Calls for Justice Bulkan to Recuse himself is Politically Charged , Not Grounded in Law 

Mr. Quincy Anderson’s letter in the Chronicle  is not a serious contribution to jurisprudential debate; it is a politically loaded broadside dressed up as concern for judicial ethics—and it collapses under even minimal scrutiny.

At its core, the argument is both legally illiterate and strategically convenient.

The standard for judicial recusal is not built on guilt by association, nor on the political activities of a judge’s relatives. If that were the case, no judge in Guyana—or anywhere in the Commonwealth—could safely adjudicate politically sensitive matters without being subjected to endless, opportunistic disqualification campaigns.

Mr. Anderson leans heavily on “perception,” but weaponizes it in its most dangerous form: partisan suspicion masquerading as public concern. The law is clear. The test is whether a fair-minded and properly informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility of bias—not whether politically interested actors can manufacture doubt by invoking family connections.

By that standard, his argument fails completely.

Justice Arif Bulkan’s judicial record is unblemished. There has been no finding, no credible allegation, and no pattern of conduct suggesting bias. What Mr. Anderson offers instead is conjecture rooted in the independent political engagement of Justice Bulkan’s siblings—individuals over whom he has neither control nor legal responsibility. 

That is not an ethical breach; it is a reality of life in any democratic society.

More troubling, however, is the broader implication of this line of attack. If accepted, it would establish a corrosive precedent in which judges are assessed not by their rulings or conduct, but by the political identities of those around them. In a small, politically active society like Guyana, that standard would paralyze the judiciary and invite calculated efforts to disqualify judges for strategic gain.

Mr. Anderson also exposes a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misrepresentation—of governance. The Government of Guyana is not synonymous with the PPP/C as a political party. Legal matters before the courts involve the State as a constitutional entity, not a partisan apparatus. 

Collapsing that distinction is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous, as suggests a view of governance in which party and state are indistinguishable.

Equally conspicuous is the timing. Justice Bulkan has served on the bench for years, including in matters of political sensitivity, without calls for recusal based on his family. Why now? 

Ethical concerns that emerge—only when politically convenient—invite skepticism about their true motivation.

Finally, there is the question of editorial judgment. Publishing such a thin, speculative attack on a sitting CCJ judge—without evidentiary grounding—does not elevate public discourse. It risks doing the opposite: normalizing the erosion of judicial credibility through insinuation rather than fact.

The integrity of the Caribbean Court of Justice is not safeguarded by entertaining arguments of this nature. It is preserved by adherence to established legal standards and by resisting attempts—however packaged—to undermine confidence in its judges without cause.

Justice Bulkan’s reputation has been built on decades of disciplined, ethical service. It cannot be undone by assertions that would not withstand even the most basic legal test.