The debate surrounding the elevation of local attorneys to the status of senior counsel is by no means a new one for us here in T&T.
However, the recent award of “silk” to Cabinet members Stuart Young and Faris Al-Rawi has sparked fresh concerns about the efficacy and transparency of the selection process.
At the heart of the debate is whether the individuals chosen to be honoured in this way truly represent the pinnacle of legal excellence.
The prerequisites for selection, as detailed in the T&T Gazette, include professional eminence and distinction, establishing the candidate as a leader in the legal sector; exceptional advocacy skills in higher courts; and a high-quality practice with a minimum of ten years’ experience handling complex cases.
Bearing these prerequisites in mind, it is challenging to comprehend how Al-Rawi and Young could have met these requirements, particularly as more time has been spent by them over the last decade in government roles than in traditional legal practice.
In the absence of details on why they were chosen, one might draw parallels between this current process and the one in 2012, when “silk” was awarded to then-prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and then-attorney general Anand Ramlogan.
Ramlogan’s defence at the time, in response to objections led by the People’s National Movement, was that “silk” was commonly given to high-ranking officials who were also lawyers, especially those who held the position of attorney general.
But then-opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley found flaws in Ramlogan’s argument, challenging the government of the day to state whether someone who served as attorney general for “ten days” should also be granted “silk.”
And as public demands for more clarity grew, Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the late Justice of Appeal Wendell Kangaroo —who were both honoured with “silk” alongside Persad-Bissessar and Ramlogan and were arguably more deserving of it—opted to return their titles, despite their high-ranking positions in the Judiciary.
To them, this was the honourable thing to do.
With that said, we are not about to tell Al-Rawi or Young what they should or should not do, although it has to be said that the entire business of awarding “silk” in a post-colonial era really does not bode well for us as a maturing Republic.
If anything, it reflects our inability to pull ourselves out of the bosom of the British colonial era.
It is noteworthy that the senior counsel position holds the same rank as that of king’s counsel (formerly Queen’s Counsel) in the United Kingdom.
Trinidad and Tobago’s determination to retain the Privy Council as the final appellate court, rather than the Caribbean Court of Justice, and our seeming preoccupation with “silk” are part and parcel of the same issue.
While many have been clamouring for review, it may be better yet for us to dispense with these remnants of a bygone era and focus on establishing a truly homegrown system of jurisprudence.
But will we ever?
Hope springs eternal.