Guyana's Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has called for an independent investigation into the Caribbean Court of Justice after leaked internal communications exposed disagreement among the court's senior judges. The correspondence, obtained by the Trinidad Express, shows several sitting judges raising concerns about the court's administration, describing what they characterised as a difficult working environment, and questioning how the bench handled deliberations in Mohamed's case.

The Office of the Leader of the Opposition issued a statement describing the disclosures as deeply disturbing and calling for a full and independent examination of the allegations. The statement noted that the concerns did not originate from a single dissenting judge but reflected views shared across much of the bench. Mohamed's office argued that the credibility of the region's final appellate court could not be allowed to remain in doubt while questions about internal interference went unresolved. The CCJ serves as the highest court for several Caribbean nations, including Guyana, and its rulings are final.

The dispute traces back to a legal battle that began in October 2025, when the United States requested the extradition of Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, to face an eleven count indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The charges include conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering, linked to an alleged gold export and tax evasion scheme. Mohamed faces an additional charge relating to the importation of a vehicle into Guyana. Late last month, the CCJ dismissed the pair's final appeal against the extradition process, a decision that cleared the way for proceedings to resume before the Chief Magistrate at the Georgetown Magistrates' Courts.

It is important to note that the court's ruling itself was unanimous. All presiding judges agreed to dismiss the appeal, and the leaked emails do not suggest that the outcome was contested within the panel. The disagreement instead concerns how that outcome was reached and communicated, rather than what was decided.

According to the leaked material, the rift within the court began over a proposed dress code, a minor administrative matter that subsequently broadened into a wider dispute about leadership and decision making within the institution. Five of the court's six sitting judges are reported to have raised concerns about the conduct of CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson. One judge described a toxic atmosphere and pointed to what were called creeping patterns of anti-democratic approaches, alleging attempts to influence colleagues during deliberations. A further concern, raised separately, centred on Anderson's insistence on announcing the ruling in Mohamed's case at a time and in a manner that much of the bench reportedly considered inappropriate.

Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji, one of the judges involved in the exchanges, wrote that there was something troubling in an apex court tasked with interpreting the rule of law operating under leadership that, in his view, did not reflect democratic principles in its own conduct. Neither the CCJ nor Justice Anderson had responded publicly to the allegations at the time of writing. The court did tell the Trinidad Express that it remained committed to judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice, and cautioned that the disclosures risked being misunderstood without proper context.

The episode has drawn attention to the standing of the CCJ, which was established in 2001 and inaugurated in 2005 to replace the Privy Council as the region's final court of appeal. Supporters of the CCJ have long argued that reluctance among some Caribbean states to abandon the Privy Council reflects habit rather than substantive concern. The current dispute complicates that argument.

Extradition proceedings against Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed are now expected to continue before the Georgetown Magistrates' Courts. Whether the CCJ or regional authorities will formally respond to calls for an independent review of the court's internal conduct remains an open question.

‍