President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Justice Winston Anderson today said the allegations of panel fixing and judicial inference directed at him are “untrue”, as he broke his silence on the issue that has ignited concerns in the management of the regional judicial tribunal.

In a nine-page long press statement, Justice Anderson condemned the unauthorised disclosure and publication of confidential material related to the internal deliberations of the Court, even he as he sought to address the allegations leveled against him by other Judges of the Court.

“Such disclosures and their publication are wholly unacceptable and strike at one of the fundamental principles upon which every independent judiciary depends. It erodes trust in the sanctity of judicial deliberations and judicial collegiality. It erodes public trust and confidence in the third branch, and it does untold harm to the people we are sworn to serve and betrays the trust and confidence placed in us,” Justice Anderson said.

Chief among the allegations leveled against Justice Anderson was that of panel fixing.

Through the correspondences penned by judges of the Court, it was alleged that panels were constituted or altered in order to secure a particular outcome, with the case of  D’Almada v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago et al being cited.

But the CCJ President said the allegation lacks merit.

“The allegation is wholly untrue. The constitution of panels has always formed part of the administrative responsibilities of the President of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Since the establishment of the Court, that responsibility has been exercised in accordance with long-established institutional practice and with the sole objective of ensuring the orderly, efficient and impartial administration of justice. It has never been exercised to influence the outcome of any proceedings,” Justice Anderson said.

It was explained that in the case of D’Almada v The Attorney General, the panel was “altered” to ensure conformity with the Court’s established practice, particularly with regards to judicial attire pending the consideration of the proposed Judicial Dress Code.

Justice Anderson said it was important to note that following the hearing, all five Judges unanimously agreed that leave ought to have been granted to permit the substantive matter to proceed.

The substantive matter, he said, was later heard by the Full Bench, including by the judge who had insisted on wearing his traditional dress.

He said since its establishment, the Court has executed its functions and responsibility with a high level of independence and impartiality.

“Our Judges have consistently discharged their constitutional responsibilities independently, impartially and without regard to national origin, political consideration or personal interest. To suggest otherwise is to undermine not merely an individual Judge, but confidence in Caribbean justice itself. The inferential leap required to elevate the issue of Bench attire to an allegation of panel fixing is irresponsible, intellectually dishonest, injudicious and quite simply, malevolent!” he said.

Justice Anderson also dubbed as “untrue” allegations of judicial interference, as he turned his attention to the case of Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohammed v the Minister of Home Affairs, Oneidge Walrond, the Attorney General of Guyana and Magistrate Judy Latchman.

Justice Anderson was accused of attempting to influence the case, but he said it was a situation of “robust and candid exchanges,” which are common in many appellate courts throughout the Commonwealth, and for which the Caribbean Court of Justice encourages.

“Judicial conferences frequently involve spirited discussion, differing legal analyses and careful consideration of competing views before a final judgment is settled. Such exchanges are not evidence of disagreement within the institution; they are evidence of Judges conscientiously performing their judicial functions. The people of the Caribbean deserve no less. The discussions surrounding the preparation of the judgment in Mohamed v Minister of Home Affairs were no different. Colleagues expressed differing views regarding aspects of the reasoning and the manner in which certain issues should be articulated in the final judgment. That is both normal and healthy within a collegiate appellate court,” the CCJ President said.

He said no Judge worthy of being on the CCJ Bench would ever allow himself or herself to be unduly influenced by any other Judge including the President.

“It is worth noting that in Mohamed v Minister of Home Affairs, there was COMPLETE UNANIMITY among all seven judges as to the disposition of the appeal,” he said.

Justice Anderson said the suggestion that judicial views were suppressed or that a judge was directed to reach a particular conclusion is unfounded.

Justice Anderson said throughout his career, he has regarded judicial independence as inviolable, adding that it is a principle that he has consistently defended and will continue to defend.

There have been widespread calls for the leak of the internal emails to be investigated, with the Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Associations and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States Bar Association calling for the claims made against Anderson in the emails to also be thoroughly investigated.

Related posts:

OECS and Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Associations want immediate and urgent probe of CCJ email leak and claims made in emails Regional Judicial heads gravely concerned over leak of CCJ internal correspondence; Remain confident in CCJ Bar Association slams leak of internal CCJ emails with “no view” on matters raised MP Campbell calls on CCJ President to step down over claims of “judicial interference”