A Jamaican human rights group has called on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to disclose whether an investigation has begun into allegations arising from leaked emails among its judges.
Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) Executive Director Mickel Jackson said serious questions remained despite a public response from CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson, who has rejected allegations of panel manipulation and attempts to influence judicial decisions.
According to yesterday’s edition of the Jamaica Observer, Jackson made the comments while addressing the Lay Magistrates’ Association of Jamaica’s Golden Scale Awards in Mandeville on Saturday.
“He [Justice Anderson] strongly condemned the leaking of those emails. However, there are some serious questions that still remain and I would urge the Caribbean Court of Justice to announce that an investigation has commenced or at the very least say to the public across the Caribbean region what mechanisms of accountability exist,” Jackson was quoted as saying.
She called for an independent and transparent investigation but cautioned that the controversy should not be used as a reason for Jamaica to abandon efforts to replace the United Kingdom-based Privy Council with the CCJ as its final appellate court.
Jackson said access to the Privy Council remained beyond the means of many Jamaicans, who could face the additional difficulty of obtaining visas for themselves or their attorneys to travel to London.
She argued that the CCJ was better positioned to develop a regional body of constitutional law rooted in Caribbean society, history and aspirations.
Meanwhile, Trinidadian Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has said that she hoped the dispute at the court would be resolved soon but declined to say whether her government remained confident that the CCJ could fairly determine a separate matter concerning the reappointment of CARICOM Secretary-General Dr Carla Barnett.
“I prefer not to comment,” she told Guardian Media recently when asked specifically about her confidence in the court’s ability to adjudicate that matter.
Asked for her general view of the controversy surrounding Anderson, Persad-Bissessar said: “Hopefully they will sort themselves out soon to the benefit of everyone.”
According to the Trinidad Guardian, the Prime Minister also said her views on Trinidad and Tobago retaining the Privy Council instead of adopting the CCJ as its final court had not changed.
Although the CCJ is headquartered in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago continues to use the Privy Council as its final appellate court.
The controversy erupted after the Trinidad Sunday Express published extracts from internal emails in which a majority of CCJ judges raised concerns about Justice Anderson’s leadership of the court.
The correspondence included accusations of “authoritarian” and “dictatorial” leadership, “panel fixing” and attempts to influence the outcome or wording of judgments. It also exposed a dispute over Anderson’s proposed judicial dress code and the removal of Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji from a panel after he declined to give an assurance that he would wear a conventional business suit.
Justice Anderson has denied altering panels to secure predetermined outcomes, saying the change involving Justice Eboe-Osuji arose solely from the dispute over judicial attire. He also rejected the claim that he sought to influence the court’s judgment in the extradition case involving Guyana’s Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
While acknowledging that he could have handled some internal matters differently, Justice Anderson condemned the unauthorised disclosure of the correspondence and said robust exchanges among appellate judges were normal.
The CCJ has since changed its panel-assignment system, requiring all judges to sit in all matters unless a judge is excused for a legitimate reason. Justice Anderson and the court’s two most senior judges will lead the panels.
The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) earlier said the concerns should be addressed through the court’s established governance mechanisms and a “transparent and independent review.” It later clarified that it had not confirmed the allegations or said that it had ordered a review.
No announcement has since been made on whether an investigation has formally begun, who would conduct it or its terms of reference.
Discussion