Urmila Banymandhub-Boolell published an interesting open letter to the Chief Justice Sik Yuen in the Forum pages of Le Mauricien on Thursday. In it she deplored that, unlike how it's done in the UK, nobody here really knows how a lawyer is elevated to the rank of Senior Counsel. There were no women in this year's promotion.
She followed up with an interview in Week-End today where she said that she received a lot of support since the open letter but wished more of this support had been public.
19 comments:
Please also read the letter sent by Pramila Patten in the Tribune page of Week-end.
I ask a very short valid question: Would she have shown any protest if she had been in that happy few lucky list?
Nope, I dont think so. And I think if I were in her shoes I wouldnt have protested for the simple reason that any protest should have been voiced years ago...come on...the legal profession here lives in the years of the dinausors. Why didnt any of the lawyers make proposals so the process be comparabale to what is done in the uk, usa and other first world countries.
They know full well that they need to do some housekeeping in their profession....
The same with the doctors here...have they yet seen how the BMA(british medical association) works in the uk. In mauritius people take an appointmnet with specilists without being refered to .....in some cases this is just a waste of money and it can be dangerous too. I know someone who went to see a psychiatrist on his own when he shouldnt have. Of course the psychiatrist was all too happy to take the fees give the patient another follow up appointment. It turns out the patient in question had epilespy(mild early syndromes)...the psychiatrist was simply giving anti-depressants.
Please extend the post by adding your request to read the letter sent by Me Patten. Because it gives the impression that the stance of Boolell is more important than that of Patten.
Direct link to U. Banymandhub-Boolell's interview in Week-End here:
http://www.lemauricien.org/weekend/100613/vw.htm
and Pramila Patten's letter here:
http://www.lemauricien.org/weekend/100613/co.htm
Samem ki appelle "glass-ceiling" ça...
Hé bein, moi ki enn "novice" en la matière, kikenn capave éclaire moi lors enn ti-question: Quand enn avocat recevoir enn titre/nomination couma "Senior Counsel", ki ça ajouter ar so fonction? Eski li enn récompense? Enn titre purement honorifique? Ou-bien enn permission pou charge enkor pliss "professional fees"?
@ Anonymous of June 13, 2010 12:17 PM:
"Would she have shown any protest if she had been in that happy few lucky list?"
Li parett sincère dans so l'approche: pou li c'est enn question de principe et de fairness. Li pé demann plis transparence, mem si li pas gagne nargnié la-dans. Mo cwar Mme Banymandhub-Bolell inn fini réalisé ki li'nn brile so chance pou nommer, lerla li termine so lettre coumsa: "Your Lordship may construe my above "contestation" as being a barely veiled attempt at securing a future appointment. To this, I would humbly state that I am fully conscious that in taking on the establishment in such a frontal way, I have voluntarily disqualified myself for any future appointments. In any event My Lord, my motivation in bringing my great disappointment to the glare of the public eye is not to draw attention to myself, but to the injustice being caused to a number of deserving barristers who may never know why they cannot aspire to be Senior counsel."
Dans enn reportaz lors gender equality, enn dimoune ti dire ki ziska-lerr, l'humanité pé guette les choses ziss d'enn point-de-vue masculin, couma dire enn borgne, li pou ress manque profondeur tant qui li pas donne valeur égale au regard féminin.
To akagugo:
she seems sincere, yeah maybe but why didnt she ask these questions years ago...or (say 2 days ago) before the list was not out yet???
Was she waiting to see if she would be on that list? Did she say anythng on the previous nominations? Maybe she did, I dont know!
I havent read the weekend interview...maybe she was aked this question...I would be curious to know what she had to say.
Do you think Sanjay Bhuckhory deserve to be a Senior Counsel after the catastrophic management of Air Mauritius and the signing in solo of a hedging agreement with Lazare. Now that he is a Senior Sounsel, he should be asked to reimbourse all that money !
I think Mr B should write up a paper on mismanagment and get it publihsed in the harvard review
@akagugo: linn dekrir dan so let ki bann lavantaz gayne kan vinn SC: plis considerasyon de la par bann ziz, etc...
It is only fair that professional bodies apply first the principles of fairness, transparency and justice in their own dealings before requesting them from the people they serve. Modernism and progress is also judged by this kind of condiderations.
@ SJ:
Ah bon? Mo ti cwar ki c'est plitot enn advocate of England and Wales ki'nn déjà démontrer enn aptitude supérieure dans avocacy ek ki'nn démontrer "higher rights of audience in the higher courts" (donc c'est pas ça titre-la ki pou permett li gagne the higher rights / priviledged consideration from judges) ki capave récompenser:
"The award of Queen's Counsel is for excellence in advocacy in the higher courts. It is made to experienced advocates, both barristers and solicitors, who have higher rights of audience in the higher courts of England and Wales and have demonstrated the competencies in the Competency Framework to a standard of excellence."
Hmm, la-oussi li pas clair ki utilité enn titre "SC" éna dans Morisst: Dans Mme Banymandhub-Boolell so lettre, éna ziss:
- "this special honour has been bestowed..."
- "...deserved the recognition they are now receiving"
C'est tout.
