HGP Nightly News – Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes has sharply rejected the Bar Council’s response to the reported turmoil within the Caribbean Court of Justice, arguing that protecting confidentiality must not become a means of shielding serious allegations about the region’s highest court from scrutiny.
Hughes’ intervention follows a statement from the Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana condemning the unauthorised disclosure of purported internal correspondence among CCJ judges.
The Council described any such disclosure as a “gross breach of confidence and a serious dereliction of duty,” warning that it could bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
It expressly declined, however, to pronounce on the substance of the reported correspondence.
Hughes argued that this approach placed excessive attention on how the information reached the public while failing to confront what the material allegedly revealed.
While accepting that communications and deliberations among judges are generally expected to remain confidential, he maintained that confidentiality cannot operate as a “shield” against scrutiny when allegations of serious institutional wrongdoing arise.
Hughes also questioned whether the Bar Council’s statement accurately reflected the views of the wider legal profession, saying attorneys at both senior and junior levels were concerned primarily about the substance of the reported complaints, not simply their disclosure.
The allegations reportedly originated from a majority of the sitting CCJ judges and concerned governance, consultation, judicial administration, decision-making and the leadership of Court President Justice Winston Anderson.
More troubling were reported claims involving unilateral decisions, the composition of judicial panels and alleged attempts to influence judicial outcomes.
Those allegations have not been independently established, and no finding of misconduct has been made against Justice Anderson. Hughes nevertheless argued that they cannot be casually dismissed because they reportedly originated from serving judges within the Court rather than political opponents or external critics.
For Hughes, the controversy can no longer be reduced to the question of who disclosed the documents.
Instead, he said the central issue is whether the reported correspondence reveals systemic problems within the CCJ that demand an urgent and independent examination.
His position represents a direct challenge to the approach taken by the Bar Council. While the Council warned that unauthorised disclosure could undermine the judiciary, Hughes contended that confidentiality alone cannot preserve institutional confidence.
According to him, confidence in a court must be grounded in fairness, transparency, accountability, collegiality and respect for established judicial procedures.
The controversy carries particular significance for Guyana because the CCJ is the country’s final appellate court and has the last word on some of its most consequential constitutional, civil and criminal disputes. It also exercises original jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
Hughes argued that subjecting credible concerns about the Court’s internal governance to independent scrutiny would not weaken the institution.
On the contrary, he maintained that openly confronting the allegations, and determining whether they have any factual foundation, is necessary to protect the Court’s integrity and restore public confidence.
The Bar Council has made its condemnation of the leak clear. Hughes’ response, however, shifts the focus back to the unanswered question at the centre of the controversy: whether the reported allegations themselves are true and, if so, what they mean for the governance and independence of the Caribbean’s highest court.
