Amid hints that there had been an attempt by him to influence certain aspects of the recent appeal by Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed against extradition proceedings here, CCJ President, Justice Winston Anderson yesterday denied this and said that there had been “complete unanimity” on this matter.
In statement which addressed the leak of email correspondence among Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) judges which has roiled legal circles, Justice Anderson rebuffed suggestions that there had been any untoward attempt by him.
He said that like many appellate courts throughout the Commonwealth, the CCJ encourages robust and candid exchanges among its Judges during the deliberations and preparation of judgments. Judicial conferences, he said, frequently involve spirited discussion, differing legal analyses and careful consideration of competing views before a final judgment is settled. Such exchanges, he added, are not evidence of disagreement within the institution; they are evidence of Judges conscientiously performing their judicial functions. The people of the Caribbean deserve no less, he declared.
“The discussions surrounding the preparation of the judgment in Mohamed v Minister of Home Affairs were no different. Colleagues expressed differing views regarding aspects of the reasoning and the manner in which certain issues should be articulated in the final judgment. That is both normal and healthy within a collegiate appellate court. No Judge worthy of being on the CCJ Bench would ever allow himself or herself to be unduly influenced by any other Judge including the President. It is worth noting that in Mohamed v Minister of Home Affairs, there was COMPLETE UNANIMITY among all seven judges as to the disposition of the appeal”, Justice Anderson said emphatically.
Three different opinions were issued in that CCJ case on July 29.
He added that it is also not known by many that in the Original Jurisdiction of the CCJ, no dissenting judgments are published. The principle of unanimity is a standard practice in international courts exercising jurisdiction of this type, he asserted.
“The suggestion that judicial views were suppressed or that any Judge was directed to reach a particular conclusion is therefore wholly without foundation. Throughout my judicial career, both as a Judge and now as President, I have regarded judicial independence as inviolable. It is a principle that I have consistently defended and will continue to defend”, Justice Anderson said.
Discussion