By Jah B | Accompong News | August 12, 2026
The leaked correspondence from judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice has changed the character of Jamaica’s debate over its final court.
Until now, the argument was largely constitutional and political: Should an independent Jamaica continue sending its highest appeals to the United Kingdom, or should its final court be a Caribbean institution?
The leaked correspondence introduces a different and potentially more consequential question:
Can Jamaica responsibly make the CCJ its final appellate court while serious allegations about the court’s internal governance, judicial independence and panel selection remain unresolved?
The answer, at this stage, should be not without an independent examination.
But that is not the same as saying Jamaica should abandon the CCJ.
The allegations cannot simply be dismissed
Reports based on leaked internal correspondence describe serious disagreements among CCJ judges concerning the leadership of President Justice Winston Anderson. Among the reported allegations are concerns about the court’s administration, judicial independence, the internal treatment of judges and, most seriously, the composition of judicial panels and possible attempts to influence case outcomes.
Those claims remain allegations. They have not been established by an independent investigation or judicial finding.
That distinction is fundamental.
But the seriousness of an allegation is not measured only by whether it has already been proven. When the allegation concerns the possibility that judges could be selected for particular cases in a manner intended to influence outcomes, it goes directly to the principle of judicial independence.
That is why Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson, KC, has argued that it would be “extremely reckless” for Jamaica to commit to the CCJ while the allegations remain unresolved. He has called for public scrutiny of the matter and highlighted the allegations concerning panel selection as particularly troubling.
That is a constitutional-governance argument, not simply an attack on the CCJ.
But Tavares-Finson’s argument has a limit
The critical question is whether the allegations justify investigating the CCJ or rejecting the CCJ.
The first proposition is now difficult to dispute.
The second has not been established.
The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, the body responsible for appointments within the CCJ and for disciplinary control over judges other than the president, has acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations concerning the court’s administration and judicial independence.
More importantly, the Commission says the concerns should be addressed through established governance mechanisms and a “transparent and independent review.” (News Source Guyana)
That may be the most important development since the leak.
The appropriate response to a serious allegation against a judicial institution is not to automatically accept it.
Neither is it to automatically dismiss it.
It is to investigate it.
The CCJ’s defenders have a legitimate argument
Veteran attorney Bert Samuels has strongly defended the regional court.
Samuels argues that the allegations have become political ammunition for people who already oppose the CCJ and says they do not establish that the court’s judgments or institutional integrity have been compromised.
He has also warned against allowing the controversy to destroy the broader Caribbean integration project. (Jamaica Gleaner)
His argument deserves consideration.
Courts are not expected to be institutions where judges never disagree. Judges can have profound disagreements about administration, leadership, procedure and jurisprudence without the institution itself being corrupt.
The existence of internal conflict therefore proves very little by itself.
The critical question is narrower:
Did any improper administrative conduct actually interfere with the impartial adjudication of cases?
That remains unanswered.
Golding’s position has not changed
Opposition Leader and PNP President Mark Golding has been unequivocal: the leaked correspondence has not altered the party’s support for the CCJ replacing the Privy Council as Jamaica’s final appellate court.
The PNP continues to regard the CCJ as a vital regional judicial institution and says it remains confident in its judges and their commitment to the principles of justice. (Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana)
That position is unsurprising. The PNP has supported the CCJ for years and has connected the issue to Jamaica’s unfinished constitutional transformation into a republic.
But Golding’s position raises an important question:
Should a constitutional commitment to the CCJ be treated as irreversible before the institution has answered serious questions about its governance?
The answer should be no.
Supporting the CCJ does not require anyone to suspend critical judgment about the institution.
Indeed, if the CCJ is to become Jamaica’s highest court, Jamaicans have an even greater right to demand that it meet the highest standards of transparency and judicial independence.
Nicholson makes the opposite case
Former Attorney General and Justice Minister A.J. Nicholson has long defended replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ.
His position reflects the historical argument that Jamaica’s continued attachment to a British final court is inconsistent with full judicial sovereignty.
That argument is not trivial.
The CCJ was created precisely because Caribbean states sought to establish their own apex judicial institution. For ordinary litigants, the issue is not merely philosophical. Access to a final appellate court matters.
CCJ supporters argue that a Caribbean institution is more accessible to Caribbean citizens than a court sitting thousands of miles away in London.
Samuels has made this case forcefully, arguing that the region has produced legal minds capable of standing alongside those of the Privy Council. (Jamaica Gleaner)
Champagnie raises another possibility
King’s Counsel Peter Champagnie has offered a more critical perspective on the controversy.
His intervention is important because Jamaica’s debate is often presented as a binary choice:
CCJ or Privy Council.
But there is another constitutional possibility:
A Jamaican final court.
Whether that option would be practical, affordable or desirable is a separate question. But the leaked correspondence has created an opportunity to revisit whether Jamaica’s long-term constitutional architecture should be limited to the traditional CCJ-versus-Privy-Council choice.
Malahoo Forte’s intervention is revealing
Former Constitutional Reform Committee co-chair Marlene Malahoo Forte has expressed concern about the leak and its impact on confidence in the CCJ.
