作者： admin

A controversial sudden shake-up on a high-stakes regional legal panel at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ignited open conflict among senior justices, with serious accusations of executive overreach and threats to judicial independence now dividing the court.

In a June 26, 2026 email directive delivered without public explanation, CCJ President Winston Anderson notified sitting panel justices Chile Eboe-Osuji and Arif Bulkan that he had determined a restructuring of the panel hearing the high-profile D’Almada v Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Caricom case was “desirable”. Anderson removed Eboe-Osuji from the panel entirely, replacing him with four justices including himself: Denys Barrow, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Chantal Ononaiwu, and Arif Bulkan, who retained his spot.

Eboe-Osuji, who had already been part of the pre-hearing deliberations for the case, pushed back against his removal the same day Anderson’s order landed. He detailed a prior institutional agreement that directly tied his inclusion on the D’Almada panel to a long-running legal debate over a foundational regional precedent. According to Eboe-Osuji, during deliberations for the separate Barrow Referral matter, counsel had raised questions about whether the earlier Bhagwansingh ruling established a rule barring a national from bringing suit against their own state. Eboe-Osuji had pushed to clarify the relationship between Bhagwansingh and the 2009 TCL v Guyana ruling, which had formally affirmed the rule that citizens cannot sue their own state. Anderson had argued that the clarification did not belong in the Barrow Referral judgment, and that the issue would be directly addressed in the upcoming D’Almada case. To break the impasse, Justice Peter Jamadar had proposed that Eboe-Osuji retain his spot on the D’Almada panel to lead that discussion, a compromise Eboe-Osuji accepted when he agreed to drop his demand for an immediate ruling in the Barrow Referral matter.

“With D’Almada scheduled for a hearing next week, I’m sure you see difficulty with determining—with no reason indicated—that it is desirable to remove me from D’Almada,” Eboe-Osuji wrote in his immediate response.

Four days after the removal order, Jamadar became the second sitting justice to publicly challenge the decision, calling for urgent clarification from Anderson in an email copied to all new panel members. Jamadar pressed Anderson to confirm whether Eboe-Osuji’s removal was limited only to the D’Almada hearing, or if it extended to all upcoming panels, including informal proceedings where the official CCJ judicial robe is not required. The question tied to an ongoing internal dispute over dress codes: Anderson had previously proposed formalizing a mandatory robe rule to the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC), citing a need to uphold the court’s tradition and dignity, and had raised objections to Eboe-Osuji wearing formal traditional Nigerian attire to court.

Jamadar noted he was scheduled to sit alongside Eboe-Osuji just that same morning in the Robateau v Robateau case, an informal proceeding that did not require robes, and needed immediate clarity to avoid procedural disruption. He also reminded Anderson of the binding precedent set in the 2012 Khan v Mc Nicholls TT case, which touched on judicial dress codes and institutional procedures.

In a detailed seven-page letter sent to Anderson on July 2, copied to all CCJ judges, Eboe-Osuji issued a formal, scathing rebuke of the CCJ president’s actions, accusing Anderson of outright abuse of power and a deliberate campaign to undermine long-standing judicial independence at the regional court.

Eboe-Osuji claimed that immediately after taking office as CCJ president, Anderson launched a unilateral, single-minded effort to curb long-standing court practices, specifically banning judges from publishing separate concurring opinions in CCJ cases, and even dissenting opinions in Caribbean Court of Appeal Tribunal (CCAT) cases. The move came as a shock to many long-serving justices, Eboe-Osuji noted, because the CCJ had built a reputation for robust pluralism in judicial opinions prior to Anderson’s tenure.

He then laid out the inescapable conclusion he had drawn about the real motivation behind his removal from the D’Almada panel, arguing that the official claim tied to dress code was a thin pretext for a legal disagreement that threatens the court’s integrity.

Pointing to the inconsistent application of the alleged dress code policy—Anderson removed him from D’Almada but allowed him to sit on the earlier Robateau hearing the same week, which also did not require robes—Eboe-Osuji exposed the logical flaw in the dress code justification.

“The conclusion is inescapable that you removed me from D’Almada because you and I disagree on a point of law that foreseeably defines the fundamental question in that case,” he wrote. “You have been itching to reverse or chisel down the decision that all seven judges of the CCJ rendered in TCL vs Guyana 2009, when you were not yet at the court.”

