Although the 2023 selection of 18 senior counsel is likely to be controversial (17 of whom were conferred yesterday), it is appropriate to congratulate all of them for being conferred with ‘silk’, as it signals that they have risen to the pinnacle of their professional careers.
They have done this by demonstrating “professional eminence and distinction, which establishes them as leaders of the profession,” according to the criteria for the selection of senior counsel.
While it seems the 18 newly selected senior counsel are fully deserving of praise, it must be clear to them, and to all the lawyers practising in this country, that the process of selecting senior counsel is deeply flawed and must be changed to protect the profession’s reputation.
At yesterday’s ceremony, President Christine Kangaloo was placed in the invidious position of conferring ‘silk’ on her husband Kerwyn Garcia and her brother Colin Kangaloo.
Anticipating the backlash that is likely to follow yesterday’s ceremony at President’s House, President Kangaloo “took in front” and explained that her office is not involved in the selection of senior counsel.
The process involves the Attorney General inviting attorneys, who have distinguished themselves in the profession, to apply for the honour. They had seven days to do so.
It was outlined at yesterday’s ceremony that when the Attorney General received the applications, he consulted with the Chief Justice and other stakeholders before discussing the applications with the Prime Minister. In accordance with the process of selecting senior counsel, it is the Prime Minister, in this case Dr Keith Rowley, who advised the President on who should be appointed.
“At the end of the process, the President—whoever he or she may be—acts in accordance with Section 80 Sub-section 1 of the Constitution, and, on an occasion like today, formally confers Senior Counsel status to those upon whom he or she has been advised to do so,” President Kangaloo told the conferral ceremony.
The process of selection is flawed because it is clear the granting of ‘silk’ is within the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister. That fact means that the elevation of senior attorneys to ‘silk’ may be tarnished by political considerations, rather than being based on the excellence of the legal work done by the attorneys.
The politicisation of the process was evident in 2011 when then-Attorney General Anand Ramlogan submitted a list of names for senior counsel that included then Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
Dr Rowley is on record as demanding that Mrs Persad-Bissessar return the ‘silk.’
Attorney General Armour told journalists yesterday that the selection process existed before this country gained Independence in 1962.
That is, no doubt, true, as the process of selecting senior counsel would have been one of many things T&T inherited from our British colonisers.
But since 1962, as the Attorney General well knows, the process by which King’s Counsel, and before that Queen’s Counsel, were selected has been transformed by the British.
Now, recommendations for the award of ‘silk’ in the UK come from an independent nine-member panel chaired by a lay person, and which includes four attorneys, one retired judge and three non-lawyers.
The process in the UK now restricts the politically appointed Lord Chancellor to supervising the process and reviewing the panel’s recommendations in general terms, but without commenting on individual applications.
By allowing recommendations for ‘silk’ to be made by an independent body, the British have removed the politicisation of the process. Will T&T follow?