Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 August 2026, 21:32 by Writer
As the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) continued to face allegations that its President Justice Winston Anderson’s leadership style appeared to raise questions about independence of judges in decision-making, the heads of judiciary of countries that subscribe to the regional court on Tuesday pledged their commitment to the CCJ.
The heads of judiciary of Barbados, The Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago said in a statement they “reaffirm their commitment to the independence of all regional judiciaries, the institutional integrity of the Caribbean Court of Justice, and the enduring importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in the courts of the region.”
They said the CCJ’s authority, like that of all courts, rests upon public confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity and competence of its judges.
They said they remained confident in the CCJ as a vital regional judicial institution and in the commitment of its judges to the principles which underpin the administration of justice throughout the Caribbean.
The heads of judiciary however said they would not comment on the merits of statements or allegations attributed to individual judges, nor upon matters arising within the internal deliberative or administrative processes of the Court.
They however, expressed grave concern about the breach of confidentiality which resulted in the disclosure of what appeared to be internal communications.
They said they had taken note of recent public reports concerning internal correspondence and matters relating to the administration and functioning of the CCJ.
The Guyana Bar Association (GBA) has been largely silent on the controversy surrounding Justice Anderson but expressed concern about the leak of the correspondence and said the head of the court must run its affairs based on the code of conduct.
The heads of judiciary’s statement came days after the Trinidad Express newspaper reported that CCJ Justice Arif Bulkan voiced serious concerns about the alleged manner in which Justice Anderson handled the Mohameds U.S. extradition case for alleged financial crimes.
Justice Bulkan said “The fear of this happening in the Caribbean is precisely one of the fears that has held the majority of the region back from acceding to the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ.
“Both citizens in countries that have said no in referenda and regional leaders like (Trinidad and Tobago’s) PM (Kamla) Persad-Bissessar have clearly articulated their distrust of a local institution and its ability to judge with integrity and competence.
The single incident of many that has caused me to speak out today and what has been for others a back-breaking straw, namely the process sought to be imposed on us in the Mohamed case, could validate that fear and the reservations about acceding to the CCJ. If we were to continue along this anti-democratic path, the very survival of this institution will be threatened,” Mr Bulkan said.
The Trinidad Express reported on a internal email among the CCJ judges quoting Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji who alleged that Justice Anderson had wanted to announce a decision in the case in which the Mohameds had challenged, on the grounds of political bias, home affairs minister Oneidge Walrond’s authorisation of a magistrate to proceed with hearing the U.S. extradition request for alleged financial crimes.
“In the Mohameds’ case, it was stunning to hear Winston pointedly inform us that he was going to announce a decision of the court at a time and in a manner in which a clear majority of his colleagues had very strongly communicated to him as inappropriate.”
Justice Peter Jamadar also referred to the Mohameds’ case as one of the examples of alleged judicial interference.
He said the case was one of two that relates to the core function of judicial decision-making and impacts the rule of law and the due administration of justice—seen through the lenses of judicial independence, impartiality, and integrity of “the Mohamed vs MOHA (Minister of Home Affairs, AG (Attorney General Anil Nandlall), and Magistrate extradition matter and what I experienced as an attempt to influence the opinions of colleagues that differed from yours in an authoritative manner.”
Ultimately, the CCJ on July 29 dismissed the Mohameds case, paving the way for the resumption of the extradition proceedings in Guyana before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman.
The Mohameds are wanted by the US to face trial for alleged wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering linked to their gold trading business.
Discover more from Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
