In the period 1 August 2019 to 30 March 2020, the Court sat 33 times. These sittings comprised seven Case Management Conferences (CMCs), 16 hearings, eight judgment deliveries, one status hearing and one monitoring hearing. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court transitioned into full virtual hearings due to the health requirements imposed by governments across the region to protect employees and court users from exposure to infection. The Court sat for the first time in a full virtual sitting held on 30 April 2020, and since then, overall sat for a total of 17 times as follows: four CMCs; six hearings; six judgment deliveries and one monitoring hearing. Three out of these 17 matters were heard by the full Bench of the Court.

One of the considerable advantages of this virtual hearing transition is that the Bench dispensed the same high-quality justice to Caribbean litigants from their homes. It is noteworthy that the precursor to these virtual hearings was the issuance of Practice Direction 1 of 2020, PRACTICE DIRECTION COVID-19, which ensured inter alia business continuity during the pandemic.

The statistics below represent a significant decrease in the trend of new matters coming before this Court for any reporting period. While this Court was able to ensure business continuity, a general assumption may be that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted domestic courts’ ability to ensure that matters progress onward to the Caribbean Court of Justice in the usual manner of their operations. The CCJ anticipates this impact may well be manifested in the 2020-2021 reporting period, as the domestic judiciaries and litigants regain the wherewithal to progress the matters filed to disposition. Notwithstanding, the Court is prepared for the significant peak in the volume of new cases likely in the forthcoming period.

Appellate Jurisdiction

In the critical case of international, regional and national interest, ‘Guyana Election case: Mohamed Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo v Eslyn David et al [2020 CCJ 10(AJ) GY the Court heard the matter virtually and delivered judgment within 15 days of filing. This matter had two Applicants, 10 Respondents and two Intervenors. In this case, the Court noted that ‘valid votes’ which determine the election of members of the National Assembly as well as winning Presidential candidate, are obtained by a transparent exercise described in the Representation of the People Act. The Court also considered the history of Article 177(4) and held that the Application was premature as it was always intended that questions of the validity of the election of a President could arise only after the members of the National Assembly had been elected and a Presidential candidate had been deemed and declared to be President. As Ms David’s Application did not trigger the provisions of Article 177(4), the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to make the orders that were made, and the finality clause was inoperable.

Original Jurisdiction

CCJ’s First Advisory Opinion

In addition to the matters filed in this jurisdiction during this period, the Court delivered its first Advisory Opinion, pursuant to Article 212 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. This request was made by the Caribbean Community in Suit No. AOOJ2019/001. The Court had been asked to render its advice on two issues. First, whether Article 27(4) allows a Member State to opt out of a decision of the Conference of Heads of Government taken under Article 46 to enlarge the classes of persons entitled to move freely in the Community. In answering the first question, the Court noted that an opt-out was only permissible if the fundamental objectives of the Community, as laid down in the Treaty, were not prejudiced by it. However, the RTC did not ‘lay down’ “fundamental objectives”; therefore, such objectives had to be culled from the Treaty. This Court opined that freedom of movement of skilled nationals is essential for the achievement of a seamless economic space.

The second question was whether the principle of non-reciprocity would enable nationals of those Member States which opted out of a decision under Article 27(4) of the Treaty to derive the benefits of the decision. In answering the second question, the Court stated that Article 27(4) clearly specified that a Member State might opt out of the obligations arising from a decision. The Court held that Article 27(4) is non-reciprocal in character and Member States are required to extend to the agricultural workers and security guards of Antigua and St Kitts and Nevis the right to seek employment in their respective States.