ISRAEL B RAJAH-KHAN SC

SINCE I lost the “silk” case, many people, 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 TT (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 judgement 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 judgement that 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 Khan SC), through his own private writings, and by 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 attorneys.

In the premises, I have a duty and a direct, personal and serious bona fide interest in ensuring that 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 (Israel Khan SC) 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