Former Speaker of the National Assembly and Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran has questioned whether the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) has the authority to conduct a review into allegations concerning Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President, Justice Winston Anderson, following the leak of internal emails.
In his latest blog, The Conversation Tree, titled “Rumble in the CCJ,” Ramkarran examined the controversy surrounding the leaked correspondence and Justice Anderson’s subsequent public response.
According to Ramkarran, reports in the local and regional press indicate that the RJLSC acknowledged allegations concerning the CCJ President and announced that a “transparent and independent review” would be undertaken.
However, Ramkarran argued that the powers afforded to the RJLSC under Article V of the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice do not permit such a review.
“Nothing in the functions described above gives jurisdiction to the RJLSC to investigate the President of the Court, ‘review’ his conduct, or ‘review’ the issues arising from the leaked emails which concern the internal functioning of the court,” Ramkarran wrote.
He noted that the Commission’s functions include appointing judges other than the President, exercising disciplinary control over judges other than the President, and making recommendations to Heads of Government regarding the appointment or removal of the CCJ President.
Ramkarran said the leaked emails suggested disagreements involving directions to judges over dress code, alleged pressure in relation to cases, including the recent Mohamed case, and the composition of judicial panels.
However, he contended that Justice Anderson’s subsequent explanation provided information that was not contained in the leaked correspondence.
“Based on the facts set out by Justice Anderson, the sweeping allegations of wrongdoing against him are not justified,” Ramkarran said.
According to Ramkarran’s account of Justice Anderson’s response, the dress-code dispute arose after a judge insisted on wearing national dress during matters heard in Chambers. After discussions among the judges failed to resolve the matter, a draft Judicial Dress Code was prepared for consideration by the RJLSC.
On the issue of alleged “panel fixing,” Ramkarran said Justice Anderson explained that the composition of a panel was altered solely because the judge maintained his right to wear national dress in court.
Ramkarran also said Justice Anderson maintained that judicial views were not suppressed and no judge was directed to arrive at a particular conclusion.
The Senior Counsel further addressed Justice Anderson’s intervention concerning the confirmation of Guyana’s Chancellor and Chief Justice.
According to Ramkarran, Justice Anderson explained that two of his predecessors had publicly addressed the issue of acting appointments for Guyana’s two most senior judicial officers, and it was within that context that he raised the matter with the Leader of the Opposition.
Ramkarran said the intervention could be understood against previous concerns expressed by the CCJ over the continued acting appointments.
He nevertheless suggested that Justice Anderson may have misjudged Guyana’s political environment.
“Justice Anderson’s error was to underestimate the deep political schisms in Guyana which have bred an advanced form of suspicion and bitterness,” Ramkarran wrote.
Ramkarran also argued that should the RJLSC proceed with a review despite what he considers its lack of jurisdiction, consideration should extend to the unauthorised disclosure of the court’s confidential correspondence and whether that disclosure brought the CCJ into disrepute.