Eboe-Osuji confirmed that Anderson, a former legal academic, has repeatedly stated publicly to fellow justices that he believes the landmark TCL v Guyana ruling was wrongly decided, a position Eboe-Osuji openly rejects. The core legal question at the heart of TCL is the central issue to be decided in D’Almada, a fact Anderson himself had acknowledged in prior discussions.

Addressing the dress code claims head-on, Eboe-Osuji noted that he has participated in more than 30 formal CCJ hearings since joining the court, the majority of which were held online and did not require judges to wear robes. He added that in the post-colonial modern era, it is widely accepted that judges may wear formal national attire or European-style business formal dress for court proceedings, rather than mandatory traditional British-style robes. The CCJ’s founding agreement does not grant the court’s president unilateral authority to impose dress rules, he argued, and any formal policy change should be agreed by the full body of judges.

Eboe-Osuji said he made no apology for wearing formal Nigerian attire, noting he had only done so on two occasions: one status conference and one judgment delivery, and no fellow judge raised any objection on either occasion. He also confirmed that Anderson had admitted no external parties, including litigants or their counsel, had raised concerns about his attire. Instead, Anderson told Eboe-Osuji the objection came from a junior judicial counsel working at the court—a non-judge staffer whose opinion had now led to the disciplinary removal of a senior sitting justice from a high-profile panel. The revelation, Eboe-Osuji made clear, was deeply surprising and damaging to the court’s institutional norms.

A deep internal crisis has erupted at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), after leaked internal correspondence exclusively obtained by the *Sunday Express* revealed that five out of the court’s six sitting judges have formally leveled serious accusations against its recently appointed president, Justice Winston Charles Anderson, accusing him of running the regional apex court in an authoritarian, dictatorial style that undermines judicial independence and democratic governance. What began as a dispute over a last-minute proposed judicial dress code quickly ballooned into a full-scale airing of long-simmering grievances, with judges warning that institutional discontent is nearing a breaking point if left unaddressed.

Justice Anderson, a Jamaican jurist, was sworn in as CCJ president in July 2025. Less than one year into his tenure, a June 22, 2026 email he sent to all sitting judges outlining a draft judicial dress code policy for discussion at the upcoming Regional Judicial Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) meeting four days later sparked the widespread backlash. The draft policy included a new requirement for judges to wear bench jackets during proceedings when not fully robed, but judges’ objections centered far more on process than the content of the policy itself.

Within minutes of Anderson’s email being sent, Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji of Nigeria replied all, pushing back against the unilateral approach. He argued that the full bench of judges must debate and approve any policy affecting their professional practices before it is brought to the RJLSC, which holds mandate over administrative staff rather than sitting judges. Eboe-Osuji demanded that Anderson pull the proposal from the RJLSC agenda to allow for full judicial consultation, a request Anderson rejected, noting only that any judge-submitted comments would be passed to the commission for consideration.

Jamaican Justice Chantal Ononaiwu quickly joined the criticism, echoing calls for full pre-submission consultation. She questioned the sudden urgency behind the new dress code requirement, pointing out that the court had functioned without a formal policy for its entire existence up to that point, and raised flags about the material change to existing courtroom attire practices that the draft would impose. In response to the growing pushback, Anderson agreed to hold a meeting with the full bench before the RJLSC discussion, but the concession did not ease broader tensions.

Over the following 48 hours, the remaining three sitting judges joined the growing chorus of opposition, expanding criticism far beyond the dress code proposal to systemic failures of Anderson’s leadership. Guyanese Justice Arif Bulkan sided with the initial critics, noting that a rigid, one-size-fits-all dress code could have negative impacts on religious minority judges, and emphasized that inclusive process is critical to maintaining collegial trust on a multi-judge bench. Trinidad and Tobago Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee backed this position, pointing to the collaborative, months-long consultation process used by former president Adrian Saunders to revise the court’s Code of Judicial Conduct, and called for the same transparent approach to be applied to the dress code policy. She also echoed Bulkan’s concern about protecting the court’s religious and ethnic diversity, noting that no institutional policy should undermine that foundational value.

The most serious allegations came from Trinidad and Tobago Justice Peter Jamadar, who expanded the discussion to detail what he called a toxic work environment created by Anderson’s leadership, directly accusing the president of interfering with core judicial decision-making processes. Jamadar stated that he has repeatedly experienced disregard for his judicial functions, with two recent ongoing cases illustrating the pattern: the Jeremy Enriquez and Anand Ramlogan trilogy of matters, where he was given an unreasonable timeline to review what was presented as an agreed consolidated draft judgment, and the Mohamed v MOHA, AG, and Magistrate extradition case, where he said Anderson attempted to influence the opinions of colleagues who held differing positions.

