THE current controversy engulfing the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) brings to mind a point we made in this space exactly two years ago when we invoked the famous words of American civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King Jr: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

Dr King’s observation reminds us that the pursuit of true justice is rarely swift or straightforward. It is a protracted journey marked by trial and error, the painstaking correction of shortcomings and misgivings and, critically, the gradual earning of the trust and confidence of those who must ultimately place their faith in the institution.

Justice cannot be strained, nor can it be hurried without risking the very principles it is intended to uphold. That lesson, we believe, should be taken seriously by those political actors seeking to accelerate Jamaica’s accession to the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ.

The latest controversy surrounding the CCJ only reinforces the need for caution.

CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson has been accused by a majority of his fellow judges of administering the court in an “authoritarian” and “dictatorial” manner. According to reports in the Trinidad Express, the complaints include allegations that Justice Anderson unilaterally imposed a judicial dress code, manipulated the composition of judicial panels, and sought to influence the outcome of cases.

The newspaper reported that it had obtained internal correspondence indicating that five of the CCJ’s six sitting judges had challenged Justice Anderson’s leadership. One warned of “creeping patterns of anti-democratic approaches”, while another called for an urgent meeting to address what was described as “a level of disenchantment that may well be approaching a crisis point if left unaddressed”.

We are particularly concerned about the weightier allegations than dress code, because any suggestion that the president of a final appellate court could act unilaterally, manipulate the constitution of judicial panels, or attempt to influence the outcome of court cases raises questions of judicial independence and institutional integrity.

We trust that Justice Anderson will address them with the urgency and transparency they demand so as not to deepen public scepticism about the court and undermine confidence in an institution whose legitimacy ultimately rests on the perception — and reality — of impartiality.

The strength of a final court lies in the safeguards that prevent any individual from becoming greater than the institution itself.

We have consistently maintained that the idea of a CCJ is one we hold dear. It forms part of the broader vision of a Caribbean community capable of pooling its collective strengths and asserting its own institutional independence — the same spirit that gave birth to the Caribbean Free Trade Area in 1965 and, subsequently, the Caribbean Community and Common Market in 1973.

But embracing that vision does not require us to suspend critical judgement.

There is incontrovertible evidence that Jamaica’s justice system remains deeply troubled, hamstrung by inadequate resources, persistent delays, and systemic weaknesses that have eroded public confidence and, in some instances, contributed to citizens taking the law into their own hands.

In other words, it would be unwise to rush Jamaica into the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ as part of the transition to republican status. Instead, let us devote equal urgency to addressing the long-standing deficiencies within our justice system.