| MAZTERPIECE COMMUNICATIONS Strategic Communications & Leadership Development |
Deep Divide, Deeper Silence
A Crisis Communication Case Study using the AWTri™ Model
On 9 August 2026, the Trinidad Express published leaked internal correspondence in which five of the Caribbean Court of Justice’s six sitting judges accused President Justice Winston Anderson of governing the regional court in an “authoritarian” and “dictatorial” manner, alleging unilateral decision-making, the manipulation of judicial panels, and an attempt to influence a politically explosive extradition ruling. Understandably, people across the region were rattled. How does a regional final court of appeal explain away a majority of its own bench turning on its president?
For the five states that access the CCJ’s Appellate Jurisdiction, this court is literally the last word on justice. Its authority rests on one asset alone: public confidence that its judges are independent, impartial and free from any single office-holder’s influence. A story alleging the opposite goes to the very reason the court exists.
The backlash was immediate and, in the circumstances, entirely understandable. Within a day, Guyana’s parliamentary opposition leader, Dr Terrence Campbell, was calling publicly for the court’s president’s resignation.
Within the week, a Guyanese trade union was demanding a formal probe, a former Jamaican prime minister was warning in a published column that the episode could tarnish the court’s standing across the region, and the row had bled into an entirely separate political fight over whether Jamaica should even accede to the CCJ’s Appellate Jurisdiction at all. A dispute that began over a judicial dress code had become a live threat to the wider project of Caribbean final-appellate justice.
Over the five days following publication of the story, there were four distinct institutional responses — a same-day holding statement by the CCJ, a joint statement from regional heads of judiciary, an announcement of an independent review by the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC), and a lengthy first-person statement from the president himself. Yet, the four institutional voices spoke across without a single coordinated narrative, a named accountability process, or a plain-language statement the public could actually absorb.
The Institutional Statement
The backlash forced the court’s hand. On the very same day the story broke, its communications unit issued the following statement on the CCJ’s behalf:
“The Court is mindful that questions and allegations presented without the benefit of context, background, or an appreciation of the nature of judicial deliberations, collegial discussions, and institutional governance may lend themselves to misunderstanding or mischaracterisation.
For that reason, the Court wishes to reaffirm that the Judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice remain committed to the tenets of judicial conduct enshrined in the United Nations Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct—independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence, and diligence.
Maintaining public confidence in the Court is fundamental to upholding the rule of law and preserving trust in the administration of justice. The Caribbean Court of Justice remains committed to providing accessible fair and efficient justice for the people and states of the Caribbean Community.”
Instead of settling nerves, the statement did little to slow the story. Public commentary on regional platforms turned sharply on the court in the days that followed:
- rudeo (public commenter, Demerara Waves):“Who must go? Anderson must go”
- George Elliott (public commenter, Nationwide90FM):“Jamaica must now withdraw its membership in the CCJ, and continue to engage the UKPC as our final appellate court, ensuring that appellants receive the most professional legal review.”
- truth (public commenter, Demerara Waves):“resign and become the DPP of the Turks and Caicos or the Cayman islands”
Anatomy of a Failing Response
In more than two decades advising newsrooms, governments and regional institutions through media storms, I have written, seen and analysed a great many crisis statements. The court’s 9 August statement, and much of what followed it, offers a useful lesson in how not to do it.
While it isn’t aggressively defensive, it commits the cardinal sin of every failing institutional statement: it never names what actually happened. There is no reference to a dress code, to panel composition, or to the extradition matter at the centre of the story, only an abstract appeal to “context” and “appreciation.”
The tone was patronising and dismissive. By framing scrutiny as something that “may lend themselves to misunderstanding or mischaracterisation,” the court quietly shifted the burden onto the very public it needed to reassure, as though the problem lay in how the story was read, rather than in what had allegedly occurred inside the institution. That is a deflection dressed in institutional language.
A joint statement from the region’s heads of judiciary followed two days later, offering valuable solidarity but declining to comment on the merits of the allegations at all. Instead, it focused primarily on the breach of e-mail confidentiality. The tone was defensive and institutionalist. Attacking the leak while ignoring the house fire signalled elite protectionism over public accountability.
A day after that, the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission quietly confirmed an independent review — arguably the single most important trust-building step available to the court — yet it reached the public through press pick-up rather than as a headline commitment in the CCJ’s own voice.
It took five full days for the one person the story was actually about to speak for himself. When Justice Anderson’s own statement finally arrived on 14 August, it was detailed, and to its credit, it contained a rare moment of genuine candour:
Where I have been at fault I will own up to my shortcomings.
