The silence of Gibraltar’s judiciary and why nothing has changed!

Revisiting a case that refuses to disappear

Back in April 2025, we published The Failure to Recuse: A Judicial Error in Gibraltar. That article examined how the refusal of Chief Justice Anthony Dudley to step aside from presiding over Manasco v Mansion Group raised immediate concerns about judicial integrity. In July, we followed with When the Judge Becomes the Story, noting that week’s had passed without the slightest attempt at clarification or review from the institutions tasked with safeguarding the rule of law.

Now, several more months have passed and remarkably, nothing at all has changed. No explanatory note has been issued by the Chief Justice’s office. The Judicial Service Commission has not launched a formal inquiry or even confirmed whether it has considered the complaints.

The government has avoided comment, despite repeated questions in both legal and media circles. The case has been allowed to drift forward with the same judge in place, the same conflicts visible and the same whistleblower subjected to punitive legal measures.

Far from healing, the cracks in Gibraltar’s judicial reputation are widening.

A court that avoided scrutiny

Chief Justice Dudley’s decision to remain in charge of the Mansion proceedings has become the single most defining feature of the litigation. In almost any other common law jurisdiction, a judge facing this level of apparent conflict would have stepped aside automatically, if only to preserve the credibility of the process. Yet in Gibraltar, the opposite has occurred.

The judge has remained in place and the case has continued, as though the concerns of bias could simply be brushed aside.

The conflicts are neither speculative nor minor. They include Mansion’s representation by Isolas LLP, a firm long connected to Gibraltar’s political establishment and the overlapping role of Albert Isola, who simultaneously held a ministerial portfolio while his firm defended one of the largest operators in the territory. To ignore such overlaps is not simply a discretionary choice; it is an abdication of a constitutional safeguard.

What is most troubling is not just that the recusal was refused, but that nobody has considered whether the refusal itself was correct. The absence of oversight makes the court appear less like an impartial forum and more like an institution guarding its own.

Regulators who turned away

The regulatory dimension of this case is equally troubling. Mr Manasco, as former CEO of Mansion, submitted detailed evidence packages to the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner and the Gibraltar Financial Intelligence Unit, covering matters ranging from questionable financial flows to workplace and data protection concerns.

These were not anonymous tips or vague allegations. They were documented, formal submissions made by someone with direct access to the company’s internal records.

Under Gibraltar’s Gambling Act 2005 and the Data Protection Act 2004, regulators have a statutory obligation to assess such material. Even if no misconduct were ultimately proven, an inquiry or at the very least a formal response should have followed. Yet nothing was done.

No investigation was announced, no enforcement steps were initiated and no reasons were given for inaction. This silence creates the appearance that regulators are either paralysed by political influence or unwilling to act when issues implicate operators tied to the establishment. Either explanation is corrosive.

Regulators exist to protect integrity in gaming and financial services, not to look away when scrutiny is inconvenient.

A media that looked elsewhere

A further element is the role of Gibraltar’s public broadcaster, GBC. In any functioning democracy, a case of this magnitude would attract detailed coverage, expert commentary and serious debate. Instead, reporting was muted, selective and limited largely to procedural updates.

The absence of investigative journalism is striking given the scale of the issues involved: freezing orders, allegations of fraud, whistleblower evidence and apparent judicial conflict.

One explanation lies in governance. Members of the GBC board have close professional ties to Isolas LLP, including solicitor James Montado. This overlap raises unavoidable questions about whether the broadcaster was institutionally capable of delivering neutral coverage.

When the media connected to one party also controls the editorial oversight of public broadcasting, the perception of capture is inevitable. It was not just that coverage was light, it was that it was skewed, presenting Mansion’s legal position while ignoring or downplaying the structural issues raised by Mr Manasco.

The result is a media silence that deprived the public of the independent scrutiny it deserves.

The cost of private hearings

The decision to conduct parts of the proceedings in private compounded the impression of partiality. Matters dealing with amendments to Mr Manasco’s defence were kept away from open court, under the justification that sensitive information might damage Mansion’s reputation.

But open justice is not a decorative principle. It is a constitutional safeguard, entrenched in case law from Scott v Scott to Guardian News v AB. The public’s right to know what is argued and decided in its courts cannot be set aside for the convenience of a powerful litigant.

By retreating into secrecy, the court sent an unmistakable message: the reputation of a major employer carried more weight than the transparency owed to the public. Even if technically permissible, such a choice damages the legitimacy of the judgment. The appearance of favouritism is as damaging as favouritism itself and here the appearance is overwhelming.

For those watching from outside, it is difficult to distinguish whether the court was protecting due process or simply protecting Mansion.

What this says to whistleblowers

The wider consequence of these institutional choices is the message they send to future whistleblowers. If a former CEO, with access to records and the willingness to engage regulators, is met with silence, freezing orders and threats of imprisonment, why would anyone else come forward? The chilling effect is obvious.

Far from encouraging disclosures of misconduct, the system appears to punish them.

Mr Manasco’s case illustrates the imbalance. On the one hand, his evidence was sidelined, his defence restricted and his assets frozen on a global scale. On the other, the operator against whom he raised concerns has continued to operate without public regulatory sanction, shielded by a judiciary unwilling to confront conflicts and by a media unwilling to report them.

The lesson is stark: those who expose misconduct risk being treated as the problem rather than the solution.

Why the institutions remain silent

The persistent refusal of Gibraltar’s institutions to engage with this case demands explanation. A small jurisdiction may be more vulnerable to conflicts of interest, but that does not excuse the absence of safeguards. On the contrary, it makes them more important.

