In a region that prides itself on the rule of law, the recent retirement of Justice Mario Michel from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) has stirred fresh concerns over judicial independence and political interference in Dominica. Officially framed as a dignified farewell after a long career of service, Justice Michel’s departure on April 25, 2025, is now increasingly viewed as a veiled response to a growing scandal: credible allegations that he unlawfully intervened in a bail hearing involving Jonathan Lehrer, a case that has gripped public attention and exposed deeper institutional fractures.
According to an email sent to the Dominican Bar Association from Justice Colin head of the Dominican criminal division, Michel reportedly instructed Justice Williams not to grant bail to Lehrer—an act widely considered an egregious overstep of judicial boundaries. Such interference undermines the separation of powers enshrined in Eastern Caribbean jurisprudence, raising questions about how justice is administered—and manipulated—at the highest levels of the judiciary. Luckily, Justice Williams would not be intimidated.
The ECSC has yet to make a public statement regarding the allegations – one would think that the Dominican Bar Association need do the right thing and make the letter public based on its importance to transparency and judicial protection. Michel’s abrupt exit, mere months into his appointment as Acting Chief Justice, has sparked speculation across the legal and political communities of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). International analysts point to a growing pattern of elite impunity in Dominica, where powerful actors appear to leverage judicial positions to influence politically sensitive cases.
Lehrer, whose case details remain an international indictment on the corruption in Dominica, has been in Dominican prison for a year and a half and to date no credible evidence has been brought forward to warrant his harsh, and potentially illegal, detainment. Justice Williams himself blasted the prosecution and lead investigator, ACP James, for lying to the court on multiple occasions, for falsifying claims of guilt and existence of eyewitnesses. Justice Williams put a microscope on how Lehrer’s treatment and decision on bail has been a textbook detail of scandal and corruption including the highest ranking individuals. The implications of Michel’s alleged behind-the-scenes directive suggest a judiciary under quiet siege by political and financial interests.
Despite this shadow hanging over the institution, official proceedings celebrating Michel’s tenure glossed over the controversy. At the Special Sitting held in his honor, fellow justices praised his “empathy and firmness,” his contributions to Saint Lucian civil society, and his leadership over a 15-year career in various judicial roles. Yet none addressed the controversy directly—a silence that critics interpret as complicity or fear of retaliation within a highly politicized legal environment.
The episode also throws a harsh spotlight on Dominica’s broader struggles with governance and transparency. In recent years, concerns have mounted about the erosion of institutional checks and balances, especially under Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit’s administration, which has faced multiple allegations of corruption, including the sale of diplomatic passports and opaque procurement contracts.
International organizations such as Transparency International and regional law groups have previously flagged the need for stronger safeguards around judicial appointments, clearer accountability for misconduct, and the depoliticization of courts. The Lehrer-Michel affair may become a critical test case: will the OECS judiciary confront internal rot or allow its credibility to unravel further?
For Dominicans and citizens across the Eastern Caribbean, this moment poses a profound dilemma. Without robust mechanisms to investigate and discipline high-level judicial misconduct, public trust in courts risks slipping beyond repair. As of now, calls are growing for a formal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Michel’s resignation and for greater transparency in all future judicial proceedings involving public officials and politically exposed persons.
This crisis offers a chance for renewal—or collapse. The region must decide whether justice is truly blind or simply blinding.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or editorial stance of TechStory. This piece is not authored by TechStory staff, and the platform assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of claims or allegations presented. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consider multiple perspectives.
