The lawyer calls on the legal authority to explain the new silk

News

Jada Louto

4 hours ago

As the debate over the transparency of the selection process for lawyers assigned to senior counsel heats up, another lawyer has joined the chorus calling for reform.

Attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon, who filed in 2024 for the second time in his legal career, set his sights on the Lawyers Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) in a June 21 letter to President Lynette Seebaran-Suite.

He said the association must explain its involvement in the selection of the final group of 16 silk lawyers, including three members of the government and parliament.

Ramkissoon said that if LATT participated or was in any way involved in this trial, it “has abdicated its moral authority to comment on, let alone condemn this trial.”

He referred to the association’s announcement issued on June 21.

In its announcement, LATT reiterated its call for the adoption of the recommendations contained in the 2015 “Silk Report” on the appointment of the Senior Advisor, “to ensure a transparent and independent selection process at specified intervals that is not ultimately subordinated to the dictates of the executive branch.”

The association’s statement followed an avalanche of criticism about the selection process.

In its statement, LATT stated: “Ultimately, however, the elections depend solely on the discretion of the Prime Minister and, therefore, allegations of political bias may be made.

“There is no indication of how often applications should be invited or any guidance on how many people will be accepted under each call. It did not specify the different categories of applications that would be awarded, for example distinguished and senior practicing lawyers, outstanding lawyers practicing mainly outside the courts or persons holding high positions such as heads of state departments.”

The association said it had called for a reform of the method of selecting and appointing senior advisers “from the sole choice of the executive, in effect the prime minister, to a transparent and independent process where there is no lack of accountability.”

In 2015, the Bar, headed by Reginald Armor (now Attorney General), passed a resolution that the award be given by the President based on the recommendation of an independent panel.

The association’s resolution was adopted after it had prepared the so-called the “Silk Report” on this matter, which strongly advocated the independence of the profession, and especially the bar.

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

On June 17, President Christine Kangaloo presented the selection process. She said the trial took place in accordance with the provisions of Legal Order No. 282 of 1964.

She said the process began with the Attorney General inviting lawyers to submit submissions, after which he would consult with the Chief Justice and “other persons he considers necessary”.

The AG would then recommend lawyers to the Prime Minister who would advise the President on the persons to be awarded the silk.

In its statement, the association said there was no set frequency for inviting candidates or guidance on how many people would be accepted under each call.

“There is no indication of the different categories of applications that would be awarded, for example distinguished and senior practicing lawyers, outstanding lawyers practicing mainly outside the courts or persons holding high positions such as heads of departments in the State.”

It also said that the recommendation in the ‘silk report’ included a suggestion that appointments should be made by the President on the recommendation of an independent panel consisting of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, three judges of the Supreme Court and three senior advisers appointed by the Chief Justice. Law Society.

It lamented: “Since then and before, the Law Society, along with successive attorneys general, has advocated for trial reform, but to no avail.”

He added: “As is often the case, TT remains mired in our archaic and inherited colonial processes, while the UK itself has moved to better practices.

“Other Commonwealth countries, including Australia, Singapore and Canada, have moved to more transparent and independent methods of appointment to the internal bar.

“In Jamaica, for example, the prime minister advises the governor general to appoint people recommended by an independent commission.”

The association said the prime minister clearly has the power to appoint additional people by virtue of their office and traditionally attorneys general, legal advisers and directors of public prosecutions are appointed automatically.

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

Ramkissoon said the reference to LATT’s “silk report” in its publication “highlights the need for transparency and transparency” of the association’s role in the process.

He also expressed confusion over the timing of LATT’s release, which came a day after former senior council member, lawyer Darrell Allahar, sought answers about LATT or its chair’s involvement in the consultation process.

Ramkissoon said the release of LATT was “woefully delayed.”

He said the public and legal interests would be best served if the association acted willingly, given the perception that appointments appear to be based on political considerations and should be devoid of “significant executive input.”

Ramkissoon said LATT’s statement added nothing new to the debate. He said he expected a more analytical response from the body.

“This publication reflects a level of pushback that barely matches the concerns expressed by more discerning members of society.”

He said the laity appeared to have a greater appreciation of the implications of this situation than “an actual representative body with a statutory mandate to represent and protect the interests of the legal profession and assist the public in all matters relating to the law.” “

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nizam Mohammed, who claims he was shortlisted for Silk but his name was deleted, said he was happy that his colleagues urged LATT to clear the air in the process.

“We need more of this. It is possible that surprising discoveries of a flawed process will come to light.

“The list comes from LATT. It was in their possession. Clarification on this issue is required.”

Mohammed did not comment on LATT’s release because, he said, there was nothing in it worth commenting on.

Allahar, who said he only received confirmation of his letter, said it was “plenty of virtue signaling, but it shed no light on what had recently happened in his little ‘chamber of secrets.’

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

“Conspicuously missing from Friday’s LATT announcement is any indication as to whether LATT was invited to participate in any consultations with the AG this year and whether it or its chairman actually did so.

“I think that reticence in sharing this information can lead to some unfortunate conclusions.”