A growing scandal has shaken the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) after multiple sitting judges brought explosive allegations against the court’s sitting president, Justice Winston Anderson, pushing the regional body tasked with court governance to launch a long-awaited transparent and independent review into the claims. The allegations, which first came to light in an exclusive scoop by the *Sunday Express* earlier this week, are far-reaching: they range from minor administrative overreach like imposing an unapproved judicial dress code to far more serious accusations of case panel manipulation and intentional efforts to sway the final outcomes of active court matters. Most notably, a majority of the CCJ’s own sitting judges have accused Anderson of running the regional tribunal in an overtly authoritarian, dictatorial style, according to internal email correspondence exchanged between the court’s presiding judges in June and July of this year that was obtained by the *Express*.
Overseeing the upcoming review is the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC), the statutory body created by the founding agreement of the CCJ to manage court appointments, employment terms, and disciplinary processes for all CCJ judges (excluding the president) and court staff. By statute, the RJLSC is structured to bring together experienced legal professionals, senior public service leaders, and civil society representatives to uphold institutional independence of the regional court. A quirk of the commission’s governance structure, however, places Justice Anderson himself as the formal chairman of the RJLSC – a detail that has sparked immediate calls for his recusal from the review process.
In an official statement issued to Caribbean media outlet CCN, the RJLSC acknowledged the grave nature of the allegations and committed to addressing the claims in a manner that upholds public trust in the CCJ and the broader Caribbean justice system. “The Commission recognises the seriousness of these matters and the importance of addressing them in a manner that protects public trust and confidence in the Court and the broader administration of justice throughout the Caribbean,” the statement read. The commission confirmed it would use its established internal governance frameworks to conduct a fully transparent and independent review, aligned with the best interests of the Caribbean region. The commission also reaffirmed its longstanding institutional autonomy, noting that in its 23 years of operation, it has never faced improper influence from either court leadership or external political actors, and has maintained a productive working relationship with the CCJ. “No conclusions should be drawn about the allegations until they have been examined fairly and objectively,” the statement added. Notably, the RJLSC declined to confirm whether Anderson would participate in the upcoming review, leaving that critical question unanswered.
Martin Daly, a former RJLSC member and prominent senior counsel, has become the most high-profile figure to weigh in on the unfolding controversy, saying that a full formal investigation is non-negotiable and that Anderson must step aside entirely from the process. Daly characterized the RJLSC’s initial statement as overly verbose and vague, but acknowledged that the commission had reaffirmed its autonomy and responsibility to oversee the CCJ’s effective, independent administration. He warned that the allegations, if left unaddressed, pose a severe threat to the CCJ’s legitimacy and effectiveness. “The matters alleged in the Express reports have the potential to seriously undermine the independence and effectiveness of the court. The commission should therefore have no difficulty in getting on with an investigation of the allegations,” Daly said.
Daly also questioned the RJLSC’s reference to its longstanding “open door policy” for judges and staff to raise internal concerns, asking if the statement amounted to a veiled push for complaining judges to file formal complaints, and arguing that the vague language does little to advance public interest in accountability. He emphasized that the RJLSC has clear jurisdiction to investigate the claims, as they center on administrative decisions that impact the court’s core functioning, noting that the commission must draw a clear line between administrative actions – which fall within its remit – and judicial decision-making, which it cannot interfere with.
Most critically, Daly insisted that Anderson, as the subject of the allegations and the RJLSC’s chairman, must recuse himself completely from any part of the investigation. “The president of the court is chairman of the RJLSC, but he must, of course, recuse himself from participating in an investigation of administrative decisions made by him,” Daly explained, adding that it was unfortunate the commission abandoned the past practice of appointing a formal deputy chairman. Even so, he noted that multiple sitting RJLSC commissioners have the experience and credibility to lead an impartial, competent investigation, and argued that the matter should remain within the commission’s purview rather than being passed to regional heads of government at this stage.