In one of the emails obtained by the Trinidad Express of exchanges among CCJ judges, Guyana-born Justice Arif Bulkan had warned that any attempt by the court’s president to override the views of a majority of judges would validate regional distrust of the institution and threaten its survival.
Justice Bulkan’s warning was contained in an email circulated among the judges in June during an increasingly acrimonious exchange over the leadership of CCJ President, Justice Winston Anderson, according to Sunday’s Trinidad Express.
Five of the court’s six sitting judges based on the email exchanges which have not been refuted raised concerns about Justice Anderson’s leadership, including allegations of unilateral decision-making, manipulation of judicial panels and attempts to influence the handling of cases.
Justice Bulkan said the independence of individual judges and the requirement for several judges to hear an appeal were central safeguards against bias.
“If a President could overrule a majority there is no need for a panel,” he wrote.
He said in the email the participation of several judges in appellate proceedings was intended to ensure rigour, draw on a breadth of knowledge and experience and prevent the views or biases of one judge from determining an appeal, the Trinidad Express reported yesterday.
According to Justice Bulkan, permitting a court president to impose a position despite opposition from four or five judges would cause the safeguards of the appellate process to disappear.
He tied the dispute to longstanding resistance in several Caribbean countries to accepting the CCJ as their final appellate court.
Justice Bulkan referred specifically to concerns expressed by Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, whose government has said it does not intend to replace the United Kingdom-based Privy Council with the CCJ.
He said citizens who had rejected the CCJ in referenda, along with regional leaders such as Persad-Bissessar, had articulated distrust of a regional institution and doubts about its ability to judge matters with integrity and competence.
Justice Bulkan said the procedure proposed in the extradition appeal involving Guyana Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, could validate those fears.
“If we were to continue along this anti-democratic path, the very survival of this institution will be threatened,” he warned. It is unclear what the proposed procedure was.
The Trinidad Express said it sent questions by WhatsApp to Persad-Bissessar seeking her response to the allegations and asking whether they had affected her confidence in Justice Anderson’s leadership.
No response from the Prime Minister was reported.
Justice Bulkan also raised concerns about collegiality and respect among the judges. He said the court’s obligations should be fulfilled by recognising colleagues as equals, respecting their opinions and providing genuine opportunities for dialogue.
The dispute reportedly began on June 22 when Justice Anderson circulated a draft judicial dress code and advised that it would be placed before the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission four days later.
Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji objected, contending that the policy should first be discussed and approved by the judges. Justices Chantal Ononaiwu, Bulkan, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee and Peter Jamadar subsequently raised similar concerns about the process.
The email exchange later widened into more serious allegations about the administration of the court and the discharge of judicial functions.
Justice Jamadar described the working environment as increasingly “toxic” and alleged that an attempt had been made to influence colleagues during deliberations in the Mohamed extradition matter.
Justice Eboe-Osuji subsequently supported Justice Jamadar’s concerns and accused Justice Anderson of administering the court in a dictatorial manner. He also called for an urgent meeting of the judges.
The Trinidad Express had previously reported that Justice Eboe-Osuji was removed from the panel hearing D’Almada v Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and CARICOM after Justice Anderson informed him and Justice Bulkan that a change in the panel was “desirable”.
Justice Eboe-Osuji alleged that the removal followed a disagreement between him and Justice Anderson over a legal issue in the case.
The concerns raised about the Mohamed case appeared to relate, at least in part, to the timing and manner in which the court’s decision would be announced.
They do not establish that the judges disagreed with the eventual result.
Full transparency
The CCJ unanimously dismissed the Mohameds’ appeal on July 29, clearing the way for extradition proceedings requested by the United States to continue in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court. Four of the five judges who had raised concerns about Justice Anderson participated in the reading of the decision.
The United States is seeking the extradition of the Mohameds to face an 11-count indictment containing allegations of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud and money laundering. The allegations have not been tried.
Mohamed has called for full transparency and an independent examination of the complaints raised by the judges.
“The integrity of the CCJ is too important to the Caribbean to permit allegations of this magnitude, emanating from within the Court itself, to remain unanswered,” his office said.
APNU parliamentary leader Terrence Campbell has also expressed concern about Justice Anderson’s independence.
“I am a firm believer in the CCJ. However, I have had cause to worry about the independence of Justice Anderson. This newspaper article now adds to my angst,” Campbell said.
Act quickly
Meanwhile, former CARICOM Assistant Secretary General Ambassador Byron Blake has urged the CCJ to act quickly to prevent the controversy from escalating.
“It is not a trivial matter,” Blake told the Jamaica Gleaner, while stressing that “allegations are not proven facts”.
He called on the court to establish an appropriate mechanism to contain the situation before it got out of hand.
Blake said disagreements among judges were not in themselves surprising, but he would be shocked if early steps were not taken to resolve the dispute.
He also cautioned against using the current controversy, before it had been resolved or adjudicated, to discredit the CCJ’s wider record.
Blake said the court had delivered “solid, solid judgments” during more than two decades of operation and suggested that the controversy should instead be treated as an early warning requiring institutional action.
The CCJ, in a statement issued to the Trinidad Express on Saturday, reaffirmed its commitment to judicial independence, integrity and public confidence but did not respond individually to the allegations.
It said questions and allegations presented without the context of judicial deliberations, collegial discussions and institutional governance could be misunderstood or mischaracterised.
The court said its judges remained committed to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, including independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence.
“Maintaining public confidence in the Court is fundamental to upholding the rule of law,” it said.
The Trinidad Express reported that the statement did not directly answer 15 questions sent to Anderson concerning the judges’ allegations.
The CCJ President, who is Jamaican, assumed office in July 2025. He also serves as chairman of the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, which is responsible for appointing and exercising disciplinary control over the court’s other judges and employees.
Meanwhile, the Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana yesterday noted with “grave concern” media reports concerning the leak of internal correspondence among the CCJ Judges.
It said that the CCJ must remain a bastion of justice in the Caribbean. Its institutional integrity must therefore be respected, protected and preserved.
“Internal correspondence and deliberations within the Court are, and must remain, confidential. By itself, the act of disclosing such correspondence—not its content—risks bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
“The legal profession expects and respects robust discussion among the members of the Court. The unauthorised disclosure of internal correspondence to the media would constitute a gross breach of confidence and a serious dereliction of duty by any person responsible”, the Bar Council said.
The Bar Council said it believes that the President of the Court, as the leader of the Court, “should be afforded sufficient latitude to articulate and implement a vision for the Court and the principles governing its administration, with due regard to the Code of Judicial Conduct” of the CCJ.
The Bar Council expressed no view on the substance of the matters raised in the correspondence.
Discussion