Letter: The Mohameds’ CCJ ruling was always unambiguous

Dear Editor,

This “fanning for smoke” by “only” some sections of Team Mohamed is stirring my angst. In fact, it is now mounting as I digest, from the dailies, the portent of the caption, “CCJ under pressure as Judges’ leaked emails raise questions over independence.” Inhering in the supposed news piece is that the “internal rift at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is spawning suspicions of ‘non-independence and loss of credibility’ of the said CCJ, the region’s highest court.”

This uncalled-for furore revolves around “leaked emails” in which “sitting Judges are seemingly accusing President Justice Winston Anderson of ‘dictatorial’ leadership, panel manipulation, and attempts to influence judicial opinions.”

So, what do I make of this?

First, it is that in Guyana, especially, the combined Opposition, their followers, and more so, their legal team, have no basis for deeming the CCJ as prejudiced or pandering to a particular party in the just-concluded extradition case involving the Mohameds and Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs. The ruling from the CCJ, unanimously too, was that the case can resume after it was disrupted by a legal challenge from the father and son.

I really want John “Foolish” Public to absorb this. It is that the Mohameds’ formal legal defence team, comprising Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, along with Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva, at no time (up to the present) ever accused or hinted that the CCJ was biased in its ruling. As a matter of fact, following the July 29, 2026, judgement, the attorneys overtly and explicitly welcomed some aspects of the court’s 256-page ruling.

Contrary to this, and like a spoilt and spanked child, Azruddin Mohamed himself, via his various channels, is publicly attacking the integrity of the CCJ “after internal Judge emails were leaked”. What is comical and yet dangerous is that the various responses manifest a noticeable divergence between the official legal team and Azruddin Mohamed’s public campaigners, with the latter trying to “cook up” something.

A worthy point to note is that the legal team pointed out that the CCJ Judges actually agreed that public statements made by Guyanese Attorney General Anil Nandlall had crossed the threshold into “apparent bias”. (This was an issue that was used to chastise the honourable Attorney General). Yet, the very court ultimately ruled that the AG’s “bias” (if that was so) did not legally taint the Home Affairs Minister’s separate decision to authorise the extradition.

This is a classic case of being “disinterested” and “dispassionate” regarding any issue in life and not just the courts. In suspecting that Anil swayed Minister Oneidge Walrond to reduce her to a puppet, and I am glad that the CCJ clearly indicated her “independence” and “non-persuaded” decision.
Secondly, I come to these “allegations of ‘panel fixing’, where the idea is being touted that the CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson attempted or sought some kind of altering or manipulating of the composition of judicial panels to sway outcomes…”

To this, I submit that these leaked emails do not prove, or even suggest, that the final ruling against the Mohameds was biased or legally compromised. However, they supposedly expose “…a fierce internal crisis regarding the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President’s leadership style and administrative overreach and in no way even suggest that the substantive verdict itself was infected by bias.”
As we all know, long before this leak, the ruling was a unanimous verdict. This was never an issue, even though there were procedural disagreements over how the case was being managed administratively. The crux was that “all” the sitting CCJ Judges ultimately agreed with the final decision to dismiss the Mohameds’ appeal and clear the path for their extradition.

Legal experts who weighed in on the matter noted that the core of the leaked email fight centred on administrative disputes – such as judicial dress codes, panel assignments, and timing – rather than the integrity or factual evidence of the judgements.

This hushes the argument that “the leaks pander toward a lack of fairness and independence. It should silence all seeking to gain ‘political leverage” to demand an independent review of the entire CCJ institution.

Let me remind readers that the accusation heaped on the President of the court regarding “directives” to remove certain judges has nothing to do with the “father and son” matter that was just concluded. That directive was issued for a different regional matter, the D’Almada v TT, Jamaica, and Caricom case. That was when, on June 26, 2026, Justice Anderson sent an internal email to Justices Chile Eboe-Osuji and Arif Bulkan stating, without prior explanation, that he had “determined that a change in the panel” was “desirable.” This action effectively removed Justice Eboe-Osuji from hearing the D’Almada case.
If I were in the place of the Mohameds, my energies would definitely not be so ill-directed.

Yours truly,
Hargesh B Singh