Lead Editor–Newsgathering
Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) president Justice Winston Charles Anderson has rejected allegations that he acted improperly in managing the regional court, including claims of panel fixing and attempts to influence judges’ decisions.
In a statement issued yesterday, Anderson defended his actions following the publication of private correspondence between CCJ judges which revealed serious concerns about his leadership.
In his statement, Anderson said the disclosure of confidential court communications was “wholly unacceptable” and undermined confidence in judicial deliberations and collegiality.
He defended his decision to remove a judge from an interlocutory panel in the D’Almada v Trinidad and Tobago case, saying the decision was based solely on the judge’s refusal to follow what Anderson described as the CCJ’s established practice on judicial attire.
Anderson rejected suggestions that the panel was changed to influence the outcome of the case.
“The allegation is wholly untrue,” he said.
He said panel composition has always been part of the president’s administrative responsibilities and has never been used to influence the outcome of proceedings.
Anderson said that, going forward, every CCJ judge would be required to sit on every panel unless the judge opts out for a legitimate reason and is excused.
He also rejected allegations that he attempted to influence the preparation of judgments, including in a case involving Guyanese businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed.
Anderson said disagreements among judges during deliberations were normal and there was “COMPLETE UNANIMITY” among the seven judges on the outcome of that appeal.
On the controversy surrounding his involvement in Guyana’s judicial appointments, Anderson acknowledged that he could have handled the matter differently.
He said he had sought to encourage agreement between Guyana’s President and Opposition Leader on the substantive appointments to the offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice.
“Looking back, I recognise that another course would have been much better,” he said.
Anderson said he could have confined himself to public commentary on the constitutional importance of the appointments, as his predecessors had done.
Anderson also did not signal any intention to resign. In his statement, he said the court would continue hearing cases and fulfilling its responsibilities to the Caribbean region.
Meanwhile, the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago yesterday said it welcomed the decision by the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission to investigate the matters raised in the judges’ private correspondence.
LATT said the reports suggested a near-unanimous position among the CCJ judges against what they perceived as encroachment on their judicial independence.
The association said the investigation should reaffirm the principle of judicial independence and establish clear guidelines for the president’s administrative powers.
It said Anderson, while holding administrative authority as head of the CCJ, is “first among equals” and that any guidelines must ensure proper regard for the views and concerns of the other judges, particularly where judicial functions and the reputation of the court are involved.
Assembly of Southern Lawyers president Saira Lakhan has also called for an independent and transparent review of the situation, saying the substance of the concerns must be examined.
“The CCJ is simply too important, to T&T, the region and the wider project of Caribbean jurisprudence for us to treat this episode as something to be managed until the headlines disappear. If there are deeper problems, they must be identified and addressed now. Otherwise, they’ll surface again,” Lakhan said in a statement.
“The greatest service we can render the CCJ now is, therefore, not to shield it from difficult questions, but to insist those questions are properly, independently and transparently answered.”
Noting the joint statement on the matter issued by the Heads of Judiciary of several Caribbean jurisdictions, Lakhan said while she understood the concerns expressed about the disclosure of confidential internal communication, stakeholders were allowing the issue of the leak to distract from the real issue.
“The leak isn’t the real issue. For me, this is ultimately about something much larger: it’s about the soul of the court. Whatever one’s view of the manner in which these matters came into the public domain, serious concerns have now reportedly been expressed from within the court itself about its administration and matters said to affect judicial independence and decision-making.”
Lakhan added, “Those allegations haven’t been established. Fairness requires that they not be treated as established. The CCJ’s president, like everyone whose conduct is questioned, is entitled to fairness and due process … (But) the concerns reportedly expressed by judges of the court must also be taken seriously.”
