-until allegations from leaked emails are fully addressed
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed have asked Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President Justice Winston Anderson to take no further part in proceedings concerning them until allegations arising from leaked correspondence among the court’s judges and his intervention in Guyana’s judicial appointments have been fully addressed.
In a nine-page letter dated August 14, attorneys Roysdale Forde SC, Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva also sought the preservation and disclosure of emails, telephone records, diary entries, itineraries and other documents connected to the Mohameds’ recently concluded appeal and Justice Anderson’s engagements with Guyanese political officials.
The lawyers gave the CCJ seven days to provide the requested material, failing which they said formal proceedings could be instituted.
“Accordingly, and without prejudging the truth of [former opposition leader Aubrey] Mr Norton’s allegations, our clients respectfully request that Justice Anderson take no further part in any proceedings concerning our clients unless and until these matters have been fully addressed and resolved,” the attorneys wrote.
The letter was addressed to the CCJ’s Registrar and Chief Marshal and copied to the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) and counsel for the Attorney General, Minister of Home Affairs and Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman.
It follows the publication by the Trinidad Sunday Express of internal correspondence in which judges reportedly raised serious concerns about Justice Anderson’s leadership of the court. Among the allegations were attempts to influence judicial opinions, interfere with the composition of panels and impose decisions in an authoritarian manner.
The correspondence included references to the CCJ appeal brought by the Mohameds against the Authority to Proceed issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond in response to a United States extradition request.
According to the attorneys, Justice Peter Jamadar reportedly told his colleagues that he had experienced an attempt in the Mohamed matter to influence judges whose opinions differed from those of Justice Anderson.
Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji was also quoted in the letter as alleging that Justice Anderson had sought to announce a decision in the case at a time and in a manner which a clear majority of the judges considered inappropriate.
The lawyers said the allegations, if true, would threaten the integrity of the court and violate their clients’ right to an independent and impartial hearing.
“Our clients are deeply disturbed and distressed by the allegations and have formed the strong and reasonable view that they may not have received the fair hearing which is constitutionally guaranteed to them,” the letter said.
The CCJ on July 29 unanimously dismissed the Mohameds’ appeal and lifted an interim stay, allowing the extradition proceedings to resume before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court. The United States is seeking their extradition to face an 11-count indictment containing allegations of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud and money laundering. The allegations have not been tried.
Three sets of reasons were delivered in the appeal. While all seven judges agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, they differed on aspects of the legal reasoning. The decision left open the possibility of a later challenge based on bias. It was reported that the court did not find that the bias issue was relevant at that stage of the proceedings.
In a statement issued on August 14, Justice Anderson denied that any judge had been improperly influenced and stressed that there had been “complete unanimity” on the disposition of the appeal.
He said differing views about the reasoning and how issues should be expressed were normal and healthy in a collegiate appellate court.
“The suggestion that judicial views were suppressed or that any Judge was directed to reach a particular conclusion is therefore wholly without foundation,” he said.
The Mohameds’ attorneys nevertheless requested “full and frank disclosure” of all material that may evidence or suggest impropriety by Justice Anderson or any other CCJ judge in the consideration and determination of their appeal.
In writing
They also asked Justice Anderson to answer in writing allegations made by Norton concerning his involvement in efforts to secure the substantive appointments of Guyana’s Chancellor and Chief Justice.
Norton has alleged that Justice Anderson contacted him on several occasions and sought his agreement to the appointment of then acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire as Chancellor and Justice Navindra Singh as Chief Justice.
He further alleged that Justice Anderson told him then acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards had agreed to leave office and was satisfied with a package offered by the government. Norton said Justice Anderson indicated that he had participated in or facilitated the discussions.
The former Opposition Leader also alleged that Justice Anderson told him President Irfaan Ali and others were waiting to swear in the proposed appointees and referred to Justice George-Wiltshire’s ethnicity while attempting to persuade him to agree.
Justice Anderson has acknowledged that he spoke separately with Ali and Norton in October 2025 in an effort to resolve the more than two-decade impasse over the appointments. He maintained that he had acted in good faith and had no preference as to who should hold the offices.
“Looking back, I recognise that another course would have been much better,” he said, adding that he perhaps should have confined himself to public commentary on the need for substantive appointments. His statement did not specifically address Norton’s allegations about Cummings-Edwards’ retirement arrangements, the reference to ethnicity or the assertion that officials were awaiting the swearing-in.
The Mohameds’ lawyers have now asked Justice Anderson to state whether he discussed Guyana’s judicial appointments with Ali or other political actors; participated in negotiations concerning Justice Cummings-Edwards’ departure; sought Norton’s agreement to the proposed appointments; or made the other statements attributed to him.
They argued that, if Norton’s account is true, Justice Anderson would have crossed the separation-of-powers line and created the appearance that the authority of the CCJ presidency was being used to advance partisan political objectives.
The attorneys also requested that the court preserve all records involving Justice Anderson, Norton, Ali, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, other government representatives and the judicial officers concerned.
The RJLSC has announced that the controversy will be subjected to a “transparent and independent review”, although it has not publicly detailed how that process will be conducted. Justice Anderson is also the chairman of the commission. Kiskadee Watch reported that he would be expected to recuse himself from any deliberations concerning the allegations.
The attorneys said that review offered no immediate relief to the Mohameds as the extradition proceedings are scheduled to resume on September 3 for six hearing days.
They warned that unless the requested information is supplied within seven days of the date of the letter, their clients reserve the right to institute proceedings and seek appropriate relief.
Discussion