Law Association wants 'transparent, independent' selection for silk

THE Law Association (LATT) has renewed a call for the adoption of the recommendations of its 2015 “silk report” on the appointment of senior counsel “to ensure a transparent and independent process of selection at specified intervals which is not subject ultimately to the dictates of the Executive.”

The call was made on June 21, in a release.

The association’s statement also comes after an avalanche of criticisms over the selection process. It also followed a letter to the association’s secretary on June 20, by attorney Darrell Allahar seeking answers on LATT’s participation, or that of its president Lynette Seebaran-Suite, in the consultation process. Also questioned the recent appointment of 16 attorneys was former House Speaker Nizam Mohammed.

On June 20, Mohammed told Newsday he was happy his colleagues were nudging LATT to clear the air on the process.

“We need more of that. The possibility is that startling revelations of the flawed process may surface.

“The list emanated from LATT. It was in their possession. An explanation for that is required.”

On June 21, he said there was "nothing in LATT's statement to comment about."

Allahar also told Newsday, “Regrettably, the Law Association’s statement never answered any of my questions.”

He said there were “plenty of virtue-signaling but it sheds no light on what happened recently in its little ‘chamber of secrets’.

“It is actually laughable that they have called for a transparent and independent process, while keeping their input into that process a secret - boring us all instead with historical facts that are now well-known.”

In its release, LATT said, “Ultimately, however, the choices are in the sole discretion of the Prime Minister and, therefore, prone to the charge of political bias.

“There is no provision for how often applications are to be invited or guidance on the numbers that would be admitted at each call. There is no indication of the various categories of applications that would be awarded, for example, distinguished and senior practising advocates, distinguished attorneys who practise primarily other than in the courts or high office holders such as heads of departments within the State.”

It reminded that the association has called for the reformation of the method of selection and appointment of senior counsel “...from the sole choice of the Executive, in effect the Prime Minister, into a transparent and independent process which does not suffer from a lack of accountability.”

In 2015, the Law Association passed a resolution that the award should be granted by the President on the recommendation of an independent panel.

The association’s resolution came after it compiled what is now referred to as the “silk report” on the issue, which strongly advocated for the independence of the profession and, in particular, the bar.

In 2018, the association again called for transparency in the process.

On June 17, President Christine Kangaloo outlined the selection process. She said the process was guided by the terms of the legal order 282 of 1964.

She said the process started with the Attorney General inviting attorneys to apply after which he would consult with the Chief Justice and “such other persons as he considers necessary.”

The AG would then recommend attorneys to the Prime Minister who would advise the President of those to be awarded silk.

The association said there was no provision for how often applications were to be invited or guidance on the numbers admitted at each call.

“There is no indication of the various categories of applications that would be awarded, for example, distinguished and senior practising advocates, distinguished attorneys who practise primarily other than in the courts or high office holders such as heads of departments within the State.”

It also said the recommendation of the “silk report” included a suggestion that appointments be made by the President on the recommendation of an independent panel comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, three judges of the Supreme Court and three senior counsel appointed by the Law Association.

It bemoaned, “Since then, and before, the Law Association has been advocating with successive attorneys general for the reform of the process, to no avail.”

It added, “As frequently happens, Trinidad and Tobago remains bogged down by our archaic and inherited colonial processes, whilst the United Kingdom itself has moved on to better practices. “Other Commonwealth countries, including Australia, Singapore, and Canada, have transitioned to more transparent and independent methods of appointments to the Inner Bar.

“In Jamaica, for example, the Prime Minister advises the Governor General to appoint persons recommended by an independent committee.”

The association said there is expressly reserved to the Prime Minister, a right to appoint additional persons by virtue of office and traditionally, attorneys general, solicitors general and Directors of Public Prosecutions are automatically appointed.

“In some of the other Commonwealth jurisdictions cited appointments are made annually, rather than at arbitrary intervals of time as pertains within this jurisdiction.”