsidered
Anderson also defended his involvement in Guyana’s prolonged failure to substantively appoint a Chancellor and Chief Justice.
He confirmed meeting President Irfaan Ali and then Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton in an effort to break the impasse, which he said has lasted more than two decades.
But in a notable admission, Anderson said he now believes he could have taken a different approach.
“Looking back, I recognise that another course would have been much better.”
He said he might have confined himself to public commentary on the constitutional importance of substantive judicial appointments, as previous CCJ presidents had done.
Nevertheless, Anderson maintained that his intervention was driven by concern for judicial independence, not political preference.
Calls for scrutiny
The controversy has already generated calls for an investigation. Azruddin Mohamed has called for an inquiry into the allegations and internal conflict at the CCJ, arguing that the public must have confidence that the region’s apex court operates independently and impartially.
The Guyana Trades Union Congress has separately written to CARICOM leadership and the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission calling for an investigation into the reported divisions within the Court.
The Guyana Bar Association has also expressed concern about the leaked correspondence while declining to take a position on the substance of the allegations. It stressed that the CCJ must remain a “bastion of justice” and operate consistently with its Code of Judicial Conduct.
Anderson’s statement seeks to draw a firm line between judicial disagreement and judicial interference, but the controversy has moved beyond a dispute over internal management. It now raises a larger question for the Caribbean: can public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the region’s highest court be restored without an independent examination of the allegations that have now entered the public domain?
For a court whose authority ultimately rests on public confidence, that question may prove harder to dismiss than the allegations themselves.
