Bar Association opts for silence on CCJ judges’ concerns; says CCJ President must function based on Code of Conduct

Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 August 2026, 4:51 by Denis Chabrol

Amid concerns by several judges about how President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Winston Anderson’s management of that judicial body has been impacting on a number of cases, the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) expressed concern about the leak of internal email correspondence and said the head of the court must run its affairs based on the code of conduct.

The Bar Association stayed clear of addressing concerns by several judges about the leadership style of Justice Anderson including allegations of undemocratic decision-making and handling of certain cases. They include the recent case by Guyanese billionaire businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed on  a procedure for handling a United States request for their extradition to face trial for alleged financial crimes.

“The Bar Council expresses no view on the substance of the matters raised in the correspondence,” the organisation said. The GBA did not openly criticise the CCJ President, as the leader of the Court, and said he “should be afforded sufficient latitude to articulate and implement a vision for the Court and the principles governing its administration.”

At the same time, the GBA said that must be done “with due regard to the Code of Judicial Conduct of the Caribbean Court of Justice.” That code lists the principles of independence, propriety, integrity, impartiality;
equality, competence and diligence; and accountability.

The principle of independence states provides for judges to exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
for any reason. Integrity requires CCJ judges to ensure that their conduct is above reproach in the view of reasonable, fair-minded and informed persons.

Expressing grave concern about media reports concerning the leak of internal correspondence among the CCJ judges, the Bar Council said the regional court, as Guyana’s final appellate court and the only court to interpret and apply the Caribbean Community’s Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, “must remain a bastion of justice in the Caribbean. Its institutional integrity must therefore be respected, protected and preserved.”

“Internal correspondence and deliberations within the Court are, and must remain, confidential. By itself, the act of disclosing such correspondence—not its content—risks bringing the administration of justice into disrepute,” the GBA’s Bar Council said in a statement late Monday night. “The legal profession expects and respects robust discussion among the members of the Court. The unauthorised disclosure of internal correspondence to the media would constitute a gross breach of confidence and a serious dereliction of duty by any person responsible,” the association also said.

The Trinidad Express newspaper quotes, among other CCJ judges, Justice Arif Bulkan as voicing serious concerns about the alleged manner in which Justice Anderson handled the Mohameds case. “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 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.

That newspaper 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 a United States 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 that case was one of two that relate to the core function of judicial decision-­making and impact 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), 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 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.

Before that decision was read by Justice Denys Barrow, the CCJ president said there were three judgements and himself and Justice Barrow had written the lead decision. He said there was a separate judgement by justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, and Arif Bulkan, and a third judgement by justices Chantal Ononaiwu and Eboe-Osuji.  Justice Anderson offered an excuse for Justice Eboe-Osuji’s absence from the delivery of the judgement. “I regret that, for reasons which could not be avoided, Justice Ebo Osuji is not now on this call, and is not likely to be on the call before the judgment is delivered.”