Jamadar warned of creeping anti-democratic patterns in Anderson’s governance that pose a direct threat to judicial independence and the fair administration of justice across all jurisdictions that rely on the CCJ. He emphasized that his objections stem from a commitment to protecting the court’s integrity, noting that upholding his judicial oath required him to speak out against practices that undermine judicial independence, impartiality, and integrity.

In a subsequent response endorsing Jamadar’s claims, Eboe-Osuji amplified the accusations, stating that he had never witnessed such dictatorial governance of a judiciary in his decades of experience. He revealed that Anderson explicitly stated shortly after taking office that he did not view himself as running a democratic institution, and would govern the court according to his own judgment alone. Eboe-Osuji added additional examples of alleged interference, including the Barrow v Caricom case, where Anderson unilaterally tried to override long-standing CCJ conventions for handling divided judicial decisions without consulting colleagues, and the Mohamed extradition case, where Anderson attempted to force a court announcement at a time a clear majority of judges deemed inappropriate.

Eboe-Osuji closed by calling for an urgent closed-door meeting of all CCJ judges to address the growing discontent, warning that without immediate intervention, the crisis will escalate to an irreversible breaking point that will damage the court’s institutional reputation and ability to deliver justice across the Caribbean region.

A planned security upgrade aimed at curbing community crime has run into an unexpected snag at the Eddie Hart Recreational Grounds in Tacarigua, Trinidad and Tobago, where safety concerns over a dormant natural gas pipeline have paused construction and sparked a debate over procedural transparency.

The project is part of a sweeping national security initiative announced last week by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, which calls for 30 joint police-army mobile posts across the country. The goal of the program is to boost the visibility of law enforcement, push back against criminal activity, and reclaim public spaces that have become hotspots for illegal activity. Eddie Hart Grounds, a popular community recreational space that has seen repeated criminal incidents, was selected as one of the 30 strategic locations. Construction crews arrived at the site last Thursday to begin laying the surface foundation for the new post.

Days after work kicked off, Josiah Austin, chairman of the Tunapuna/Piarco Regional Corporation, raised formal alarms: a natural gas pipeline owned by the National Gas Company (NGC) runs directly through the construction area, and the regional body was never consulted about the project before ground was broken. Austin emphasized that while the corporation fully supports the goal of increasing security at the grounds, the project must follow transparent, legal, and properly coordinated processes. Following the delivery of a formal concern letter from the corporation’s technical team to the contractor, work on the site was paused. Austin confirmed the contractor has a five-day window to respond to the concerns, meet with the corporation’s engineering team to submit required documentation and resolve the standoff, or face continued suspension until all regulatory requirements are met.

In an official response to the raised concerns, NGC chairman Gerald Ramdeen moved quickly to reassure the public that the pipeline poses no danger to workers or community members. Ramdeen confirmed the pipeline does exist in the vicinity of the construction site, but detailed that it is a 2-inch line that has been decommissioned and non-operational for multiple years, buried four feet below the ground surface. He noted that the foundation work planned for the mobile post only involves work on the land’s surface, which poses no risk to the dormant pipeline. Ramdeen added that NGC’s operations team has already implemented all recommended precautionary measures to eliminate public risk, even for the non-operational line. To verify his team’s assessments, Ramdeen shared that NGC personnel conducted an on-site inspection Friday, and he personally visited the site at 9 p.m. that same day to review the work firsthand. After reviewing both his team’s report and his own on-site observation, Ramdeen said he is fully satisfied that no public danger exists. He also confirmed that Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander had proactively consulted NGC early in the process to assess any risks to the company’s infrastructure at all selected post sites.

Local reactions to the project remain split, with most residents supporting the need for increased security but many agreeing that proper procedural consultation was missed. Jerry Richards, a former groundskeeper who worked at Eddie Hart Grounds for more than 20 years and was present when the NGC pipeline was installed 15 years ago, confirmed the pipeline’s location matches Austin’s description. Like many other local vendors and residents, Richards welcomes the added security presence, recalling a high-profile armed robbery of a vendor at the grounds that highlighted the area’s ongoing crime issues. He noted that even a permanent post cannot eliminate all crime, he believes it will act as a strong deterrent to illegal activity.

