If the anti-Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) lobbyists needed a sturdy platform from which to make their case, the CCJ itself has gifted them one on a silver platter — all nicely wrapped up and tied with a bow. They have struggled to offer cogent arguments against the quality of its decisions, the timeliness with which they are delivered or, up until now, the calibre of its judges.

The recent disclosure of discord among its members is deeply troubling. It is not disagreements among them that make it so. Disagreements are normal and healthy in a panel of judges who may offer different interpretations of the facts and points of law. That is why a panel exists. One expects that such disagreements are expressed respectfully, unlike another jurisdiction where they are sometimes punctuated with personal abuse.

What is alarming is that the disclosure involves accusations of autocratic behaviour by the president and his manipulation of panel selection aimed at influencing judicial outcomes. More alarming is the fact that these accusations are made not by one or two judges, but all the other five. It is hard to believe that they could have all taken that position without due consideration.

Without appropriate resolution, this episode will tarnish the reputation of the court, perhaps irreparably. Even if it is resolved, it will have suffered a serious setback in its hopes of gaining acceptance as the final court for all Caricom member states.

The responsibility for fixing this débâcle lies firstly with the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC). It must move swiftly to investigate the reports and assess the facts.

Removal of the president, Justice Winston Anderson, if that is deemed necessary, can only be done on the recommendation of the RJLSC and a 75 per cent majority vote of the Caricom heads of government. God forbid that that becomes another imbroglio similar to that regarding the reappointment of the Caricom secretary general.

What surprises me most is the focus of some legal luminaries as well as The Gleaner editorial on the circumstances by which the information became public — through a leak of confidential e-mail. Without that leak we would most likely never have become aware of this dysfunction and the court would simply descend into unexplained chaos. The leak may have breached ethical rules for which remedies exist, but are we not entitled to know? Is that not what whistle-blowing is all about?

A concern that goes to the heart of the integrity of the CCJ has to do with the culture that prevails among its judges. Not everything in how the court operates can be codified and subject to rules and sanctions. Much of it depends on the culture evolved over centuries in common law jurisprudence that guides conduct on the bench and in the chambers. The diversity of its members, we had hoped, would ensure this. This episode suggests that the CCJ needs more than a little brushing up.

I have repeatedly alluded to the fact that former Prime Minister Edward Seaga, who was sceptical of the CCJ becoming our final court, suggested in 2005 that before acceding to its final jurisdiction we should observe the court’s performance over 10 years and then do a comprehensive assessment. That 10-year period has long passed, but that assessment has never been done. This recent issue is bound to affect any such assessment.

Bruce Golding served as Jamaica’s eighth Prime Minister from September 2007 to October 2011