CCJ President Rejects ‘Panel Fixing’ Claims – Anderson Pushes Back Amid Emails Controversy Plaguing Court

Source: Jamaica Gleaner
Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President Justice Winston Anderson has rejected allegations that judges at the region’s highest court have been subjected to improper influence or that judicial panels have been manipulated to secure particular outcomes.

In a lengthy statement issued against the backdrop of reports of tensions among judges, Anderson said allegations of “panel fixing” and attempts to influence judgments were “wholly untrue”, while acknowledging that some of his own decisions could have been handled differently.

The controversy follows reports in the Sunday Express concerning alleged internal correspondence at the CCJ that raised concerns about relationships among judges, the Court’s administration, and what one communication described as an increasingly “toxic” environment.

Anderson said the reports had caused “concern, anxiety and profound sadness, both within the institution and across the region”.

“This has been particularly distressing because the Caribbean Court of Justice is far more than a judicial institution. It is the product of decades of blood, sweat and tears, by Caribbean people who believed that our Region was capable of establishing and sustaining its own final court,” he said.

Anderson was also accused in the report of operating the Court in a dictatorial manner.

However, in his statement, he pointed to what he described as an open and engaging approach to the administration of the Court, including regular meetings with judges and staff and several committees established to advise on matters affecting the institution.

He said he had convened meetings of judges regularly, including most recently on July 30, while the Executive Strategic Planning and Advisory Committee (ESPAC), comprising senior judges and administrative officials, met on July 15 and July 28.

Anderson, who became CCJ president in July 2025, opened his statement by condemning what he described as the unauthorised disclosure and publication of confidential material relating to the Court’s internal deliberations and correspondence.

He said such disclosures undermine judicial collegiality and public confidence in the judiciary.

“Such disclosures and their publication are wholly unacceptable,” Anderson said, arguing that they erode trust in the sanctity of judicial deliberations and damage confidence in the third branch of government.

Describing the allegation of panel fixing as a “most serious wound”, Anderson said, “Such an allegation strikes at the very heart of judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice.”

Anderson rejected the suggestion that panels of the Court had been constituted or altered to secure a particular outcome in a case.

He said the constitution of panels has historically formed part of the president’s administrative responsibilities and that the responsibility has been exercised to ensure the orderly and impartial administration of justice.

He insisted that it had never been used to influence the outcome of proceedings.

Anderson said the D’Almada panel change was motivated solely by a dispute over judicial attire.

“Once a panel has been constituted, it is highly irregular for a judge simply to assume participation in proceedings without having been assigned to that panel. The orderly administration of the Court requires certainty as to the constitution of its benches before proceedings commence.

“Second, where a judge considers that circumstances exist giving rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest, the question of recusal must be considered carefully by the judge concerned and, where appropriate, by the Court,” he said.

In an apparent move to address concerns surrounding panel composition, Anderson announced that, going forward, every CCJ judge would be required to sit on every panel unless the judge had a legitimate reason to opt out and was excused.

A central issue addressed by Anderson was the removal of a fellow judge from an interlocutory panel.

Anderson explained that the decision was taken because the judge had declined to follow what he described as the CCJ’s established practice concerning judicial attire.

The disagreement arose after the judge appeared in court in his national dress rather than the judicial attire Anderson said had traditionally been worn by CCJ judges when exercising their judicial functions.

According to Anderson, he discussed the issue privately with the judge on June 10, 2026, but was unable to persuade him to follow the established practice and subsequently removed the judge from the panel.

Anderson stressed that the decision had nothing to do with the judge’s views on the case.

He said the judge was later assigned to the Full Bench for the substantive hearing.

The president also disclosed that a draft judicial dress code was subsequently prepared and considered by the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC).

He acknowledged, however, that in retrospect he could have dealt with the matter differently.

“I understand and appreciate the view that I may have approached the matter of the handling of the issue of dress code too strongly,” Anderson said.

However, he maintained that he viewed the matter as an institutional question concerning the appearance and consistency of the Court rather than an issue directed at an individual judge.

“The idea of individual judges adopting their own interpretation of national or traditional dress would seem to be at odds with the very concept of a Caribbean Court.”

At the same time, he said that if it is the view of the region that national dress is appropriate for judges to wear on the bench, that decision must be determined by the people of the region.

Consequently, he said he proposes to engage all national courts in consultation on the issue.

He said the substantive matter in D’Almada was subsequently directed to be heard by the Full Bench.

Anderson also rejected suggestions that he had sought to influence the outcome of judgments.

He referred specifically to Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed v Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond, Attorney General of Guyana and Magistrate Judy Latchman, saying that disagreements among judges during the preparation of judgments were normal in an appellate court.

Judges, he said, routinely engage in “spirited discussion” and consider competing legal analyses before settling their decisions.

In the Mohamed case, Anderson said, all seven judges were unanimous on the disposition of the appeal.

He argued that differences during deliberations should not be interpreted as evidence of institutional dysfunction.

“Such exchanges are not evidence of disagreement within the institution; they are evidence of judges conscientiously performing their judicial functions,” he said.

Guyana intervention

Anderson also addressed criticism surrounding his engagement with Guyana’s political leadership over the long-running absence of substantive appointments to the offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice.

Guyana has operated for more than two decades without permanent holders of those two senior judicial positions.

Anderson said his concern was the protection of judicial independence and the constitutional requirement for substantively appointed judicial office holders.

He acknowledged, however, that his decision to engage directly with Guyana’s president and Opposition leader may not have been the best course.

“Looking back, I recognise that another course would have been much better,” he said.

Anderson suggested that he might instead have confined himself to public commentary on the constitutional importance of substantive judicial appointments, as previous CCJ presidents had done.

He nevertheless maintained that his intervention was not politically motivated.

The controversy comes at a sensitive time for the CCJ, particularly as Jamaica and several other CARICOM states continue to retain the United Kingdom-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as their final appellate court.

The CCJ, inaugurated in Port of Spain in 2005, exercises both an Original Jurisdiction under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and an Appellate Jurisdiction for states that have adopted it as their final court.

Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana and St Lucia currently use the CCJ in its Appellate Jurisdiction.

Against that background, public confidence in the Court has significance beyond the institution itself, particularly for advocates of replacing the Privy Council with a Caribbean final court.

Anderson sought to place the current controversy within that broader institutional context, arguing that the CCJ represents decades of Caribbean effort to establish an independent regional judicial institution.

“The Court will continue to hear and determine the cases that come before us,” Anderson said, pledging that it would discharge its responsibilities with “independence, fairness and integrity deserving of the trust and confidence of the Caribbean people.”