HE reported e-mail exchanges among judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) suggest a strain inside the 25-year-old institution already operating in a delicate environment of scepticism. In this climate, public confidence is the court's foundational currency.The most serious allegation raised in the correspondence published in our Sunday Express involves the alteration of panel composition-panel fixing-and the removal of a judge from a pending case (D'Almada v TT, Jamaica & Caricom). The assignment of judges to appeal panels must follow objective, transparent, and predictable rules. Of the six core values in the guiding United Nations Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, independence is first, followed by impartiality. Judicial independence encompasses not only protection from external political pressure, but also internal independence from judicial superiors.Removing a judge from a panel without proper cause creates an intolerable perception of outcome manipulation. This directly compromises the integrity of the resulting judgment and exposes the ruling to potential challenge. Importantly, as expressed by Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj in this newspaper, the allegations could prompt questions about the integrity of past decisions of the court and, we add, pending decisions as well. It also exposes the court to applications for recusal, setting aside of orders, or re-hearings on grounds of procedural irregularity or apprehended bias in panel constitution.The reported dispute regarding judicial attire-specifically concerning formal Nigerian attire worn by Justice Eboe-Osujiis the very antithesis of progressive Caribbean jurisprudence that the CCJ is meant to provide. Value 5 of the Bangalore Principles addresses equality and propriety. It mandates that judicial bodies accommodate cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, provided such attire maintains the dignity of the office. In a multi- jurisdictional, post-colonial tribunal like the CCJ, attempts to impose rigid dress codes without consultative accommodation risks appearing exclusionary and insensitive to the diverse origins of the bench and the region it serves.The CCJ is a post-colonial apex court founded explicitly to forge an indigenous regional identity. To prioritise colonial-style conformity in a region itself defined by lived cultural diversity reduces the solemnity of judicial office to superficial performance. Further, attempting to table a Judicial Dress Code directly before the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) without prior internal judicial consensus risks transforming an administrative oversight body into an instrument of executive coercion.Given the public calls by regional legal assemblies and senior practitioners for an investigation, the RJLSC-under an interim or independent presiding structure-should establish a neutral, confidential enquiry to be conducted by eminent Commonwealth jurists. This would afford all parties due process while verifying facts and recommending corrective measures without political interference. It may also result in, inter alia recommendations for formal rules governing panel composition, rotation, and substitution.The CCJ could also engage in structured dialogue with the Caribbean Association of Law Councils, the Organisation of Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Associations (OCCBA) and regional law societies on governance reforms.These actions can only strengthen the court.