Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged

11 October 2026

“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” — Matthew 7:1

The irony that the fiercest resistance to ‘being judged’ comes from judges and the legal fraternity is not lost. The latest example is Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Justice Peter Jamadar’s hissy fit, as exposed in the Trinidad Express article, “Jamadar feels ‘targeted, harassed and bullied’,” which outlines Jamadar’s complaints and objections to being investigated by the CCJ’s internal affairs team, which is looking into how internal CCJ emails were leaked to the Express newspapers.

Many questions arise from Jamadar’s ‘righteous outrage’. Firstly, does Justice Jamadar think that he and/or any other judge in any other court is above the law that they are sworn to uphold?

The leaking of internal CCJ communications has done serious damage to the reputation of the court. What started as a squabble over dress codes (ironically because a male justice insisted on wearing a dress) was manipulated into criticisms of the President of the Court, Justice Anderson, and, to the trained observer, the internal emails were written with ‘leaking’ in mind. The Jamaican proverb “If yuh throw stone inna hog pen, the one who squeal, is him it lick” seems appropriate.

Secondly, does Jamadar believe that his private life is above examination? In his newest complaint, Jamadar alleged the circumstances were intended to “invite and/or coerce” Simmons-Peters into disclosing confidential, private and work-unrelated information about his affairs.

For the sake of clarity, a criminal act was committed by someone with access to the CCJ’s internal emails. The scope of any such investigation must include looking into possible motives for such actions. CCJ justices are not usually known for such indiscretions; indeed, this is the first and only publicly known instance of such a crime.

If Justice Jamadar (for example) has something hidden in his closet that he is uncomfortable with being exposed? if so, is Jamadar vulnerable to blackmail? Investigations look into such issues carefully and one would hope that should something emerge, that it not be ‘leaked’ but handled internally with discretion.

In examining the internal squabbles of the CCJ, it would be remiss not to examine the root cause, which is the ‘dress code’ issue. Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji, a Nigerian, has taken to wearing a traditional garment, the agbada, which is very much a women’s dress in Caribbean culture. That aside, the agbada does not fit with the Western jackets worn by the court’s justices from inception.

The recent appointment of cross-dressing/trans-activist Arif Bulkan to the CCJ added another element to the ‘dress’ discussion. It is perplexing that Jamadar sided with Eboe-Osuji and Bulkan, as only recently Jamadar upbraided a Guyanese lawyer for not wearing ‘bands’ (traditional court neckwear in most Commonwealth countries).

Jamadar was most condescending in attitude when informed by counsel that Guyana had largely abandoned the practice of wearing ‘bands’ in the local courts. It is passing strange that Justice Jamadar would have such differing views on acceptable dress codes in public and in private, an incomprehensible and incompatible duality that suggests expediency rather than the strength of conviction one would expect.

There are lessons for those of all faiths contained in the Christian Bible. Matthew 7:1 is but one, but for those who seek to serve society as judges, there may be none more important.