The silence of the judiciary, regulators and government cannot be explained away as simple oversight. It reflects a choice and to preserve appearances rather than confront uncomfortable truths.

This is not merely a matter of perception within Gibraltar. It is also a question of external credibility. Jurisdictions that ignore allegations of bias and fail to protect whistleblowers cannot expect to be treated internationally as robust centres of financial and gaming regulation. Silence does not resolve reputational risk. It multiplies it.

International reputation at stake

The consequences of this approach are significant. Bodies such as FATF, GRECO, Transparency International and the European Banking Authority all emphasise that judicial independence is a core benchmark of regulatory credibility. Gibraltar markets itself as a first-tier jurisdiction, attracting global operators and financial service providers.

Yet the refusal to address conflicts at the highest judicial level undermines that message at its foundation.

This is not theoretical. Investor confidence is directly affected by perceptions of rule of law. Financial institutions assessing Gibraltar’s risk profile will take note of a system that appears to suppress scrutiny rather than encourage it. And international courts reviewing Gibraltar judgments will inevitably question whether rulings made under such conditions can be given the same weight as those from more transparent jurisdictions.

Silence may protect local actors in the short term, but in the long term it weakens Gibraltar’s standing on the international stage.

Karel Manasco deserves better

At the centre of all this remains one individual: Karel Manasco. It bears repeating that he is not a fugitive, a criminal or a conspiracist. He is a former CEO who raised legitimate concerns about corporate and regulatory misconduct.

The measures imposed against him (freezing orders of worldwide scope, threats of imprisonment for contempt and the public stigma of judicial criticism) are wildly disproportionate when set against the nature of his disclosures.

The contrast is revealing. Those with institutional connections have faced no sanction, no inquiry and no public scrutiny. The one individual who spoke up has been targeted relentlessly.

Whatever the eventual result of the litigation, Gibraltar owes him something more fundamental than procedural correctness. It owes him an impartial hearing before a tribunal untainted by conflicts of interest.

Until that happens, the question of fairness will remain unresolved.

A choice still to be made

We have written about this case before and we warned that inaction would only deepen the crisis of confidence. Months later, the prediction has come true. The refusal to engage with the issues raised by Manasco v Mansion has become a defining feature of Gibraltar’s legal system.

This is no longer just a story about one judge or one case. It is a story about institutional silence and about whether Gibraltar wishes to be seen as a credible jurisdiction or as a closed shop protecting its own.

The choice is still available. The judiciary could invite external review, the Judicial Service Commission could issue a report and the regulators could explain why they failed to investigate credible submissions. Or they can remain silent, leaving the impression that the system is designed not to correct errors but to conceal them. If that path continues, the damage will not be limited to this case. It will extend to Gibraltar’s reputation as a whole.

Silence may be comfortable, but it is also corrosive. The longer it lasts, the more it erodes the very foundations of trust.

FAQs

What is the Manasco v Mansion case about?
The case involves former CEO Karel Manasco raising concerns about corporate and regulatory misconduct within Mansion Group, including conflicts of interest and financial irregularities.

Why is Chief Justice Anthony Dudley’s role controversial?
He refused to recuse himself despite potential conflicts of interest, which many argue undermines judicial impartiality and public confidence.

Have Gibraltar’s regulators investigated the claims?
No formal investigation or enforcement action has been taken by the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner or Financial Intelligence Unit, despite documented submissions from Mr. Manasco.

Why is media coverage of the case limited?
Gibraltar’s public broadcaster, GBC, has provided minimal coverage, potentially due to board members’ professional ties to parties involved, raising questions of impartiality.

What impact does private hearings have on the case?
Private hearings limit public scrutiny, giving the appearance that the court prioritizes the interests of powerful litigants over transparency and fairness.

How does this case affect whistleblowers in Gibraltar?
It sends a chilling message that exposing misconduct may lead to punitive measures rather than protection, discouraging future disclosures.

What is the role of the Judicial Service Commission?
The Commission is responsible for oversight of judicial conduct, but it has not issued a formal review or explanation regarding the Chief Justice’s refusal to recuse himself.

Why is Gibraltar’s international reputation at stake?
Ignoring judicial conflicts and failing to protect whistleblowers undermines confidence in Gibraltar’s legal and regulatory system, affecting investor trust and credibility abroad.

What are the main criticisms of the court’s handling?
Critics highlight refusal to address conflicts of interest, lack of public explanation, private hearings, and disproportionate measures against the whistleblower.

What steps could restore confidence in Gibraltar’s judiciary?
Options include an external review of the case, a formal report from the Judicial Service Commission, public clarification from regulators, and full transparency in proceedings.

Disclaimer

This article is based entirely on information already in the public domain, including media reports, court filings, regulatory frameworks and commentary. It does not allege criminal conduct, fraud or wrongdoing by any individual, company or authority mentioned. All references to conflicts of interest, regulatory inaction or judicial processes are expressions of opinion on matters of public interest and institutional accountability, not factual findings of misconduct.

The purpose of this publication is to encourage transparency, debate and oversight in relation to Gibraltar’s legal and regulatory environment.

Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a personal accusation against Chief Justice Anthony Dudley, Albert Isola, Isolas LLP, the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner, the Gibraltar Financial Intelligence Unit, GBC or any other party named.

Readers are advised that the observations and interpretations contained herein reflect the authors’ analysis of publicly available material and are not statements of proven fact.