…CCJ judge alleges ‘abuse of power’ in e-mail to President Anderson
A “greatly troubled” Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Judge Peter Jamadar has complained that he feels “targeted, harassed and bullied” following what he described as an intrusion into his private affairs and the questioning of his assigned administrative officer.
At the heart of Justice Jamadar’s complaint, outlined in a 4th September, 2026, e-mail to CCJ president Winston Anderson, the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC), also headed by Justice Anderson, fellow judges and court staff, is an enquiry into his appointments and commitments, including activities outside his duties at the court.
‘Intrusion’
Jamadar alleged that information about his activities was sought without his knowledge through his administrative officer, Candace Simmons-Peters.
The e-mail and its contents were verified by three CCJ insiders to the Sunday Express.
In the e-mail, Jamadar described the enquiry as “investigative and inquisitorial” and questioned the authority under which the CCJ president or the CCJ registrar, who also serves as secretary of the RJLSC, sought information about his (Jamadar’s) non-CCJ activities from an employee assigned to him.
Justice Peter Jamadar
He alleged the circumstances were intended to “invite and or coerce” Simmons-Peters into disclosing confidential, private and work unrelated information about his affairs.
According to Jamadar, the questioning of Simmons, Peters went further.
He alleged that on 1st September, she was questioned separately by CCJ information systems manager Ayinde Burgess, and later by Anderson, in connection with an apparent investigation into “the leak to the press” and possible breaches. Burgess was reportedly appointed by Anderson to oversee the leak investigation.
The latest development follows exclusive Sunday Express reports in August that exposed deep divisions within the CCJ. Five of the court’s six sitting judges had challenged aspects of the president’s leadership and raised concerns ranging from his administrative approach to allegations of “panel fixing” and attempts to influence cases.
The Sunday Express had obtained internal e-mail correspondence among the judges concerning the contentious issues.
In response, the CCJ president rejected allegations of judicial “panel fixing” in a statement issued on 14th August, 2026. He described the allegation that panels were manipulated to secure particular case outcomes as “wholly untrue”.
The controversy centres on allegations that judges were removed from or panels altered in ways that could influence judicial outcomes. Anderson maintains that the changes were administrative and not intended to influence the merits of any case. A probe had been initiated into this matter, as alluded to by Justice Jamadar in his 4th September e-mail, but no outcome has been reported by the CCJ or the RJLSC.
Enquiry into judge’s activities
In his six-page e-mail to Anderson, the RJLSC and judges on 4th September, Jamadar alleged that Simmons, Peters was questioned about whether she had access to his files, which documents she had printed for judges’ meetings, and material prepared in connection with an RJLSC, facilitated intervention.
She was also questioned about how she communicated with him, whether she had worked on particular days and her arrival and departure times at the CCJ, he said.
Jamadar further alleged that Simmons-Peters were required to surrender her CCJ assigned computer to Burgess for examination. She subsequently did so.
CCJ President, Justice Winston Anderson
More troubling, he wrote, was a subsequent exchange in which Simmons-Peters was questioned about Trinidad and Tobago’s Computer Misuse Act and the possible consequences of breaching it.
Jamadar alleged that during the questioning, Anderson referred to the possibility of a two-year prison sentence and indicated that investigations would continue to establish who had leaked the information.
The incidents led Jamadar to question not only the treatment of his administrative officer but also whether the enquiries were being used to gather information about him.
“In both instances there are, in my opinion, a clear focus on and targeting of me and maybe more indirectly Ms. Simmons-Peters, the CCJ’s Administrative Officer assigned to me,” he wrote.
In the correspondence, Jamadar characterised the actions as an “abuse of power, administrative overreach” and raised concerns about what he considered infringements of his rights to privacy, due process and protection of the law.
He formally asked Anderson, in his capacity as CCJ president and chairperson of the RJLSC, and the CCJ registrar to identify the legal and institutional authority under which the enquiries were conducted.
He also requested the relevant CCJ treaties, statutes, regulations, policies and practices, together with applicable Trinidad and Tobago laws and international legal principles that would authorise such action.
Questionable investigative action
Of particular concern to Jamadar was the alleged attempt to obtain details of his judicial appointments outside the CCJ.
He argued that neither Anderson nor the CCJ registrar, in the latter’s capacity as RJLSC secretary, was entitled to seek such information from Simmons-Peters without first notifying him and obtaining his agreement.
Jamadar also questioned why documents connected to an RJLSC-facilitated intervention had become the subject of enquiries during the investigation into the alleged leak to the media.
He argued that those documents could not logically have been connected to the suspected disclosure of internal correspondence to the press.
The questions raised concerns that the enquiry had extended beyond the alleged leak and that the broader investigation was focused on him, Jamadar said.
He also sought to establish whether the RJLSC knew of, approved or supported the investigative actions being undertaken within the court.
In addition, he questioned whether the manner in which Simmons-Peters was interrogated was appropriate, particularly given the alleged references to possible criminal consequences.
Three incidents raise concerns
For Jamadar, the incidents could not be viewed in isolation. He pointed to three events that, in his view, demonstrated a pattern of targeting.
- The first involved a proposed judges’ meeting scheduled for 4th September. Jamadar said he had indicated that a prior commitment prevented him from attending in person, but he remained available to participate virtually.
He became concerned, he said, when Anderson’s position appeared to shift from a suggestion that judges attend in person to an expectation that they do so.
- The second incident involved the questioning of Simmons-Peters and the enquiries into Jamadar’s professional and personal commitments.
- The third concerned an earlier judges’ meeting in August. Jamadar said he and four other judges had sought to postpone that meeting to allow an RJLSC-facilitated intervention to take place.
According to Jamadar, Anderson subsequently told him that if he did not attend, “I suspect that will be an occasion and a reason for me to write to you”. He described this as “shocking”.
Jamadar said Justice Margaret Rajnauth-Lee received a similar e-mail, while the other three judges who sought the postponement did not.
He questioned why he and Rajnauth-Lee appeared to have been singled out.
Referring to the three incidents collectively, Jamadar wrote, “This pattern of targeting in relation to me, illustrated for the time being by these three incidents, raises great concerns in my mind. Troubling concerns.”
He added, “Certainly, I feel targeted, harassed, and bullied (directly or indirectly) by their occurrence, and their proximity to the wider contexts that are related to the broader and unresolved impasse among the judges and the CCJ President.”
Jamadar also questioned whether Anderson should play any role in investigations involving judges or court staff when, according to him, the president was himself closely involved in the underlying dispute.
He further raised questions about the privileges and immunities afforded to CCJ judges under the agreement establishing the CCJ and its Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.
The Sunday Express sent questions about Jamadar’s allegations to Justice Anderson, the court’s communications department and the RJLSC on 30th September, requesting responses by 7th October. The questions were resent on 5th October as a reminder. Up to press time last night, no response had been received. (Trinidad Express)
Source: Kaieteur News