She has described the leak as a “poor display of judgement” and said the controversy is damaging public perception of the court at precisely the time when Jamaica and other Caribbean states are debating their final appellate arrangements. (Jamaica Gleaner)
But an important distinction must be maintained.
There is no clear evidence in the current reporting that Malahoo Forte has called for Jamaica to retain the Privy Council because of the leaked correspondence.
Her position is therefore better described as concern over institutional confidence, rather than outright opposition to the CCJ.
That distinction matters.
The institutional response cannot be ignored
The argument that the controversy is merely political ammunition becomes harder to sustain following the response from the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission.
The Commission has acknowledged the seriousness of allegations concerning the administration of the CCJ and judicial independence. It says the concerns should be addressed through established governance mechanisms and a transparent and independent review. (News Source Guyana)
This does not mean the allegations are true.
But it does mean the institution responsible for important aspects of the court’s governance recognises that the matter requires attention.
There is, however, an important governance complication.
Justice Winston Anderson, whose leadership is at the centre of the allegations, is also chairman of the RJLSC. (News Source Guyana)
That makes independence in any review particularly important.
A review cannot simply become a closed institutional exercise whose conclusions are announced without sufficient explanation.
If the objective is to restore public confidence, the process itself must be credible.
Jamaica should pause — but pause the process, not the idea
This is where the political debate needs greater precision.
Jamaica should not conclude that the CCJ is unfit to be its final court merely because internal emails reveal serious disagreements.
But Jamaica should also not proceed as though nothing has happened.
The appropriate response is a temporary pause in the final constitutional step while the allegations are independently examined.
That means:
First, verify the correspondence.
Its authenticity, completeness and context should be established.
Second, investigate the allegations concerning judicial panels.
This should be a priority. Were panels constituted for legitimate administrative reasons, or was there an attempt to influence outcomes?
Third, examine whether any cases were affected.
If improper panel selection occurred, did it compromise any judgment?
Fourth, examine the governance structure.
Does the CCJ have adequate mechanisms for judges to raise complaints about their president without fear of retaliation or institutional paralysis?
Fifth, ensure independence of the review.
The investigation should be sufficiently independent to command public confidence.
Sixth, publish appropriate findings.
The public does not need access to every confidential judicial communication. But it needs enough information to understand whether the allegations were substantiated, rejected or partially established.
Then resume the constitutional debate.
At that point, Jamaica can make a decision based on evidence rather than politics.
The Privy Council should not receive a free pass
There is another danger.
The controversy could create the false impression that the alternative to an imperfect CCJ is a perfectly functioning Privy Council.
That is not an honest comparison.
The Privy Council is a foreign final court for Jamaica.
The CCJ is a Caribbean institution.
The question of final appellate jurisdiction is therefore simultaneously about justice, sovereignty, accessibility and institutional trust.
The fact that the CCJ has governance problems would not automatically make the Privy Council the better institution.
Likewise, the fact that the Privy Council has a respected judicial tradition does not mean Jamaicans should automatically accept a foreign final court indefinitely.
The choice should ultimately be based on what provides Jamaicans with the strongest guarantees of independent, impartial, accessible and accountable justice.
The constitutional question is now bigger than CCJ versus Privy Council
That may ultimately be the most important consequence of the leak.
For years, Jamaica’s debate has been framed as:
London or Port of Spain?
The better question is:
What kind of final court does an independent Jamaica actually require?
It could be the CCJ.
It could theoretically be a Jamaican apex court.
Or Jamaica could retain the Privy Council.
Whichever option is chosen, the institution must satisfy certain non-negotiable principles:
- judicial independence;
- transparent appointment procedures;
- impartial allocation of cases;
- protection from political interference;
- credible disciplinary mechanisms;
- institutional accountability;
- reasonable access to justice; and
- public confidence.
The leaked correspondence has put those principles—not merely geography—at the centre of the discussion.
The Accompong News position
The responsible position is therefore neither “Save the CCJ” nor “Abandon the CCJ.”
It is:
Investigate the CCJ.
If the allegations are found to be unfounded, the court should be able to emerge stronger.
If they are partially substantiated, the governance weaknesses should be corrected before Jamaica proceeds.
If serious interference with judicial independence is established, Jamaica would have to reconsider whether the CCJ, in its present form, is suitable to become the country’s final court.
That is not anti-Caribbean.
It is precisely what judicial independence requires.
The CCJ should not be protected from scrutiny because it represents Caribbean sovereignty.
A Caribbean court must be held to Caribbean people’s highest expectations of justice.
And Jamaica should not be pressured into choosing the CCJ simply because retaining the Privy Council is associated with colonial history.
Nor should Jamaica reject the CCJ simply because leaked correspondence has created an opportunity for political opponents to revive an old argument.
The evidence should decide.
For now, the evidence justifies an independent investigation—not a verdict.
And that distinction should guide Jamaica’s constitutional transition.
Accompong News will continue to examine the correspondence, the competing political positions and the institutional response as more verified information becomes available.
