With the debate over the continued use of an almost 60-year-old procedure for selecting and appointing Senior Counsel still raging, one attorney has made an official request for the disclosure of information on how it was recently applied to appoint 13 lawyers.
Prominent criminal defence attorney Wayne Sturge made the request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a legal letter sent to Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, Wednesday morning.
In the correspondence, obtained by Guardian Media, Sturge sought specific information on 22 issues related to the recent appointments, last week.
He requested the names of all the lawyers who applied after Armour solicited applications in a notice in the Gazette on May 13, confirmation on whether the Law Association of T&T (LATT) was consulted, the reason for such and the methodology of the alleged consultation.
Sturge also asked whether the LATT returned a list of applicants that it approved and asked for its disclosure if such was provided.
He also made similar requests in relation to the purported consultation between Armour and Chief Justice Ivor Archie.
Sturge requested the release of the list that was eventually submitted to Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley after the consultation process.
He also sought information on the evaluative criteria used by Armour to make selections.
He questioned whether Armour considered if applicants had criminal convictions and if any with such criminal records were appointed.
"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 asked.
He enquired why five senior attorneys, who submitted applications, were not considered suitable.
The lawyers identified by Sturge were Mario Merritt, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nizam Mohammed, Jagdeo Singh, Evans Welch, and Kelvin Ramkissoon.
Lastly, Sturge requested the considerations Armour used to select six of the 13 who were appointed last week including former attorney general and current Rural Development and Local Government Minister Faris Al-Rawi and Chief Public Defender Hasine Shaikh.
In the letter, Sturge noted that the procedure being used is based on a Gazetted notice published by the country's then-governor general in April 1964.
"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 reposes in recent appointments to the Inner Bar," he said.
He noted that questions have been raised over some of the appointees being Members of Parliament or politically affiliated.
"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," he said.
Sturge also took issue with statements made by LATT president Lynette Seebaran-Suite, SC, over the association's involvement in the recent appointments.
In a statement sent to the association's membership on Monday, Seebaran-Suite claimed that before the Government moved to make 17 appointments last year, including her, the association requested a meeting with Rowley to discuss reform to the process based on a report produced by the association in 2014.
The request was denied. She claimed that when Armour again solicited the association's views in May, its executive met with a handful of existing Senior Counsel to discuss the applicants.
"No one in the profession knows how Mrs Seebaran-Suite, SC, selected these Senior Counsel to meet, why she was so anxious to comply with the Attorney General's demand for a quick fire response and why she acted in such a covert manner," Sturge said, as he claimed that several Senior Counsel contacted him questioning why they were not contacted by the association.
"It reeks of bias, favouritism, nepotism and elitism," he said.
Dealing with the public's interest in the disclosure of the requested information, Sturge suggested that the information may help dispel the perception that appointments were inextricably linked to political allegiance.
"I do hope that my request is seen not as a political attack on the Government but rather as an opportunity to infuse transparency and openness into a process that has resisted change in the interest of benefiting a few," he said.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, outspoken Senior Counsel Israel Khan claimed that Seebaran-Suite was being used as a scapegoat.
Stating that she was in a difficult situation as she had to advocate LATT's position on the appointment procedure while being requested to consult on its application.
"I am disappointed that it appears to me that some attorneys' frustration with the process is wrongly and unjustifiably directed to the president of LATT and I am of the opinion that to put the LATT president under 'fire' for her role in the process is unwarranted and not constructive," he said.
Khan, who has a pending interpretation lawsuit over the issue set to go to trial in September, said that frustrated attorneys should direct their views on the need for an independent committee to make the selections to Armour.
"After all, when the LATT sent the Silk Committee Report to the government it was signed by the very person who is the current AG and that begs the question- are attorneys loyal to legal principles or to officeholders?" he said.
He said he was anxiously awaiting the outcome of his case.
"I have filed my challenge in court, and I await the outcome and it is through these actions I believe will bring about the positive change that is required," Khan said.