2 weeks Ago By Israel Khan
Since I lost the “silk” case, many persons, including lawyers, have been enquiring of me my motive for filing the case, especially since the judge ruled that it is clear that the current process for awarding silk is not unlawful and the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) and the Attorney General were also of the view that it was lawful. The first observation that my detractors must bear in mind is that the judge’s judgment consisted of 55 pages in digesting, analysing and discussing the law to arrive at the conclusion that the process was clearly lawful. It is my considered legal opinion that the process is not clearly lawful and I intend to appeal this matter to our Court of Appeal, and if it becomes necessary, to go all the way to the Privy Council.
In relation to filing the case, Mr John Public must bear in mind the following: (1) As an attorney I am under a duty pursuant to the Legal Profession Act Chap. 90:01 to maintain the Constitution and the law, to endeavour by lawful means where the needs of society require, to promote and encourage the reform of the law, to make the exigencies of the administration of justice my first concern, and to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the legal system and the legal profession. Justice Rampersad noted in his judgment although it is clear that the current procedure is not unlawful, it is also clear that there is public clamour and considerable effort exerted by the claimant (and that’s me, Israel B Khan, SC), through his own private writings, and by the LATT and several other luminaries and thinkers and leaders, that the current system is inappropriate and has to change.
I have for many years spoken publicly and written numerous articles in the newspaper as an attorney and concerned citizen on issues of public concern and importance, and on matters of importance to the legal profession, including the process of awarding silk to an attorney. In the premises, I have a duty, and a direct, personal and serious bona fide interest in ensuring that senior counsel (SC) are appointed lawfully in accordance with the Constitution by the President and in determining the lawful procedure for the appointment of SC by the President. I am not a busybody whose motive is to achieve a collateral and ulterior end.
I am not “interfering” in a matter about which I have no legitimate concern. I have the duty, capacity and willingness to litigate the issues arising for determination in the Fixed Date Claim Form as a senior counsel, attorney and public-spirited citizen in the public interest and in service of upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. And in spite of the fact that I lost the “silk” case, the learned Justice Devindra Rampersad praised and commended me for filing the case.
He stated: “The court notes that the claimant, over the years, has been ardent and persistent in his calls for the reform of the current process to ensure that senior counsels are appointed lawfully, fairly and transparently, and has written several articles which discuss the roles, functions and the process of the appointment of senior counsel in Trinidad and Tobago and what needs to change about it. His efforts have been extensively set out in his affidavit in these proceedings and the court recognises the same without setting those efforts out in detail. “Nevertheless, the very fact that the claimant has filed these proceedings, even though there is no obvious personal benefit to himself, indicates the passion and commitment he has towards this very serious issue, to the extent that he is not willing to just let things lie as they are but to try to keep the matter going in the forefront of the public domain.
“The court commends the claimant for his unwavering commitment to his oath and his role as a senior attorney-at-law in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in all sense and to his deep sense of responsibility and his desire in trying to cultivate and maintain a legal profession which is fiercely independent in the true traditions of counsel. Too many are unable or unwilling to walk the walk he has taken.” Indeed, I am grateful to Justice Rampersad’s complimentary remarks, and most of all, for recognising that I am not a lawyer who just talks and talks, but one who walks the walk.
And thus since it is my considered legal opinion that Justice Rampersad “got it wrong” when he ruled that it is legal for the Prime Minister to select attorneys for the award of “silk”, John Public should rest assured I will take this matter to our Court of Appeal, and if necessary, to the Privy Council, all in the interest of justice for all. I do not subscribe to the concept that all men are equal but some are more equal than others..
