Reading Time: 5 minutes

What can go so??!!

That is the question that bursts almost involuntarily from the lips of a Caribbean citizen reading the extraordinary reports now emerging from inside our Caribbean Court of Justice — the institution that was supposed to embody some of the finest aspirations of Caribbean civilisation.

I use the Jamaican-Trini word deliberately:

Comess

Not because judicial disagreement is itself comess. Learned judges are expected to disagree. Indeed, vigorous disagreement is an essential feature of judicial independence.

But what is now being reported about the CCJ appears to go considerably beyond ordinary judicial difference.

And that should alarm every Caribbean citizen who believes in Caribbean unity.

The reported saga apparently began innocuously enough — with disagreement over judicial attire. Yet according to correspondence reportedly obtained and published by the Trinidad Express, the dispute subsequently widened dramatically into allegations concerning the leadership and management of CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson. Five of the Court’s six sitting judges have reportedly raised concerns. (News Room Guyana)

That is no longer merely a disagreement about robes.

That is a matter concerning the institutional health of the highest court of our Caribbean Community.

Among the allegations reported are claims of an authoritarian or “dictatorial” management style, attempts to influence judicial colleagues during deliberations, concerns about the composition of judicial panels, and questions about whether judicial independence was being compromised. Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji reportedly raised particularly strong concerns, while Justice Patrick Jamadar described conduct during deliberations on the Mohamed extradition matter that he regarded as an attempt to influence judges who disagreed with the President. (News Room Guyana)

These are grave allegations.

But let me be absolutely clear: to me, allegations are not findings of fact.

Neither Justice Anderson nor the other learned judges should be condemned by newspaper reports, leaked correspondence or public commentary. The allegations require proper examination, due process and, above all, institutional fairness.

That is precisely why I am concerned.

The CCJ cannot afford either a kangaroo court against its President or a conspiracy of silence around allegations concerning its President.

It needs the truth.

And the truth must be established through an appropriately independent mechanism.

The irony is almost painful.

The Caribbean Court of Justice exists partly because Caribbean peoples have long yearned for institutions that we can call our own — institutions capable of administering justice according to law, independent of distant colonial authority.

We have spent decades arguing that Caribbean judges can judge Caribbean cases.

We have asked Caribbean governments to trust Caribbean jurisprudence.

We have encouraged Caribbean citizens to embrace the CCJ.

And we have hoped that more Caribbean countries would eventually accept it as their final court of appeal.

Yet now the Court itself is being compelled to confront questions about collegiality, leadership, judicial independence and internal governance.

What can go so??!!

The answer cannot simply be: “Nothing. These are merely disagreements among judges.”

Nor can it be: “Everything is wrong.”

Neither response is intellectually responsible.

There is a third possibility:

Something may be seriously wrong — and the Caribbean must find out exactly what it is.

The CCJ itself has cautioned that allegations about its internal workings can be misunderstood when presented without the context of judicial deliberations, collegial discussions and institutional governance. It has reaffirmed its commitment to independence, impartiality and integrity. (News Room Guyana)

That statement deserves to be taken seriously.

So too do the allegations.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, the very seriousness of the allegations makes transparency indispensable.

The Jamaica Gleaner has now described the situation as an immediate reputational crisis and has called upon the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission to determine whether there is substance to the complaints against Justice Anderson. (Jamaica Gleaner)

That is precisely where the matter should go.

Not to political grandstanding.

Not to social-media trial.

Not to Caribbean tribalism.

Not to defenders of Anderson automatically assuming that his accusers must be wrong.

And certainly not to those who would exploit the controversy to declare that the CCJ itself is a failed institution.

The Court is bigger than any one judge.

That includes its President.

And the Court is also bigger than any five judges.

That is why institutional mechanisms must now do their work.

If the allegations are substantially unfounded, an independent examination should establish that and restore the President’s reputation.

If there is substance to them, the appropriate corrective action must follow.

Either way, Caribbean confidence must be restored.

There is another matter that troubles me deeply.

The CCJ is not merely another courthouse.

It is a symbol of Caribbean self-determination.

Every internal fracture therefore carries consequences far beyond the personalities involved.

Those who have always doubted our capacity to sustain a genuinely Caribbean final court will seize upon this episode.

Those who favour retention of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will understandably ask whether Caribbean integration has produced institutions capable of managing themselves.

And ordinary Caribbean citizens, already accustomed to political quarrels, institutional distrust and allegations of abuse of power, may simply ask:

“If the judges cannot get along, how can we trust them to settle our disputes?”

That question may be unfair.

But it is real.

And public confidence is not built by telling citizens that they are foolish for asking difficult questions.

It is built by answering those questions.

I therefore write this not as an opponent of the CCJ but as a Caribbeanist who desperately wants it to succeed.

I want the CCJ to become the trusted final court of the Caribbean.

I want our children to inherit a region whose institutions command respect.

I want Caribbean unity to mean something more substantial than flags, conferences, communiqués and political speeches.

But unity without institutional integrity is fragile.

And judicial independence without public confidence is endangered.

So let us investigate.

Let us listen.

Let us distinguish allegation from evidence, disagreement from misconduct, and institutional criticism from institutional destruction.

Let the learned judges speak through proper channels.

Let the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission do its duty.

And let the Caribbean people eventually receive enough truth to know whether this is merely a tempest in judicial robes — or whether something much more consequential has been happening behind the dignified doors of our highest regional court.

Because when the matter concerns the institution entrusted with dispensing justice for the Caribbean Community, COMESS inside the CCJ cannot simply be laughed away as ordinary bangarang.

What can go so??!!

A Caribbean Court of Justice worthy of Caribbean unity must be strong enough to confront that question — fearlessly, transparently and honestly.

Our Caribbean dream deserves nothing less.