𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥

The Senior Counsel and Senior Attorney Bill is surely an improvement on the earlier method of selecting Senior Counsels and Senior Attorneys . It does fill a regulatory gap by codifying the procedure for recommendations.

However, though just cosmetic and limited reform wise, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙝𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙢𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙢 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙧 𝙗𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 because

a. of the now expanded role of the President of the Republic, who could directly nominate lawyers and solicitors, thereby bypassing the Recommendation Panel chaired by the Chief Justice and three other senior judges. The judiciary is concerned about the role of the head of state; It is true that with regard to Section 64 of the Constitution, the president acts ‘in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet’, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒊𝒓𝒄𝒖𝒎𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔.

b. of the presence of a member of the government, the Attorney General, on the recommendation panel which creates an obvious conflict of interest and distorts the very concept of independence in the selection process and

c. the bill does not provide for a a review procedure or how “a challenge may be made against the decision of the Selection Panel”.

Mr Justice Vinod Boolell has pointed out that “in the United Kingdom, the choice of King's Counsel (KC) is done by a King's Counsel Selection Panel that is composed of 11 members. The current members are two retired senior judges, senior barristers, senior solicitors and lay, that is not legally qualified members…..The KC Selection Panel's composition is motivated by ensuring independence, fairness, and expertise in the rigorous selection process for KC appointments……the selection is a detailed and intensive process. "

"The decision of the KC Selection Panel can be challenged by submitting a complaint to the King's Counsel Appointments Complaints Committee with details of the grounds for complaint within 60 calendar days of the competition outcome.”

“In the United Kingdom, it is the firm belief that the panel needs to be seen as independent and able to provide an impartial assessment of applicants' qualifications and experience. 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒐𝒓 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆𝒍 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒂𝒇𝒆𝒈𝒖𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒂 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔.”

This is not the right way forward in our reform efforts, however limited and cosmetic, at breaking with the colonial past and turning a new page in our Republic for a more efficient, effective and less elitist justice system. . 𝑶𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒘𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏, 𝒈𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅.

PS: Please note today's editorial of L'express on this issue -nothing about the role of the Attorney General and the conflict of interest...Shame on our "Quatrième pouvoir ", just toeing the line, when their chums are concerned.

Gavin Glover argues that: « L'Attorney General n'est pas un acteur politique dans ce processus . Sa présence au panel est une question de professionnalisme"

Why are u the Attorney general today ? Because of your "professionalisme' or because of your proximity to NCR...U are a nominee not chosen by the electorate , whether you like it or not, AG is "un acteur politique" !