But at roughly 2,500 words, written in the register of a legal brief, it asked an upset regional public to do a great deal of work to find that one sentence. And a statement that opens by condemning a leak as the “most troubling aspect” of the entire episode, before turning to the substance of the allegations against its author, has already told its audience where its priorities lie. In addition, the tone was combative and inflammatory. Using terms like “intellectually dishonest, injudicious and quite simply, malevolent” to characterise criticisms degraded judicial decorum. And it never directly addresses the single most damaging alleged quotation — that the president did not intend to “run a democracy” — a conspicuous and noticeable omission.
What a Stronger Response Should Have Looked Like
A same-day statement did not need to pre-empt a proper investigation. It needed to show the region that the court understood the gravity of what was being alleged, and that it was prepared to be held to account for finding out the truth, not in five days, but immediately:
| “We are aware of today’s news story concerning internal disagreements over the president’s leadership of the CCJ, including allegations relating to panel composition and judicial decision-making. These are serious matters and they deserve a serious response. We will not pretend these are simple matters, and we will not ask the region to simply take our word for it. The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission will therefore appoint an independent reviewer to examine the allegations, with terms of reference and a reporting timeline published within seven days. The independence and integrity of every judge of this court — and public confidence in this institution — matter more than any one office-holder, including the president. He will address the substance of these allegations directly and personally within days, once he has consulted his colleagues.” |
The AWTri™ Strategic Framework
My company, Mazterpiece Communications, has developed a strategic framework built on three core pillars designed to drive sustainable trust, effective communication and lasting institutional resilience: Awareness, Trust and Relationship. It is called the AWTri™ Model, and it serves as the intellectual property and signature methodology of the agency, used specifically to train journalists, senior officials and communications professionals in building strategic, long-term public and media relations. Here is how the CCJ could have used the AWTri™ Model to guide its response.
1. Awareness (The Foundation)
In this framework, Awareness is twofold: it requires an internal awakening to the reputational reality unfolding outside the institution, coupled with an external validation of the public’s perspective.
Where the CCJ Failed
The court’s early statements showed limited situational awareness. They treated a story naming five of six sitting judges as a matter requiring “context,” rather than as a five-alarm threat to the single asset — public trust — on which the entire institution depends.
How to Apply AWTri™
The court needed to explicitly demonstrate that it understood why the allegations were so damaging. The response should have named the concerns — leadership style, panel composition, and the extradition matter — rather than referring to them only obliquely as “questions and allegations.”
The Strategic Shift
Instead of “may lend themselves to misunderstanding,” the strategy dictated stating plainly: “We understand these allegations go to the heart of judicial independence, and we are treating them accordingly.”
2. Trust (The Bridge)
Trust is shattered instantly when an institution appears to close ranks rather than open its books. To rebuild it, a response must feature transparency, accountability and a clear, visible mechanism for redress.
Where the CCJ Failed
The court’s earliest statements offered reassurance without evidence; a recitation of the Bangalore Principles, but no accountability mechanism. When a genuine accountability step did arrive, the RJLSC’s independent review, it was under-communicated and reached the public as a secondary story rather than the court’s own headline commitment.
How to Apply AWTri™
The court needed to lead with the accountable action, not bury it three days into the crisis. Trust is restored when people see a named, credible, time-bound process attached to the allegations, not simply assurances that principles are “enshrined.”
The Strategic Shift
Announce the independent review on the day the story breaks, with terms of reference and a reporting deadline, and pair it with a short, plain-language public statement, not a 2,500-word legal register document five days later.
3. Relationship (The Long-Term Anchor)
In a region as interconnected as the Caribbean, the relationship between an apex court and the people, governments and legal profession it serves is the most valuable asset the institution possesses. When a crisis hits, an institution must lean into that relationship without hiding behind it.
Where the CCJ Failed
The joint statement from regional heads of judiciary showed real solidarity, but it was solidarity between institutions, not with the public. No statement in the entire five-day sequence spoke directly to ordinary citizens, bar associations or civil society, and the silence let the story drift into an unrelated political fight over Jamaica’s accession to the court.
How to Apply AWTri™
The framework dictates shifting from a top-down institutional broadcast to a direct, human dialogue with the people the court exists to serve. Because the CCJ has spent two decades building the case for Caribbean final-appellate justice, it needed to protect that wider legacy explicitly, not simply assume the public would separate one president’s conduct from the institution itself.
The Strategic Shift
Frame the episode as a test the court is determined to pass in full public view — including direct engagement with regional bar associations and participating governments — rather than a matter to be managed quietly through institutional channels alone.
By using the AWTri™ Model, the Caribbean Court of Justice could have moved its response from a reactive, fragmented sequence of institutional statements to a proactive strategy focused on rebuilding trust and demonstrating, from the first hour, that public confidence mattered more than any one officeholder, resulting in a far shorter, less damaging road to reputational recovery.
| Don’t wait until a crisis hits to seek help. Contact Mazterpiece Communications at info@mazterpiece.com for your bespoke crisis communication training. |