While Guyana’s legal fraternity and many civil society organisations have historically been quick to denounce criticism of the judiciary, there has been a notable silence in response to what appears to be a coordinated campaign by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and entities associated with him targeting the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the country’s final appellate court.
Over the past several days, multiple social media platforms linked to the Mohamed political organisation have amplified allegations arising from an internal administrative dispute within the CCJ. These include the “Team Mohamed’s” Facebook page, operated by Azruddin Mohamed; the “Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Guyana” page; the “Public Accountability Network” page; and the “Hana Khamelia” Facebook account, operated by his sister, Hana Mohamed.
Collectively, these platforms have circulated articles, commentary and images portraying the President of the CCJ and, by extension, the Court itself as compromised. The messaging has gone beyond reporting on internal correspondence among judges and has sought to draw direct connections between those developments and the Mohamed extradition proceedings.
The campaign follows the CCJ’s July 29 ruling dismissing Azruddin Mohamed’s appeal and lifting the stay that had halted the extradition proceedings initiated at the request of the United States. The Court rejected the central legal challenge to the Authority to Proceed issued under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act, allowing the extradition case to resume.
It follows an article published in the Trinidad Express concerning internal correspondence among CCJ judges regarding court administration and leadership.
The correspondence reportedly includes disagreements over administrative practices, collegial decision-making and judicial governance. Among the matters discussed were concerns expressed by some judges regarding leadership within the Court and allegations surrounding attempts to influence discussions during deliberations in certain matters, including the Mohamed extradition appeal.
However, the existence of internal disagreement within a court does not, by itself, invalidate judgments or establish judicial misconduct in any individual case. Courts around the world frequently experience internal disagreements, reflected in dissenting opinions, administrative disputes or differing views on judicial management. Those issues are generally distinct from the legal validity of judgments delivered according to established judicial procedures.
Nevertheless, pages aligned with the Mohamed political organisation have presented these developments as proof that the Court’s decision against Mohamed was tainted, while also publishing photographs of meetings between CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson and Guyanese officials in an effort to reinforce claims of political influence. This is even though Justice Anderson’s meetings were not limited to government officials, as he had met opposition officials, including Azruddin Mohamed himself.
The messaging has been accompanied by celebratory commentary from Mohamed and his supporters asserting that “everything is coming to light” following the release of the reports.
What has attracted increasing attention is the absence of public responses from organizations that have previously spoken forcefully in defence of judicial independence.
Neither the Guyana Bar Association nor several prominent civil society organizations have publicly addressed the sustained political campaign questioning the integrity of the region’s highest court.
The silence contrasts with previous occasions when criticism of judges or courts prompted immediate statements defending judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice.
The timing of the campaign has also drawn attention.
The coordinated attacks emerged only days after the CCJ dismissed Mohamed’s appeal and cleared the way for the continuation of extradition proceedings sought by United States authorities.
Observers argue that while litigants are entitled to disagree with judicial decisions and to pursue lawful legal remedies, sustained political campaigns portraying the region’s highest court as fundamentally compromised risk undermining confidence in judicial institutions without those allegations ever being tested in court.
Whether the Bar Association and civil society organisations will eventually respond remains to be seen.