Gail Alexan­der

Se­nior Po­lit­i­cal Re­porter

Heads of Ju­di­cia­ry from sev­en ju­ris­dic­tions that sub­scribe to the Caribbean Court of Jus­tice (CCJ), along with the Or­gan­i­sa­tion of East­ern Caribbean States (OECS) Bar As­so­ci­a­tion and the Or­gan­i­sa­tion of Com­mon­wealth Caribbean Bar As­so­ci­a­tions (OC­C­BA), have ex­pressed con­fi­dence in the re­gion­al court, fol­low­ing re­ports of al­leged is­sues con­cern­ing its in­ter­nal ad­min­is­tra­tion.

In a joint state­ment yes­ter­day, the Heads of Ju­di­cia­ry ac­knowl­edged re­cent pub­lic re­ports con­cern­ing in­ter­nal cor­re­spon­dence and mat­ters re­lat­ing to the CCJ’s ad­min­is­tra­tion and func­tion­ing.

The state­ment was en­dorsed by the Heads of Ju­di­cia­ry from ter­ri­to­ries that sub­scribe to the CCJ’s orig­i­nal and/or ap­pel­late ju­ris­dic­tions: Bar­ba­dos, The Ba­hamas, Be­lize, Guyana, Ja­maica and Trinidad and To­ba­go, as well as the East­ern Caribbean Supreme Court (EC­SC).

“The Caribbean Court of Jus­tice oc­cu­pies a po­si­tion of pro­found im­por­tance as a re­gion­al in­sti­tu­tion and with­in the re­gion­al ju­di­cial ar­chi­tec­ture,” the state­ment said.

“For those states which have ac­ced­ed to its ap­pel­late ju­ris­dic­tion, it is the fi­nal court of ap­peal and for most states of the Caribbean Com­mu­ni­ty, it is the court of orig­i­nal ju­ris­dic­tion vest­ed with the pow­er to ad­ju­di­cate on mat­ters in­volv­ing the Re­vised Treaty of Ch­aguara­mas.”

The Heads of Ju­di­cia­ry said the CCJ’s au­thor­i­ty, like that of all courts, rests on pub­lic con­fi­dence in the in­de­pen­dence, im­par­tial­i­ty, in­tegri­ty and com­pe­tence of its judges.

“We do not con­sid­er it ap­pro­pri­ate to com­ment up­on the mer­its of state­ments or al­le­ga­tions at­trib­uted to in­di­vid­ual judges, nor up­on mat­ters aris­ing with­in the in­ter­nal de­lib­er­a­tive or ad­min­is­tra­tive process­es of the court,” they said.

“How­ev­er, we ex­press grave con­cern about the breach of con­fi­den­tial­i­ty which re­sult­ed in the dis­clo­sure of what ap­pear to be in­ter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­tions.”

The Heads of Ju­di­cia­ry said they re­mained con­fi­dent in the CCJ as “a vi­tal re­gion­al ju­di­cial in­sti­tu­tion” and in the com­mit­ment of its judges to the prin­ci­ples un­der­pin­ning the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice through­out the Caribbean.

They al­so reaf­firmed their com­mit­ment to the in­de­pen­dence of all re­gion­al ju­di­cia­ries, the CCJ’s in­sti­tu­tion­al in­tegri­ty and “the en­dur­ing im­por­tance of main­tain­ing pub­lic trust and con­fi­dence in the courts of the re­gion.”

Bar as­so­ci­a­tions call for probe

The OECS Bar As­so­ci­a­tion (OECS­BA) and OC­C­BA al­so not­ed re­cent me­dia re­ports con­cern­ing the in­de­pen­dence of CCJ judges and mat­ters af­fect­ing the court’s func­tion­ing and ad­min­is­tra­tion.

In a joint state­ment, the or­gan­i­sa­tions ac­knowl­edged state­ments on the is­sue by the Heads of Ju­di­cia­ry, the Re­gion­al Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vices Com­mis­sion (RJLSC) and the Guyana Bar As­so­ci­a­tion.

Both or­gan­i­sa­tions af­firmed that CCJ Pres­i­dent Jus­tice An­der­son and all CCJ judges “con­tin­ue to have our con­fi­dence.”

“We re­main cer­tain that the is­sues raised can be ful­ly and fi­nal­ly re­solved in a man­ner that pre­serves the dig­ni­ty of the CCJ and all its Judges,” they said.

“The in­ter­est and preser­va­tion of the CCJ as an apex in­sti­tu­tion for the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice in the Com­mon­wealth Caribbean de­mands no less.”

The as­so­ci­a­tions al­so ex­pressed sup­port for the CCJ’s body of work, say­ing the court and its var­i­ous sup­port mech­a­nisms and en­ti­ties are struc­tured to safe­guard ju­di­cial in­de­pen­dence, at­tract “the finest le­gal minds” and in­su­late judges from po­lit­i­cal or oth­er in­ter­fer­ence.

On the is­sues about An­der­son’s lead­er­ship raised in me­dia re­ports, the OECS­BA and OC­C­BA said the pub­lic dis­clo­sure of pri­vate emails be­tween CCJ judges con­cern­ing on­go­ing in­ter­nal mat­ters was “dis­turb­ing” and “un­for­tu­nate.” They called for an im­me­di­ate and thor­ough in­ves­ti­ga­tion to de­ter­mine the source of the dis­clo­sures and said the CCJ’s tech­ni­cal, se­cu­ri­ty and com­put­er sys­tems re­quired “care­ful scruti­ny and ur­gent re­me­di­a­tion,” re­gard­less of whether the dis­clo­sures re­sult­ed from an in­ten­tion­al or ac­ci­den­tal leak or an or­ches­trat­ed hack.

The as­so­ci­a­tions al­so called for the var­i­ous ac­cu­sa­tions to be ur­gent­ly in­ves­ti­gat­ed and ex­am­ined for their truth­ful­ness and ac­cu­ra­cy. They said the RJLSC should fa­cil­i­tate dis­course on the al­le­ga­tions and take “con­sid­ered/re­spon­si­ble ac­tion” in sup­port of the CCJ, which is head­quar­t­ed here in Port-of-Spain.

“At this junc­ture, we’re un­sure if what we’re see­ing played out in the pub­lic are­na is in­ter­nal pol­i­tick­ing, grand­stand­ing and per­haps mis­chief-mak­ing,” they said.

The as­so­ci­a­tions urged CCJ judges, with the as­sis­tance of the RJLSC and oth­er par­ties, in­clud­ing for­mer CCJ judges, to dis­cuss frankly and open­ly any is­sues of con­cern.

“Our lead­er­ship stands ready to as­sist in­clud­ing fa­cil­i­ta­tion of me­di­a­tion,” they said.

They al­so urged the me­dia to ex­er­cise care, thor­ough­ness and fair­ness in re­port­ing on the mat­ter, while be­ing mind­ful that com­men­tary and re­marks could ap­pear “overzeal­ous, un­du­ly prej­u­di­cial and over­reach­ing.”