By Travis Chase | Nightly News |
PORT OF SPAIN, TRINIDAD — Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President Justice Winston Anderson has publicly acknowledged that “another course would have been much better” when he personally attempted to broker an agreement between President Dr. Irfaan Ali and the then-Opposition Leader to end Guyana’s decades-long deadlock over substantive judicial appointments.
In a comprehensive statement issued on Friday, August 14, 2026, the head of the regional final appellate court confirmed that he traveled to Georgetown in October 2025 to engage both political leaders directly. However, Justice Anderson firmly rejected allegations that his actions were politically motivated or designed to interfere in Guyana’s domestic constitutional affairs.
“Structural Vulnerability”: Addressing a Decades-Long Stalemate
Justice Anderson noted that Guyana has operated for over two decades without substantively appointed office holders for the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice, relying continuously on acting arrangements:
- Threat to Judicial Independence: Anderson maintained that prolonged acting appointments create a “structural vulnerability” that is difficult to reconcile with constitutional protections designed to insulate the judiciary from executive influence.
- Precedent of CCJ Concerns: He pointed out that former CCJ Presidents Sir Dennis Byron and Justice Adrian Saunders had similarly voiced grave concerns regarding Guyana’s unresolved judicial leadership impasse.
- No Preferred Nominees: The CCJ President clarified that he had “no personal interest or preference” regarding who is appointed to either office, emphasizing that his sole objective was ensuring the judiciary is led by substantive figures with full constitutional security of tenure.
The October 2025 Private Mission and Personal Concession
Detailing his direct intervention, Justice Anderson revealed that he traveled to Guyana in October 2025 and met separately with President Ali and the Opposition Leader, hoping to bridge the divide required under Article 127(1) of Guyana’s Constitution, which mandates consensus between the two leaders for substantive appointments.
When those private discussions failed to produce an agreement, the initiative drew subsequent political pushback. Reflecting on the decision, Justice Anderson conceded that direct mediation was a misstep:
“Looking back, I recognise that another course would have been much better,” CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson admitted. “It may have been preferable to restrict myself to publicly commenting on the constitutional importance of substantive appointments, as previous CCJ Presidents had done.”
Rejection of Political Bias
Addressing allegations raised in the public domain—including recent statements by political leaders regarding his engagement—Justice Anderson maintained that his actions were guided strictly by institutional responsibility:
“My only concern was protecting the independence and constitutional integrity of Guyana’s judiciary. My actions were not influenced by political preference, personal interest, or any desire to interfere in Guyana’s domestic affairs.”
The statement comes as the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) undertakes an independent review into internal CCJ administrative correspondence, and amidst calls from legal bodies to safeguard the institutional integrity of the Caribbean’s highest court.
