As disquiet continues in the region about troubling schisms among judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), it is worth examining other aspects of an extraordinary statement issued on Friday by the President of the tribunal, Justice Winston Anderson as he sought to present his side of matters that were raised in a series of leaked emails which were published by Trinidad’s Sunday Express.
Yesterday’s Kiskadee Watch editorial delved into aspects of Justice Anderson statement on what can only be described as his reckless intervention on the question of substantive appointments of a Chancellor and Chief Justice of the Guyana judiciary. The failure to confirm candidates to these two posts for more than two decades has little to do with the judiciary here and is a function of the yawning political chasm that is underpinned by winner-take-all politics and a poorly drafted constitutional provision. Justice Anderson has tarnished his image and the functioning of Guyana’s apex court by descending into this abyss and failing.
After it had become clear that the emails which were obtained by the Trinidad Express were authentic, it was in the interest of the court considering its standing and stature as the apex court for some CARICOM countries and its original jurisdiction role to immediately seek to limit the damage. A general statement was issued on August 8th to the Sunday Express which said in part that the court remained committed to the “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct—independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence, and diligence.”
It is unclear if this statement was devised only by Justice Anderson but it was a failed opportunity for him and the other judges to immediately signal that no matter the robust and sharp internal discussions these matters would be resolved amicably. Such a statement would ideally have had the imprimatur of all the judges of the court. This was not the case and was probably an early sign that the differences that had emerged were irremediable.
Even if that statement of August 8th was not a product of all the judges there was room for an emergency meeting to try to staunch the growing controversy and issue some type of statement of assurance to the region. That was not done and by August 10th, the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) had properly taken note of the controversy and pledged a “transparent and independent review” of the matter.
The entire week went by before Justice Anderson issued the statement in his name only. Evidently there had been no successful attempt to mobilize a healing consensus in the court between August 8 and August 14. His statement on Friday therefore again underlined the intractability that had developed between him and other judges on various matters and the likelihood that a solution to this problem would have to come from outside of the court.
One aspect of Justice Anderson’s statement that should and will raise eyebrows is his management style. He admitted excluding Nigerian-born Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji from an interlocutory panel of judges solely on the ground of attire. There are two things plainly wrong about this. While standards of dress and comportment are important, a regional court that has been battling to loosen the grip of the UK Privy Council as an appellate forum could not seek to rigidly reject the national dress of judges who originate from all parts of the Commonwealth. This would be utterly schoolmarmish and evocation of an inclination to dictate. Justice Eboe-Osuji, like all the other judges of the court, were selected for their excellence in the judicial circles that they served and not to be dressed down and punished over attire whether in or out of Chambers.
Furthermore, if Justice Anderson felt aggrieved at the failure of Justice Eboe-Osuji to comply with his instructions then the proper course of action was to refer the matter to the RJLSC for disciplinary purposes. Justice Anderson is the chair of the RJLSC but not the RJLSC and the RJLSC quietly went against his unilateral decision to present it with his own version of a dress code.
In his own words, Justice Anderson said: “Recognising that the issue extended beyond the immediate circumstance, I instructed a senior Court official to prepare a draft Judicial Dress Code for consideration by the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) which was scheduled to meet on 26 June 2026. The dress code was prepared, which essentially codified the traditional practice of wearing either our judicial robes or Bench jackets when exercising the judicial function.
“From Monday, 22 June 2026, i.e., five days before that RJLSC meeting, I offered my judicial colleagues several opportunities to consult and to meet to discuss the matter of the proposed judicial dress code collectively before it was considered by the RJLSC. Unfortunately, those opportunities were not taken up.
The matter was considered by the RJLSC on 26 June 2026, at which time I suggested, and the RJLSC agreed, that the draft Judicial Dress Code be further placed before my judicial colleagues for their review and comments. Not having received any suggested dates for these consultations, I proposed 10 July and/or 13 July 2026 for the discussion. Subsequently, my colleagues indicated that they would avail themselves of the opportunity for consultation but requested that the two dates I proposed be vacated in favour of a more general meeting on governance of the Court. I readily agreed and had the requested meeting with my colleagues on Saturday, 25 July 2026. As promised, I transmitted a written response to my colleagues on 29 July 2026, relating to the issues raised at that meeting.
“I understand and appreciate the view that I may have approached the matter of the handling of the issue (of the) dress code too strongly. I did so because I regarded it as an institutional issue concerning the appearance, consistency and tone of the Court, rather than a question directed at any individual Judge.”
Based on the emails that were circulated by the Sunday Express, the judges took umbrage at Justice Anderson’s unilateral decision to approach the RJLSC on the matter of the dress code prior to a full discussion among the judges. The RJLSC has since reverted the matter to all of the judges – exactly what they had been suggesting should be done in the first instance.
There is more in Justice Anderson’s statement that should be addressed but all eyes will now be on the RJLSC and what it can do at all to limit the fallout from the acrimony that has been created by the President’s management style, all the while recognising that the court has much work before it and has to continue operating in both of its jurisdictions.
The CCJ has served Guyana extraordinarily well particularly in the more recent period of crisis between 2018 and 2020. The people of this country owe a debt of gratitude to the court.
Discussion