Attorney seeks answers on 'silk' appointments

A FREEDOM of information request has been sent seeking answers on the 2024 appointment of senior counsel.

Attorney Wayne Sturge, who has previously applied for silk, has a list of 22 questions for the Attorney General on June 26.

He wants to know who applied in 2024 and the names sent to the Prime Minister; details of the consultation process between the AG, the Law Association, the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister; the evaluative criteria or weighting system to assess applicants using the requirements set out in the AG’s gazetted invitation on May 13; and the other considerations taken by the AG.

Sturge also wanted to know if the AG considered “making appointments of as senior counsel that being convicted of a criminal offence accorded with unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness?

“Did the honourable Attorney General consider that being convicted for a criminal offence was a material consideration to the determination of whether an applicant was suitable to be appointed senior counsel? If this was considered a material consideration, were any of the persons considered for appointment as senior counsel a person convicted of a criminal offence?

“If the answer is yes, the names of the persons and the offence for which he or she was convicted.”

He also asked whether a conviction would have been a consideration to disqualify an applicant.

“What was the basis upon which any person appointed senior counsel who was convicted of a criminal offence satisfied the honourable Attorney General that they met the criteria to be appointed senior counsel notwithstanding the criminal conviction?”

Sturge, who is also a member of the Criminal Bar Association and a former UNC senator, also wanted to know why several of his colleagues – Mario Merrit, Nizam Mohammed, Jagdeo Singh, Evans Welch (a former independent senator) and Kelvin Ramkissoon – were considered unsuitable for silk.

He also asked about the criteria used to appoint six of the 16 attorneys who received silk last week.

“I am respectfully of the view that the traditional procedure for appointment to the Inner Bar, shrouded in secrecy and unfortunately tainted by its inherent political input, has been responsible for the suspicion and lack of confidence that the members of the Bar but more importantly the general public responses in recent appointments to the Inner Bar.

“Traditionally, this was not the case as no one past or present would ever question the appointment to the inner Bar of persons such as Karl Hudson-Phillips, Tajmool Hosein, Michael de la Bastide, Russell Martineau or Martin Daly,” Sturge said in his letter.

He said the appointments on the last two occasions had been the subject of public debate.

“The present appointees include persons who are sitting MPst of the government, persons who are politically affiliated with the ruling party’s, friends and secret financiers.

“It also includes some nondescript characters in the legal profession who could hardly be described as persons who have distinguished themselves at the Bar.”

He added, “It may well be that these persons possess the qualities to command the public’s well-founded confidence of being persons of unquestionable integrity, probity, trustworthiness and have demonstrated by their record the highest degree of legal acumen and are persons who have the respect of members of the Higher Judiciary.

“This must be the case as an appointment on any other basis would be irrational.

“However, the basis for the appointment of persons to the Inner Bar is not disclosed to members of the public and the considerations that justified their appointment rest in the bosom of the Executive.”

He also raised the admission by LATT’s president Lynette Seebaran-Suite of consulting with a few hand-picked senior counsel on the names she received from the Attorney General. He said this admission fuelled suspicion and distrust in the process.

Sturge said his request was aimed at removing the secrecy from the silk appointments and encouraging public confidence.

“The appointment of persons to the Inner Bar is a matter that has the potential to affect every single consumer of legal services in this jurisdiction. It is a matter that has a direct impact upon public confidence in members of the legal profession.”

He added, “ An unfortunate state of affairs now exists at the Inner Bar. The methodology used in the recent appointments is shrouded in mystery.

“The precarious nature of those appointments has cast a lamentable shadow over not only the new silks but the entire institution.”