Dear Editor,
There has been much discussion about the extraordinary internal dispute now engulfing the Caribbean Court of Justice. But to understand why the allegations concerning CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson deserve serious scrutiny, Guyanese should examine his record in matters touching our politics.
Start with Bharrat Jagdeo’s third-term case.
In 2018, seven CCJ judges considered whether Guyana’s constitutional two-term presidential limit was valid. Six upheld the term limit. One dissented: Justice Winston Anderson.
The practical consequence of Anderson’s position would have been to make Jagdeo eligible to seek a third presidential term. There is an irony worth remembering; the term limit was introduced through the constitutional reform process and signed into law while Jagdeo himself was President.
Judicial dissent is perfectly legitimate. One dissent proves nothing. But this was not Anderson’s last consequential ruling involving Jagdeo.
Just two years ago in 2024, Anderson authored the CCJ judgment in Jagdeo’s personal defamation litigation with former minister Annette Ferguson. Jagdeo had failed to file his defence on time and a default judgment had been entered against him. After procedural setbacks in the lower courts, the matter reached the CCJ.
Anderson, joined by Justice Andrew Burgess, ruled that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain Jagdeo’s appeal.
Importantly, Anderson’s judgment did not determine that Jagdeo had not defamed Ferguson. It dealt with the procedural route for his appeal. In simple terms, it reopened a legal door for Jagdeo and allowed that fight to continue.
There is also Anderson’s earlier connection to Guyana. From 2003 to 2006, during Jagdeo’s presidency, Anderson served as General Counsel of CARICOM, headquartered in Georgetown. That fact establishes no wrongdoing, but it forms part of the professional history that the public is entitled to examine.
Then came October 2025.
During an official visit to Guyana, Anderson arrived amid controversy surrounding the country’s senior judicial appointments. Former Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton subsequently disclosed that Anderson had engaged him on the Chancellor issue. Norton said he discontinued the engagement when he concluded that continuing was not in Guyana’s interests.
Again, that deserves examination rather than speculation. But the most serious questions have now emerged from inside Anderson’s own court.
Leaked correspondence reported by the Trinidad Express revealed extraordinary criticism of Anderson’s leadership from fellow CCJ judges. Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji described what he regarded as a “dictatorship” in the Court’s administration, while Justice Peter Jamadar raised concerns about what he described as anti-democratic tendencies.
More troubling for Guyana was their discussion of the extradition proceedings involving Guyana’s Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed.
Justice Jamadar alleged an attempt during deliberations to influence colleagues whose opinions differed from Anderson’s. Justice Eboe-Osuji separately referred to the Mohamed matter and alleged that Anderson announced an intended course despite a clear majority of colleagues having strongly communicated their disagreement with the timing and manner proposed. Justice Arif Bulkan went further, specifically identifying “the process sought to be imposed on us in the Mohamed case” and warning that if a Court President could disregard the views of four or five judges, “the safeguard of the appellate process vanishes.” He warned that continuing down such an “anti-democratic path” could threaten “the very survival of this institution.”
These are allegations, and fairness requires that they be described as such. But they are not allegations being made by politicians outside the courthouse. They came from sitting judges of the CCJ itself.
That distinction matters enormously. The CCJ ultimately dismissed the Mohamed appeal on July 29, allowing the extradition proceedings against Guyana’s sitting Opposition Leader to continue. We are therefore dealing with allegations concerning internal judicial conduct surrounding a case carrying enormous constitutional, legal and political consequences for Guyana.
No responsible person should claim that Anderson’s previous decisions prove political allegiance to anyone. They do not.
But neither should legitimate questions be dismissed simply because answering them may be uncomfortable.
Consider the record together. The lone CCJ dissent that would have permitted Jagdeo to seek a third term; the later judgment that reopened Jagdeo’s appellate route in his personal defamation case; the engagement concerning Guyana’s disputed judicial appointments; and now allegations from Anderson’s own judicial colleagues concerning his conduct, including during deliberations in the Mohamed case – this time involving Jagdeo’s most formidable political opponent.
Coincidence may explain individual events. It becomes increasingly reasonable, however, for the public to ask questions when those events accumulate. And that is ultimately the issue: confidence.
The CCJ was established so Caribbean citizens could have confidence in an independent regional final court. Its authority does not rest on armies, elections or political power. It rests almost entirely upon the public’s belief that its judges are independent and that cases are decided without improper influence.
When multiple judges of that very Court raise such grave concerns about its President, silence cannot restore that confidence.
Justice Anderson deserves the opportunity to answer the allegations fully. The CCJ and the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission should likewise address them transparently.
But the Caribbean public deserves something too: answers. This should not become a contest between supporters of the PPP and its opponents. The integrity of the Caribbean Court of Justice is considerably bigger than Bharrat Jagdeo, Azruddin Mohamed, Winston Anderson or any political party.
The record must be examined, the allegations investigated, and the CCJ’s credibility protected.
History is not blind.
It keeps records.
For the record,
Hana K. Mohamed
Discussion