In one of his press releases on the subject of silk, the Chief Justice wondered whether, since national awards, like Senior Counsel awards, are in the gift of the Prime Minister, former CJs who received Trinity Crosses should "consider returning them".

(He also used the phrase "the grant of an honour or award by His Excellency the President to a sitting judge on the recommendation of the Honourable Prime Minister..." That statement was not quite right. The Schedule to the Constitution on The Order of the Trinity, which I imagine has not yet been amended, states at section 10 that national awards shall be made by the President "on the advice of the Prime Minister..." As we know, "on the advice of" is merely a polite way of saying "on the instruction of". In other words, the President has no discretion in the matter. He doesn't act on a prime ministerial "recommendation". He must do what the PM tells him to do.)

It has been argued that there is a "tradition" of giving the highest national award to our CJs, whereas the acceptance of silk by a CJ (or any sitting judge) would blur the line between Executive and Judiciary and create a public perception of judicial bias, or potential bias, towards the government of the day. On this argument I have only two comments to make.

First, what exactly is the "tradition" referred to? Our first CJ, Sir Hugh Wooding, received the Trinity Cross (TC) in 1969, the year after he retired from the Bench. (The point must be made, however, that 1969 was the first year national awards were given.) Our second CJ was Sir Arthur McShine, who received the TC in 1971, also the year after his retirement. Our third was Sir Isaac Hyatali, who got his in 1974 after two years in office.

Our fourth CJ was Cecil Kelsick (no more "Sirs" — we had become a republic in 1976) in 1985, the year he retired. Our fifth was Clinton Bernard in 1987, two years into his term. Our sixth was Michael de la Bastide in 1996, shortly after he took office. Our sixth was Satnarine Sharma in 2003, the year after he became CJ. Our current CJ, Ivor Archie, assumed his post in 2008. He did not receive the TC, and so far has not received the replacement Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago either.

What therefore is the "tradition" some speak of? If there is one, why has it functioned in so haphazard a fashion? Why, for instance, did McShine receive his TC only after he had retired while others received theirs during their incumbency? And how did de la Bastide receive the TC within one year while Archie has received nothing at all after four years? What manner of "tradition" is this?

My second comment has to do with the role of the Executive, more precisely the Prime Minister, in the grant of silk and of national awards. Many of us have complained for years about the excessive powers of the PM, exercised directly or surreptitiously, under the Constitution. I agree entirely with those who say that many of these powers fly in the face of good governance.

Where silk is concerned (if it is finally decided to keep it), I agree that, especially in this hyper-suspicious country, there would certainly have been a perception (unfair, in my view) of judicial leaning towards the Executive if Archie and Kangaloo had kept their SCs. But perceptions often damage credibility. I therefore accept that an independent committee should be established to consider and decide future issues of this kind. I trust that the Law Association will consult widely through town meetings and the media, and with Caricom, before formulating recommendations. I'm not so sure about the efficacy of Attorney-General's announced Green Paper, because I have the feeling that, if the public is left to itself in the usual way, few persons will read it and comment.

Where national awards are concerned, I am satisfied that the same principle of independent assessment and decision should apply. I have said so several times over the years, and last year I wrote the government suggesting the Canadian procedure as a guide. I assume that the Government, like its predecessors, is paying me no mind: Governments, and particularly Prime Ministers, don't like to lose control of anything, even if good governance is thereby enhanced. That's the Eric Williams centralising template, which every government since his has sought to copy. And yet, here is an excellent opportunity to break the mould.

I've said this often before, and I'll say it again: the legal power of a PM to grant or refuse "national" awards in his or her discretion, with or without consultation, is a major reason why I have declined all the offers of such awards made to me over the years. They aren't national awards at all; they are prime ministerial, hence political, awards (even if, ironically, many go to persons who are fully deserving of national awards). And I have seen too much political abuse of the system — recommended names capriciously struck out, names of party hacks and favoured individuals inserted, persons relegated to lesser awards, etc — for me to allow myself to be one of its beneficiaries. The system, never transparent, has become debased over the decades. That is a pity, because the principle underpinning it — national recognition for the genuine toilers of the nation — is unassailable.

Ah well, I will never receive silk for the Bar. Nor, I suspect, will I ever receive silk's equivalent at the national level. No problem: I shall content myself with the few silk ties I have and my many garments of polyester. With a bit of cotton for variety.

* Reginald Dumas is a former

ambassador and former

head of the Public Service

—The Michael Harris

column returns next week