Down goes Legal Aid

THE LEGAL Aid and Advisory Authority provides a vital service by assigning private attorneys to persons charged with capital offences who cannot afford to retain competent counsel. The service is crucial to the operation of our criminal justice system which requires that the scales of justice be always fairly balanced, that the rights of accused persons to a free and fair trial are vigorously upheld. It is something of a scandal then to learn that work of the LAAA has been virtually stymied over the last four months by the non-appointment of a Director who, according to the Act, is the only official competent  to award Legal Aid briefs.

What could be the reason for such delinquency? This failure, together with a 50 percent cut in the Legal Aid budget, disturb us because they demonstrate an unfortunate lack of appreciation for the social philosophy which animates the Authority and also for the maintenance of a critical constitutional right. In fact, one gets the feeling that the Government’s delay in making such an appointment is again the result of purely political considerations, that the search is on not so much for a competent administrator of the Authority but rather for a director who is a loyal supporter of the PNM and one who would be certain to carry out “government policy.”  After the disgraceful dismissal of Mr Hubert Alleyne as chairman of the Unit Trust Corporation, it is now becoming clear that this, in fact, is the “government’s policy,” that expertise and competence take second place to loyalty to the governing party as far as the making of appointments to such public bodies is concerned. The result of this, of course, is that the large cadre of qualified and able, but apolitical or independent, persons in our country has been ruled out for consideration in the filling of such positions.

Surely, if professional qualification, proven ability and successful performance were the decisive criteria then the Government should have been quite pleased to retain the services of Mr Alleyne at the UTC and would have had no problems in readily reappointing Mr Israel Khan to the post of Director of the LAAA. But obviously, the fact that Mr Khan is now politically non-aligned, that he does not support any political party although he was once active in the NAR, has made him a questionable candidate for the Legal Aid directorship. The fact that during the three years in which he administered the affairs of the Authority Mr Khan has transformed a poorly run service into an efficient and respected outfit clearly counts for nothing with the government. It is quite apparent that Mr Khan’s impressive record of achievement as head of the LAAA is not the main consideration of the government in the appointment of a director and the fact that he is not “one of the boys” appears to have destroyed his chances for being retained.

Mr Khan may well be justified in feeling a sense of regret for having served the Legal Aid Authority with such diligence and selflessness. He should be comforted to know, however, that his record of defending pro bono, in other words free of charge, 15 persons charged with murder will stand unmatched as an example of service to the entire profession. Mr Khan’s changes were almost revolutionary, imposing not only equity in the distribution of briefs but also transparency in the Authority’s operations. We can’t help feeling a sense of unease about all of this, particularly coming from an administration that boasts about its commitment to good governance, to creating opportunities for all to serve and to the maintenance of our human rights and freedoms. Also, what we see at the UTC and the LAAA does not strengthen our hope for the unity and cohesion of our divided society.