Not all local stakeholders share the same level of support. Derek Baptiste, a local resident, questioned whether the post would actually reduce overall crime, arguing that criminal groups would simply shift their activities to other nearby areas. He also echoed Austin’s concerns about process, raising unresolved questions about the project’s procurement process, the selected contractor, and total public cost. Kenneth Adolphus, a regular visitor to the grounds who visits twice a week, said he has only heard anecdotal reports of petty theft and has not witnessed serious violent crime. He noted that officers already conduct foot patrols on Fridays, but agreed that a permanent mobile post would offer more consistent security coverage. Even so, Adolphus said he understands Austin’s concerns, adding that formal consultation with the regional corporation would have been a basic show of respect and could have prevented the current construction delay entirely.

As of Sunday when local media visited the site, no construction activity was ongoing, and the project remains in limbo as the contractor prepares to respond to the regional corporation’s concerns.

The pending nomination of Jennifer Johnson-Carroll to serve as the next United States Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago has placed bilateral security cooperation and economic partnership under the spotlight, as the nominee laid out her strategic priorities during a recent Senate confirmation hearing.

First tapped for the diplomatic post by US President Donald Trump on June 2, 2026, Johnson-Carroll appeared before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 30 to answer questions and present her policy agenda. Following the hearing, her nomination requires a full confirmation vote from the entire US Senate before she can be sworn into office, and as of the latest update, no final vote has been held.

A unique personal background sets Johnson-Carroll apart from typical diplomatic nominees: she was born in Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad and Tobago, and immigrated to the United States when she was 8 years old, carrying a lifelong deep personal connection to the twin-island Caribbean nation. Her decades-long career of public service to the US includes 20 years of service in the US Navy, where she rose from an enlisted jet mechanic to retire at the rank of lieutenant commander. She later went on to serve as the 18th Lieutenant Governor of Florida, where she led international trade missions that generated more than $70 million in new commercial activity for Florida-based businesses. Johnson-Carroll says she will draw directly on this hands-on experience in the Caribbean if confirmed as ambassador.

During the hearing, Johnson-Carroll emphasized that the US currently maintains a constructive working relationship with Port of Spain, noting that Trinidad and Tobago has been a consistent supporter of the US Caribbean Basin Initiative, a trade and development program for the region. She outlined four core priorities that would guide her tenure if confirmed, all aligned with the Trump administration’s vision for the Western Hemisphere.

Her top stated priority is protecting the safety and security of the more than 10,000 American citizens who travel to Trinidad and Tobago each year for business and tourism, as well as US residents based in the country. Second, she plans to expand mutually beneficial economic ties: she will push for greater access to new markets for American exports, attract increased US investment to the region, and support Trinidad and Tobago as it works to build a more resilient, diversified national economy. She also highlighted ongoing energy sector coordination between the two nations, noting that the US is moving forward with an approved license for a joint energy project between Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela, a move that will open new commercial opportunities for US businesses.

On security issues, Johnson-Carroll acknowledged Trinidad and Tobago’s public recognition that its porous borders leave it vulnerable to transnational criminal activity, including illicit human trafficking and narco-terrorism. She specifically raised concerns about the multiple states of emergency that Trinidad and Tobago has implemented in response to years of elevated violent crime, saying the repeated emergency declarations signal a pressing unaddressed challenge.

Trinidad and Tobago is a founding member of the Americas Counter-Cartel Coalition and the Shield of the Americas, positioning it as a regional leader in counter-narcotics efforts and a key US partner in combating transnational organized crime. If confirmed, Johnson-Carroll says she will deepen bilateral security cooperation through existing frameworks like the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, work to disrupt illicit drug trafficking that harms citizens in both countries, and develop targeted strategic goals to support Trinidad and Tobago’s efforts to reduce violent crime.

She also committed to advancing regional cooperation on border security and migration, working with Trinidadian authorities to prevent unauthorized migration and support orderly, lawful movement of people across the Caribbean. When asked about the stability of Trinidad and Tobago’s current government, Johnson-Carroll declined to comment, saying she needs to conduct on-the-ground consultations with government officials after confirmation to gain a full on-the-ground understanding.

Throughout her testimony, Johnson-Carroll emphasized that all US engagement with Trinidad and Tobago will prioritize advancing American national interests, uphold US sovereignty, and reinforce the United States’ right to govern its own borders, resources, and policy decisions. She summed up her priorities as aligned with the current administration’s goal of building a safer, more secure, and more prosperous Western Hemisphere.