Just last week, the main opposition party in Jamaica reminded the governing party that it would support stalled efforts for the island to become a republic if only the government agrees to ditch the British Privy Council as the island’s final court, and sign on to the umbrella, Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) instead.
The Jamaica Labor Party (JLP) did not publicly reply to the People’s National Party’s (PNP’s) offer, but it has not in recent years changed its rather resolute stance that the British law lords are a better judicial fit for Jamaica as appeal court judges because they are far removed from political lobbying and local influences. The JLP worries that regional judges are too close to life in the Caribbean to remain impartial.
Now, just days after the PNP reached out to the administration of Prime Minister Andrew Holness, the influential Trinidad Express newspaper on Sunday published an explosive exposé about the court, saying it is becoming increasingly divided, quoting email threads from judges accusing Chief Justice Winston Anderson of being dictatorial and authoritarian. The judges also allege that Anderson has been trying to influence the outcome of particular cases, a development which has made quite a few of them uncomfortable, so they spoke out to him on the record via emails that are now in the public domain.
The paper published a leaked thread showing at least two judges openly accusing Jamaica-born Anderson of trying to influence final court rulings. Both say they are angry about this.
One came from Trinidadian Justice Peter Jamadar and the other from Nigerian Chile Eboe-Osuji. Eboe-Osuji was particularly brutal on Anderson, saying that in a recent case for final ruling, “Winston tried single-handedly to override judicial independence and long-standing CCJ conventions that guided how decisions are rendered when judges disagree. In the Mohameds’ (Guyana extradition case) 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.”
Jamadar, on the other hand, also lashed out at the chief justice, noting that in the Mohamed extradition matter, “ … what I experienced was an attempt to influence the opinions of colleagues that differed from yours in an authoritative manner. What I experienced was far beyond anything that I have ever experienced in all my years as a judicial officer sitting on appellate courts. Which experience, I may add, was also expressed by other colleagues who were present at this meeting.”
Jamadar also touched on Anderson’s management style, noting “emerging or creeping patterns of anti-democratic approaches to us as judges of the court in matters that directly and indirectly impact our core functions. I raise this inconvenient and uncomfortable concern, certainly for me because I care deeply about this institution that is the CCJ and believe that we ALL also do so.”
For its part, the court issued a statement without directly refuting or commenting on the allegations by Anderson’s colleagues. It said it was mindful of the issues which have been presented without context, background, and an appreciation of the nature of deliberations.
“For that reason, the court wishes to reaffirm that the judges of the CCJ remain committed to the tenets of judicial conduct enshrined in the United Nations Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct — independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence, and diligence. The CCJ remains committed to providing accessible, fair and efficient justice for the people and states of the Caribbean Community,” the statement said.
Anderson had served the region as the attorney for the Guyana-based CARICOM secretariat for several years before being appointed to the bench more than a decade ago, rising to court president a year ago. The latest row with his own panel of judges is the second major incident involving him in recent months.
The New York-based Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy had publicly accused him of collaborating with the Guyana government to force out the head of the Guyana judiciary in favor of a colleague favored by the government. He did not respond to the allegations, but critics say that the latest exposed will only help to sow doubt about member states that still prefer the British court, Jamaica especially.
