THE EDITOR: In the beginning, the Westminster system of laws was written by citizen representatives against the monarchy and British overlords to provide a more equitable system of morality and fairness in stark terms as a hedge against the wealthy lords who deemed themselves gods and, in essence, cannot be held to the same standards of ordinary mortals, especially those unwashed masses who they looked down on from their lofty perch in Olympus.

However, even with the terms of fairness laid out in black and white, that did not stop the rich from exerting undue influence over the system. What chance did less educated citizens have against highly educated and entrenched rich? Even today in the UK, the House of Lords is partly compromised by a peerage system whereby some members inherit their membership.

We bought into that Westminster system hook, line and sinker in TT. Our bicameral houses of Parliament are fundamentally structured on the British system; so is America's system of governance.

Although there have been third-party challenges, the US and TT remain dictatorships. The winner controls the central government lock, stock and barrel, and the loser, no matter how close the election was, is left with scraps.

When Trump, as president, used his constitutional right to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, he was, in effect, interfering with the alleged concept of justices being unencumbered by politics in a separation-of-powers principle. The same concept applies in TT if the courts are stuffed with political appointees. Constitutional change is necessary for the US and TT to remove politics from judicial appointments.

Although Trump has been found guilty of sexual abuse in a court of law, his millions of supporters stand behind him and pledge to vote for him in next year's election. Similarly in TT, although Prime Minister Rowley is the leader of his party and the one responsible for the direction and state of the economy and out-of-control, unprecedented crime, he is still immensely popular with his base. As a result, he remains unchallenged as the leader of the PNM.

With lawlessness endemic to both the US and TT, is it because most citizens view justice with a jaundiced eye? Justice must not only be done, but it must also be transparent so that ordinary citizens can attest to its elemental fairness.

To change how the law functions, where lives are seen as disposable, we need to implement a fairness doctrine to protect the people against political pandering.

Moreover, when an innocent citizen is "abducted" (according to the last CoP and the Law Association), and the judiciary remains silent, how can this be seen as a land where justice prevails?

Those at most risk of becoming lawless are the young, who observe that the rich and powerful can buy politically connected lawyers to argue their case.

At the same time, people with low incomes must rely on court-appointed representation or find a lawyer willing to work

pro bono, which they may do if they think they will benefit from the publicity.