The Caribbean Court of Justice has introduced a new system requiring every judge to sit on every panel unless formally excused, marking one of the most significant changes to its internal operations since the court was established. Under the previous arrangement, panels were drawn from a rotating subset of judges. The revised approach removes that discretion in all but exceptional circumstances.

Judges will only be excluded from a case where a legitimate reason exists, such as a conflict of interest or prior involvement in related proceedings. Oversight of panel assignments will now rest with a three-member group made up of the Court President and the two most senior judges on the bench, rather than being determined by the President alone.

The court has presented the change as an effort to strengthen transparency and consistency in how cases are handled, and to improve the efficient administration of justice. Officials have framed the move as procedural rather than a response to any single event, though the timing places it firmly against a backdrop of recent tension within the institution.

That tension became public after correspondence exchanged among judges was leaked in recent weeks. The letters, according to those familiar with their contents, accused the current Court President, who took office in July 2025, of running the court in an authoritarian manner. Several judges reportedly used the word dictatorial to describe his approach to leadership and decision making since his appointment.

The immediate trigger for the dispute was the removal of a judge from an active panel, an act that some colleagues characterised as an attempt to influence the composition of the bench ahead of a ruling. The removal did not stem from a disagreement over the legal substance of the case. It arose instead from a conflict over courtroom attire, after the judge in question wore traditional Nigerian dress rather than the standard judicial robe required under the court's dress code. The President's decision to replace the judge on that basis, rather than permit the case to proceed as originally constituted, is what prompted the accusations of panel manipulation that followed.

The President has since issued a lengthy written response addressing the claims made against him. In it, he noted that the replacement panel went on to reach a unanimous verdict in the case, and argued that this outcome undermined suggestions that the original panel had been altered to steer the result. He described accusations of outcome manipulation as having been made in bad faith.

He did, however, acknowledge that his handling of the dress code disagreement may have been heavier than the situation warranted, conceding that a different approach could have avoided the escalation that followed. That admission stood apart from the rest of his response, which was largely a defence of his record and his authority as President.

He reserved his strongest language for those responsible for leaking the internal correspondence. He argued that such disclosures damage public confidence in the court and pose a risk to judicial independence more broadly, regardless of the underlying grievances that prompted them.

The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, which has responsibility for oversight of the court's judiciary, has said it will launch an independent review into the allegations. The Commission has not indicated a timeframe for that process. Until it concludes, the underlying questions about leadership culture within the court, and how such disputes should be managed in future, remain unresolved. The new panel assignment rules will take effect regardless of the review's outcome, though what they signal about the court's internal state is likely to be debated for some time.

‍