Guyana opposition leader calls for review of CCJ judges’ internal dispute

Guyana Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed is calling for an independent examination of concerns raised in internal correspondence among judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), including allegations about the handling of his extradition appeal.

The correspondence, reported by the Trinidad Express, details an internal dispute among CCJ judges that began over a proposed judicial dress code but expanded into broader concerns about the leadership of CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson, judicial independence and the administration of the court.

Mohamed's office said Sunday that the correspondence raises questions about the administration of the regional court and the handling of the extradition case involving Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.

However, there is no indication in the correspondence reported by the Express that the disagreement among the judges would have changed the outcome of the case. All six judges ultimately agreed on the decision announced in the Mohameds' case, and four of the five judges who had raised concerns about Anderson's leadership participated in the reading of the unanimous judgment.

The dispute reportedly involved concerns raised by Justices Chile Eboe-Osuji, Chantal Ononaiwu, Arif Bulkan, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee and Peter Jamadar about Anderson's leadership, including consultation, working relationships and judicial independence, according to excerpts of the correspondence cited by the Express.

Jamadar reportedly described an increasingly “toxic” environment at the court and identified the Mohamed extradition matter as one of two cases that he said affected the court's core judicial decision-making function.

According to the Express, Jamadar said he had experienced what he regarded as an attempt to influence colleagues whose opinions differed from those of the CCJ president.

“What concerns me is what I perceive, certainly potentially, as 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,” Jamadar was quoted as saying.

He said that if his concerns were valid, they could pose a threat to the administration of justice in both the court's original and appellate jurisdictions.

Jamadar also described his experience as going “far beyond anything” he had encountered during his years as an appellate judge and said other judges had expressed concerns.

Eboe-Osuji subsequently backed Jamadar's concerns, according to Mohamed's office, and referred specifically to the Mohamed case.

Eboe-Osuji reportedly alleged that Anderson intended to announce the court's decision at a time and in a manner that a majority of the judges had strongly objected to.

“In the Mohameds’ 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,” Eboe-Osuji was quoted as saying.

The correspondence, as reported, indicates that the disagreement concerned the timing and manner in which the decision would be announced. It does not establish that the judges who objected to those issues disagreed with the substance or eventual outcome of the ruling.

The CCJ on July 29 unanimously dismissed an appeal by Mohamed and his father challenging a decision by Guyana's home affairs minister to issue an Authority to Proceed with extradition proceedings requested by the United States.

The ruling cleared the way for extradition proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrates' Court to resume.

The United States is seeking the extradition of the two men to face an 11-count indictment alleging conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering. The Mohameds have challenged the extradition proceedings in Guyana's courts.

Mohamed's office said the internal correspondence nevertheless raises questions about whether attempts were made to influence judges during deliberations and whether established procedures governing judicial decision-making were followed.

It called for “full transparency and an appropriate independent examination” of the allegations.

“The integrity of the CCJ is too important to the Caribbean to permit allegations of this magnitude, emanating from within the Court itself, to remain unanswered,” the opposition office said.

Mohamed had previously met with Anderson during the CCJ president's visit to Guyana last year, when Anderson also met with other political leaders.

The CCJ is Guyana's final court of appeal and serves as the final court for several other Caribbean countries.