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?