Dear Editor,
It is with a feeling of disgust that I learnt from your newspaper article on March 7, that APNU is opposed to the appointment of Mr Seenath Jairam, a Guyanese-born Trinidadian-based senior counsel, as a Commissioner on the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquire (COI) recently established by the Government of Guyana (‘APNU concerned over composition, terms for Walter Rodney inquiry’). This disclosure was reportedly made at a press conference by PNC parliamentarian, Mr Basil Williams, at APNU headquarters in Georgetown.
According to said article, Mr Williams claimed that Commissioner Jairam could not be considered to be “politically neutral” because of his connection with the government. He supported his unmeritorious claim with the argument that Mr Jairam was retained by the PPP/C to represent the government in the so-called 2012 “budget-cut” case.
For the less informed, let me briefly say who this gentleman is: We have been close friends ever since we first met at law school at Cave Hill, UWI, hence my interest herein. Jai, as he is affectionately known, was born and raised on the Essequibo Coast; holds the LLB (UWI) and LLM (Wolverhampton) degrees; was called to the bar and admitted to practice in November 1977. He practised law for over 36 years, primarily in the field of civil and constitutional litigation in all levels of court in Trinidad and Tobago including the High Court, the Caribbean Court of Appeal and the Privy Council; he was awarded the accolade of senior counsel in October 1998 (being the first Hugh Wooding Law School graduate in T&T to be given such an honour); he is currently the President (for his third consecutive term) of the Bar Association of Trinidad and Tobago. A former high court judge, Mr Jairam also tutored at the Hugh Wooding Law School; served as a Commissioner on the Law Reform Commission for 12 years; was a Commissioner on the Police Service Commission for 4½ years; was Vice Chairman of the T&T Racing Authority for 3 years; was a member of the Medical Panel for 3 years (the equivalent of the Medical Board of Trinidad & Tobago); was a member of the Private Hospitals Board for one year (but resigned to take up judicial appointment); and was director of the Public Transport Service Corporation. Significantly, Mr Jairam was the lead counsel to the Professor John Uff, QC Commission of Inquiry in T&T for the duration of that inquiry, which I believe lasted almost 3 years. During his lengthy career, his clientele included individuals, corporations and governments.
This learned son of our soil has, over the years, distinguished himself in more ways than one and has an impeccable reputation for honesty, integrity and dedication, and is well and truly respected by both the Bench and Bar.
Mr Jairam has served the legal fraternity with dignity and distinction and by any standard, he is eminently and unquestionably qualified for the highest possible judicial office including to sit on commissions of inquiry in Guyana and elsewhere.
Mr Williams was one of the lawyers in the budget-cuts case and he ought to know that this was a constitutional action initiated by the Attorney General (AG), the official who is mandated by law to do so. Mr Jairam, in association with the AG and other lawyers of his staff, represented the state. The PPP/C was not a party to the action and as such the need to retain and instruct counsel must have been imagined by the rather misinformed opposition MP.
What Mr Williams apparently fails to appreciate is that lawyers do not decide the issues in dispute in the litigation process; this responsibility lies exclusively in the lap of the judge. The role of a lawyer is to present his client’s case to the best of his ability.
If indeed Mr Jairam argued the government’s case in favour of ‘no cuts’ to the 2012 Budget,
Mr Williams and colleagues were equally free to convince the judge otherwise. In fact, I assume that that is what he was retained to do. No lawful bias flows out of the act of legal representation in court. And lawyers should know this. Nor does representation of the state (or government if anyone prefers) amount to being involved in partisan politics. Nor does prosecuting a matter on behalf of the state bring the prosecutor within the realm of partisan politics.
There is a significant distinction between party and government but Mr Williams’ argument fails to appreciate this. In our present day democracy, the government is the executive arm of the state (not a political party).
I am of the respectful view that the opposition to Mr Jairam in this regard, is reflective of a fixed mindset which is part and parcel of a socio-political philosophy to which the PNC has consistently subscribed for decades; it appears that nothing has changed.
Yours faithfully,
Kaisree S Chatarpaul
Barrister
Canada
