The Office of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday called for transparency and an independent examination of allegations of internal discord and interference in judicial decision-making at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) while Terrence Campbell, the leader of APNU’s parliamentary wing has called for the resignation of the President of the Court, Justice Winston Anderson.
Their statements followed a Trinidad Express investigation which, citing internal correspondence, reported deep disagreements between five of the court’s six sitting judges and Justice Anderson over his leadership of the regional court.
The Express reported that a dispute which began over a proposed judicial dress code broadened into concerns about the administration of the court, the composition of judicial panels and the independence of judges. The concerns were reportedly raised by Justices Chile Eboe-Osuji, Chantal Ononaiwu, Arif Bulkan, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee and Peter Jamadar.
Some of the allegations relate to the CCJ proceedings involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. The court on July 29 dismissed their appeal, allowing extradition proceedings requested by the United States to continue before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
According to the Express, Justice Jamadar alleged that, during deliberations in the Mohamed matter, he experienced what he considered an attempt by Justice Anderson to influence colleagues whose opinions differed from his. Justice Jamadar reportedly described the experience as going beyond anything he had previously encountered as an appellate judge.
Justice Eboe-Osuji was also reported as alleging that Justice Anderson intended to announce a decision in the Mohamed matter at a time and in a manner which a clear majority of his colleagues had considered inappropriate.
Nothing in the correspondence reported by the Express establishes that the outcome of the Mohamed appeal was improperly determined, and there has been no independent finding supporting the allegations.
In its statement, the Office of the Leader of the Opposition said it was “deeply disturbed” by the reported correspondence, which it said raised serious questions about judicial independence, the integrity of the court’s deliberations and the administration of justice.
It stressed that the concerns had reportedly been raised by five of the court’s six sitting judges and therefore could not be dismissed as the view of a lone or dissenting member.
“The significance of these revelations cannot be overstated,” the statement said. It noted that Guyana recognises the CCJ as its final appellate court and argued that public confidence in the institution depended on the independence of each judge and the assurance that no member, regardless of seniority, could improperly influence another’s opinion.
The opposition office highlighted Justice Jamadar’s reported description of an increasingly “toxic” environment at the court and his warning about what he considered possible “emerging or creeping patterns of anti-democratic approaches” affecting judges in the discharge of their functions.
It also cited Justice Eboe-Osuji’s reported endorsement of Justice Jamadar’s concerns and his claim that the administration of the judiciary had reached a level of “dictatorship” which he had not previously witnessed. Justice Eboe-Osuji reportedly called for an urgent meeting of the judges and warned that disenchantment within the court could be approaching a “crisis point” if left unaddressed.
The opposition office said the reported events had moved the issue beyond a dispute about the outcome of one case.
“It is a question about the integrity of the process by which justice itself was administered,” it declared.
“The people of Guyana and the wider Caribbean are entitled to know precisely what occurred during the deliberations in the Mohamed extradition matter,” the statement added.
It asked whether attempts had been made to influence judges who disagreed with the court’s president, why a majority had reportedly objected to the timing and manner of a proposed announcement, and whether established conventions governing deliberations and the delivery of decisions had been departed from.
It also questioned whether any of the reported circumstances had affected the integrity, independence or perceived fairness of the judicial process.
The office said silence was not an adequate institutional response when a majority of the sitting judges had reportedly raised concerns about the leadership and governance of the region’s highest court.
“A court that demands accountability, independence and adherence to the rule of law from governments must hold itself to those same standards,” it said.
It called for “full transparency and an appropriate independent examination” of the allegations, including the circumstances surrounding the deliberations and proposed announcement of the decision in the Mohamed matter.
“This is bigger than any individual litigant, judge, government or political party,” the opposition office stated. “It concerns the credibility of an institution upon which millions of Caribbean citizens depend as the ultimate guardian of justice and the rule of law.”
Campbell in his statement said that the recent reports about Justice Anderson raise questions that cannot simply be dismissed as an internal disagreement within the Court.
He said that in Guyana, serious questions have been raised about Justice Anderson’s engagement with then Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton concerning the appointment of a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice, at a time when the position of Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards was under intense controversy.
“Mr. Norton has confirmed that Justice Anderson engaged him on the issue, that he expressed his opposition to any supersession of Justice Cummings-Edwards, and that he terminated the discussion when he concluded that the engagement was not in the best interests of Guyana. The subsequent decision by Justice Cummings-Edwards to take pre-retirement leave has intensified concerns about what occurred”, Campbell said.
Even more disturbing, Campbell said, are the reports from the Trinidad Express of a deep divide within the CCJ itself, including concerns about Justice Anderson’s leadership and allegations regarding his treatment of other judges.
These matters cannot be viewed in isolation, he said.
“A final court must be scrupulously independent of governments, political parties and political personalities. The President of such a court must also avoid conduct that creates even the reasonable perception that he is acting as an intermediary in political or executive efforts concerning the judiciary of a member state.
“The issue is therefore not whether every allegation against Justice Anderson has been proven. The issue is whether the accumulation of these allegations and reported internal divisions has damaged the confidence that must exist in the leadership of the CCJ.
“That question becomes even more serious when Justice Anderson is simultaneously calling upon the remaining CARICOM countries to join the CCJ’s appellate jurisdiction. The Court cannot credibly persuade countries to entrust their final judicial appeals to the CCJ while questions persist about the independence of its leadership and while reports of serious divisions within the institution remain unresolved”, Campbell said.
He added that the Caribbean deserves a final court whose judges are free from political influence and whose President commands the confidence of his fellow judges, the legal profession, governments and the people of the region.
“Justice Anderson should therefore resign as President of the Caribbean Court of Justice.
His resignation would not be an admission of guilt. It would be an act of institutional responsibility.
“It would create the space for the CCJ to address the concerns that have emerged, restore confidence in its leadership, reaffirm the principle of judicial independence and demonstrate that the integrity of the institution must always take precedence over the tenure of any individual office-holder”, Campbell said.
The Working People’s Alliance said it was concerned by what it termed reports of “political manoeuvring” and “one-manism” at the regional court.
The party said the allegations, if established, could damage the integrity of the CCJ and strengthen arguments by regional political groups which have opposed the institution on the ground that it could become vulnerable to political influence.
“While it is too early to draw conclusions, this does not look good,” WPA co-leader David Hinds said in the brief statement.
The Express also reported a controversy over Justice Anderson’s removal of Justice Eboe-Osuji from the panel hearing D’Almada v Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and CARICOM. Justice Anderson reportedly said a change to the panel was “desirable”, while Justice Eboe-Osuji subsequently alleged that he had been removed because of a disagreement with the president on a central point of law.
The CCJ, responding to questions from the Express, defended its integrity and independence and warned that claims about its internal workings could be misunderstood when presented without the context of judicial deliberations, collegial discussions and institutional governance.
The court said its judges remained committed to independence, impartiality and integrity and recognised that maintaining public confidence was fundamental to the rule of law.
According to the Express, however, the CCJ’s response did not specifically address the claims concerning deliberations in the Mohamed matter, the change to the D’Almada panel or alleged efforts to discourage separate and dissenting judgments.
Discussion