Dear Editor,
Like the rest of the country, I am observing with keen interest the unfolding saga at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
There are two certainties that the public must understand: firstly, nothing that comes out of the unfolding events can set aside, or in any manner alter the unanimous decision delivered in the Mohameds’ case.
Secondly, the desperate Mohameds will do everything within their power to milk this issue dry, not only to win public sympathy but in their usual delusional way think that their outpourings can somehow impact the unanimous decision of the Court, in their favour.
Perhaps it is good that members of the Court themselves see firsthand the propensity of the Mohameds to twist and perverse any particular narrative to avoid the arms of the law.
The Government of Guyana was the victim of this very public relations stunt. Many judges of the CCJ who seem to have been duped by it, are now the victims of the very thing. A proverbial dose of one’s own medicine sometimes results in a necessary awakening.
More importantly, however, the leaked emails reveal a lot. To begin with, most objective bystanders who read them will find the vast details contained in those emails very sinister which lends to a reasonable suspicion that it is likely that the entire saga was staged and the leak deliberate.
The intent behind this design is even more ominous. Many believe it is a plan to embarrass the President of the Court which can eventually trigger his removal from office. One member of the Court was already widely suspected to have been engaged in a similar controversy when he was a member of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago which led to the eventual resignation of the then Chief Justice of that country.
The fact that this particular judge is of similar age as the President and therefore the President’s removal may catapult him to that post supplies a grand motive. On one hand, some believe that it is a demonstration of efforts made for reward received.
Whatever may be the intent, it is highly irresponsible and grossly reckless conduct from the highest judicial officers in the Region. And what is the underlying disagreement about?
The petty issue of a uniform to be worn by the Judges. There is no serious court of law in the world that doesn’t have a set uniform for its members to adorn when they are sitting on the Bench. This is hardly a matter that requires discussion or agreement, or worse yet, should be the subject of such rancid disagreement. It was while this petulant disagreement was taking place that the Mohameds’ case arose. At least four of the Judges seem to have used the approach adopted by the President in the Mohameds’ case to support their accusation against him of a dictatorial approach to the conduct of the business of the Court.
The most significant conclusion that one can draw from the email exchanges is that there is not a single contention by any of the five judges that: (1) they intended to come to a different decision than the unanimous decision actually handed down, or (2) that the President attempted to influence their intended decision. The inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the exchanges are: (1) that the President wanted an earlier date for delivery of the decision, and (2) he wanted one judgment from the Court.
Based upon the comments I have seen and heard on this matter from persons with legal and judicial experience, I understand that in almost every appellate court, in particular, final courts, the head of that court persuades other members to do similarly.
While I am not a lawyer, I have enough common sense to know that any proper leader would want his team to subscribe to a singular document, moreover, when the outcome is decidedly unanimous.
And one can hardly fault a leader, more so, in a judicial context to want to deliver a decision in the earliest possible time.
What must be clear to a sensible observer is that there are members of that Court who lack the fundamental judicial attributes with which one should be endowed holding a position in such a high judicial institution.
They are prepared to engage in selfish pursuits of an extraordinarily petty nature to advance their personal agendas and perhaps of greater travesty, they are prepared not only to destroy the credibility of their leader but tarnish and besmirch the good name of the Court and the administration of justice at the highest level in the Caribbean, in this pursuit.
In the circumstances and for the preservation of the integrity of the Court, those five judges have a duty to issue a joint public statement that must inform the public with clarity that they were in no manner influenced in coming to the decision that they eventually arrived at, and to further clarify that the disagreements related to far less important matters, such as dates and manner of delivering their decisions.
Yours truly,
Neil Mansfield