In the interview she gave in Week-End, Mrs Banymandhub-Boolell answers quite briefly to the question about the importance of being nominated:
"Q: Est-ce que ce titre honorifique est important, sert vraiment à quelque chose?
R: Il sert à quelque chose de très important: à rassurer celui qui l'obtient que ses efforts, que ses "blood, sweat and tears" professionnels ont servi à quelque chose."
Pramila Patten's letter does not help either.
Donc, en résumé, c'est "a special honour", "deserved recognition" (of Seniors, I suppose), et finalement "à rassurer"...
I fear that the importance they are giving "the silk" honorary distinction stills eludes me. Si ena pou donne distinction, possible faire Bar Council mem faire peer election: faire circule enn bulletin parmi tous membres et faire zot donne 10 noms. Faire compte, ek prend top 10 la-dans, avoye zot enn deuxième questionnaire pou dire zott elire top 5 (bien-sur, excluding himself/herself) , ek dependant kommier sakennn gagner comme ranking, determine the top 5 who get the distinction. The remainder get a mention.
But the above does not dilute the point that if recognition is to be given, why should it be a result of such a non-transparent and apparently unfair process?
I believe that some have the intention of keeping it as opaque as it is now because as from the moment the rules are put on paper and publicised, some will find more grounds to criticising the nomination process. Ek parett ki bann juge content flatterie ("les avocats ont la tendance à aller dans le sens du poil du juge" pou accomodate ar zott mood du moment pou parett korek) pas sipporte critique ditou... Are they above the law?
akagugo: wena rezin. c ene recognition de kalite ou travay ek u prestans e non pa enen passport pu partaz chips bann ziz. Ek pa bizin fer buku plaidwari. Mo sippoze Terminator kav al la kur ek dir "Hasta La Vista Baby" ek basta Arnie vinn SC.
La parole à Bernard Sik Yuen:
" The conferment of SC to you is not a mere decoration but a responsibility. You should be a role model - a honour which you well deserved and which had been earned by hard work" in http://www.lemauricien.com/mauricien/100616/PO.HTM#6
But in face of the requests for more transparency from Mrs Banymandhub-Boollel and Ms Patten, "Le Chef juge s'est dit prêt à publier les détails entourant la nomination des Senior Counsels et Senior Attorneys si certaines personnes s’estiment toujours lésées. (...) pour plus de transparence, ces critères seront publiés sur le site de la Cour suprême"
http://www.defimedia.info/articles/8750/1/Polemique-autour-de-la-nomination-des-Senior-Counsels---Le-Chef-juge-sexplique-et-publie-les-criteres/Page1.html
From the report, it appears that Bernard Sik Yuen held many consultations with key figures/organisations pertaining to the judiciary before agreeing on a set of criteria and using them to proceed to nominations. It appears to be a positive step forward... I am happy to have been wrong in assuming that the rules would remain opaque. Now, the question is: when will the criteria be published?
The Supreme Court has published only what it calls GUIDELINES which can be found at :
http://supremecourt.intnet.mu/Entry/new.htm
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MUST GIVE A PRECISION AS TO HOW HE MANAGED TO CHOOSE MR SANJAY BHUCKOTY AFTER HIS CATASTROPHIC MISMANAGEMENT OF AIR MAURITIUS AS A LAWYER.
@ Anonymous of June 17, 2010 9:24 AM:
Thanks for the link - yes, GUIDELINES they are, in 6 points, not criteria with set minimum conditions to be satisfied etc...
Donc, eski li pou ena mem la-force ki STC so bann rules ki sipposer observer quand fixer prix fuel par APM?
Me Peeroo, SC is somewhat more explicit on the conferment of the title of Senior Counsel:
PS: Excellent choice of new layout/skin of Kozelidir!!
Sorry for the missing link to Me Peeroo's interview:
http://lexpress.mu/services/epaper-112036-b-l-interview-de--b.html
"Seuls avantages tangibles de ce titre : des fauteuils plus confortables placés à la première rangée à la Cour n°5 et une table recouverte d’un tapis vert."
in http://lexpress.mu/services/epaper-112177-non-ecrits-au-detenteur-par.html
Now, a huge "pavé dans la mare" by "un assoiffé de justice" in Week-End: It appears that "professionalism", "credibility" et "integrity in the pratice of the profession" are good guidelines, not essential criteria. Or the various consultations Bernard Sik Yuen had consultations with key figures/organisations pertaining to the judiciary had failed to remember this:
http://www.lemauricien.org/weekend/100620/co.htm#2
Maybe this is actually why Mrs Banymandhub-Bolell failed to understand nominations were made...
Who will defend the nomination of a "spy"? And how?
Mr. B was in court yesterday as the Prime Minister's lawyer. It seems that Ramgoolam has already forgotten the Air Mauritius hedging scandal... Maybe the PM will now appoint him as Chairman of the STC to polish his hedging skills.
@ Anonymous of July 13, 2010 11:47 AM
Mr B who? Samem saki ti orchestrer hedging pou jet fuel sans prend expertise? An bon... Mais, ça pou régler vite-vite ça: par trial and error. Mem si c'est le public yoyageur ki pou paye ça.
Post a Comment