Amid newly emerged public allegations over internal operations at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Jamaica’s main opposition People’s National Party (PNP) has reaffirmed its longstanding commitment to replacing the UK-based Privy Council with the regional body as the country’s final court of appeal, party leader Mark Golding has confirmed.
The controversy stems from a series of leaked internal emails obtained and published by Trinidad and Tobago’s *Sunday Express*, which claimed to expose deep-seated friction among CCJ judges, strained interpersonal dynamics, and what one message described as a growing ‘toxic’ internal working environment at the regional appellate court. To date, Jamaica’s *The Gleaner*, the original outlet of this reporting, has not independently obtained or verified the content of the alleged leaked messages.
In an interview with *The Gleaner*, Golding pushed back against framing the leaks as evidence of institutional failure at the CCJ. He argued that the released correspondence instead demonstrates that CCJ judges feel comfortable voicing dissenting and independent perspectives directly to the court’s president, a level of open debate he calls a foundational strength for any robust judicial body.
“We remain convinced that Jamaica would derive substantial benefits from designating the CCJ as our final court of appeal,” Golding stated. “The court is geographically and procedurally accessible to Jamaican citizens, and it has built a robust global reputation for excellent, rigorous adjudication of the cases brought before it.” The PNP has long tied its support for broad national constitutional reform to Jamaica’s formal adoption of the CCJ as its highest appellate body, a position Golding confirmed remains unchanged by the current controversy.
Golding did note that the unauthorized public release of private judicial discussions is deeply regrettable, emphasizing that there is no indication any of the judges involved expected or agreed to have their internal communications disclosed.
Other prominent Jamaican legal and political figures have offered more critical perspectives on the leak. Marlene Malahoo Forte, former co-chair of Jamaica’s Constitutional Reform Committee, called the decision to leak internal correspondence a major failure of judgment. “It is deeply troubling that individuals who should understand the importance of confidentiality in institutional deliberations chose to disclose internal matters to the public,” she said. “I have to question what would lead someone to be so dissatisfied that they could not allow internal processes to run their course to resolve disagreements.”
Forte added that the controversy has already damaged public trust in the CCJ, a setback that comes at a particularly sensitive moment, as Jamaica and other CARICOM member states that have not yet adopted the CCJ as their final court actively debate the change. “This public airing of internal disputes does nothing to advance support for the court,” she noted. “When voters and policymakers weigh in on this issue, they will scrutinize every detail, and this leak only creates unnecessary uncertainty.”
Constitutional scholar and CCJ proponent Dr. Lloyd Barnett, who previously served as deputy chairman of the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) — the independent body that oversees CCJ judge appointments and disciplinary processes — offered a measured take on the allegations. Barnett acknowledged that the claims will provide political ammunition to opponents of the CCJ, who he says will seize on the controversy while ignoring similar internal disputes that have long been part of other leading appellate courts, including the UK’s Privy Council.
Even so, Barnett characterized the allegations outlined in the leaked emails as much ado about nothing, describing the claims as ‘a lot of air, a lot of smoke without any true fire.’ He explained that many of the disputed issues raised in the messages are normal procedural realities for a small appellate body like the CCJ, which currently counts just seven judges including its president. For example, the court’s president is tasked with selecting judges for hearing panels, and the small size of the court means the same judges will frequently sit together on multiple cases. Changes to institutional rules such as judicial dress codes also require full consensus among judges, he added.
Barnett emphasized that differences of opinion are an inherent, healthy part of the appellate judicial process. ‘Judges will hold divergent views, they will advocate for their positions, and each stands firm on what they believe is right — that is how the system works,’ he said. He also noted that existing governance guardrails prevent institutional deadlock: while the CCJ president chairs the RJLSC, the president will recuse themselves from any proceedings involving a conflict of interest, leaving the deputy chairman to preside.
A lifelong supporter of the CCJ’s role as CARICOM’s leading appellate body, Barnett said he remains confident the regional court will resolve its internal differences through established internal processes. He pointed to a long history of resolved disputes within other leading global courts, noting that serious internal disagreements have long been recorded in the Privy Council and the UK Supreme Court, yet those disputes rarely draw the same level of public condemnation that the CCJ is currently facing. ‘We have inherited a colonial mindset where we tend to condemn our own regional institutions while excusing the same issues in older foreign bodies,’ he said. ‘In reality, internal disagreement is a normal part of any independent judiciary.’
In a statement carried by the *Sunday Express*, the CCJ has defended its track record, reaffirming its commitment to upholding independence, impartiality, and integrity in all its duties to maintain public confidence in its work.
