—Opposition says change does not answer questions over Mohamed proceedings
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has revised its panel-assignment system with immediate effect, requiring all of its judges to sit in every matter unless formally excused for a legitimate reason.
In a notice issued yesterday, the court said the new arrangements were intended to promote consistency, transparency and flexibility in the allocation of judicial work and support the efficient administration of justice.
It added that three panel leaders would be designated—the President of the court and its two most senior judges.
The CCJ’s brief notice did not refer to the recent controversy surrounding the assignment of judges to panels or allegations arising from leaked internal correspondence among members of the court.
The Office of the Leader of the Opposition (OLO), however, yesterday described the change as a significant institutional development in light of concerns raised about judicial independence, the constitution of panels and deliberations in the recent extradition appeal involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
“The system that existed when the Mohamed matter came before the Court has now been changed,” the OLO said in a statement.
It argued that, under the revised arrangements, the discretion surrounding the composition of panels had been substantially curtailed.
While welcoming the change as a step towards strengthening transparency and confidence in the CCJ, the OLO said a prospective reform could not resolve questions already raised about the Mohamed proceedings.
The statement said the public was entitled to know whether attempts had been made to influence judicial opinions, why a majority of judges reportedly objected to the timing and manner in which a decision was to be announced and whether established processes had been departed from.
It called for a full, independent and transparent examination, including the preservation and review of relevant records and communications.
The new arrangements follow the publication by the Trinidad Sunday Express of internal correspondence in which five of the CCJ’s six other sitting judges reportedly raised concerns about the leadership and administration of the court under its President, Justice Winston Anderson.
Among the allegations were attempts to influence judicial opinions, unilaterally alter the composition of panels and create what one judge described as a “toxic” working environment. No independent finding has been made on the allegations.
Of particular importance to Guyana were reported exchanges concerning the Mohamed extradition appeal.
As previously reported by Kiskadee Watch, Justice Peter 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 Chile Eboe-Osuji was also reported as saying that Justice Anderson intended to announce a decision at a time and in a manner which a clear majority of the judges had considered inappropriate.
Justice Anderson has denied manipulating panels or improperly influencing judicial decisions.
Addressing the Mohamed matter, he said that judges had expressed differing views about aspects of the reasoning and the manner in which issues should be articulated in the final judgment. He described this as normal and healthy within an appellate court.
Justice Anderson emphasised that there had been “complete unanimity” among all seven judges on the disposition of the appeal and rejected any suggestion that judicial views had been suppressed.
The CCJ on July 29 dismissed the Mohameds’ appeal against the Authority to Proceed issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond in response to an extradition request from the United States. The court also lifted a stay, allowing extradition proceedings to continue before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman.
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.
Although all seven judges agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, three sets of reasons were issued. The judges differed on aspects of the legal reasoning, including when a challenge to the Authority to Proceed should ordinarily be heard.
Discussion