Questions have been raised regarding the criteria for awarding “silk” or Senior Counsel (SC) status to members of the bar. Who is truly deserving of silk? How does the process of awarding silk to attorneys unfold? Who are the individuals on the selection panel responsible for awarding silk?
Of particular interest is the composition of the selection panel.
Reports suggest that the Prime Minister and the Attorney General are key players in the selection process. Given that the AG is appointed by the PM, it seems that the final decision ultimately rests with the Prime Minister. It is essential to acknowledge that recent events have shown the AG following the directives of their superior.
The burning question remains: How did we reach this current state of affairs?
It is plausible to assume that individuals entrusted with the responsibility of awarding silk several decades ago were expected to do so with fairness, equity, and justice. It was not intended to be utilized as a political tool to reward allies, family members, cabinet colleagues, or party affiliates.
However, recent developments have deviated from this expectation, leading to tumult, uncertainty, and discontent among attorneys, legal associations, sidelined lawyers, and the general public.
So, what is the takeaway from this situation? Politicians may not be the most reliable decision-makers when it comes to crucial matters that impact society at large. This lesson should extend beyond the awarding of silk to include the selection of a police commissioner and the President.
Politicians have laid bare their true nature. It is imperative to review and modernize some of these outdated processes; otherwise, we risk being caught in a cycle of ineffectiveness.
WKS Hosein
Chaguanas
