Politicians must not decide who gets 'silk'

THE EDITOR: Questions are being asked about the criteria for awarding "silk" or Senior Counsel (SC) status to members of the bar. Some of the questions are: Who is really deserving of silk? How is the process played out in awarding silk to attorneys? Who are the members in the selection panel to award silk?

The last question is rather interesting and deserves some deeper delving into.

According to information in the media, we learned that the two biggest players in the selection process are the Prime Minister and the Attorney General. One must remember that the AG is selected by the PM, so in reality the PM has the final say in this matter. The AG (as we have seen in recent times) always does the bidding of his boss or faces replacement or dismissal.

But it begs the question: How did we get into this mess in the first place?

The only logical answer is that the holders of these high offices were entrusted with such a big responsibility many decades ago because leaders and the general citizenry trusted the officeholders given the responsibility to award silk to select individuals with fairness, equity, justice and level-headedness.

I don't think it was meant to be used as a political tool to be handed out to friends, family, cabinet colleagues and as gifts to party members.

However, of late we have not seen this in the selection process and that has flared up into chaos, confusion and vexatious debunking by attorneys, law associations, attorneys who felt sidelined and the general public.

So, what is the lesson to be learnt here? Politicians are not to be trusted in making important decisions that will ultimately affect the wider society. This lesson should stretch across the board also to selection of a commissioner of police and the President.

Politicians across the divide have shown their true colours. It is time to change some of these archaic processes or we will be "spinning top in mud."

WKS HOSEIN

Chaguanas