Seepersad criticises conduct of some lawyers, politicians

2803966

A High Court judge has criticised the conduct of some lawyers and politicians saying that they are widely seen as “untrustworthy exploiters who create their own narrative of truth.”

Speaking at a seminar on the Relevance of Ghandi in a Contemporary World at the Mahatma Ghandi Institute for Cultural Cooperation on Thursday, Justice Frank Seepersad said Gandhi has left lingering lessons which still need to be learned by lawyers and leaders.

“As we look at our society, truthfulness is evidently an elusive concept. There now exists very real alternate realities,” the judge said.

Seepersad charged that far too often important decisions are effected without any regard for accountability.

“Here in our island Republic recent events relating to the appointment of a Commissioner of Police have raised in the minds of many citizens a desire to ascertain the truth as to what transpired and many feel that the various public officials who may have been involved in the situation which ensued, should elect to exercise Satyagraha, clarify the events which unfolded and exercise ownership over any inappropriate exercise of discretion or constitutional overreach which may have occurred.” While it is said that during his years of practice Gandhi never deceived a judge, Seepersad remarked, “Oh how do I wish for lawyers such as him in my Court!” Sadly, he said, many lawyers forget that their primary duty is to the court, not their client and the Gandhian example of uncompromising honesty and integrity needs to be emulated by members of the legal profession.

Noting that leaders could learn a lot from Gandhi’s strategies, he said, “Very often leaders are tone-deaf as they myopically spin narratives crafted to resonate with their supporters while they make other citizens feel disenfranchised and distant. In their quest for political dominance, many leaders often fail to take into account the needs of regular citizens and those considered as opponents. The current destructive and divisive atmosphere which exists among our leaders has to be rectified as it is not possible for the people’s business to be meaningfully engaged in an antagonistic environment characterised by vitriol and dysfunction.”

Pointing out that compromise was another significant attribute Gandhi displayed, Seepersad said, “At this present time there is a worrying level of polarisation among national leaders. This can easily filter down to the citizenry and catalyse behaviour which is destabilizing.” Seepersad added that the current entrenched level of inflexibility in the approach to lawmaking is also a regrettable circumstance, he added, “As we look at our society, there seems to be little room for or willingness to engage in compromise and in our tiny island there now exits an unacceptable degree of intolerance. Within the legal profession compromise is not actively pursued, presumably in an attempt to pursue more lucrative and multi-layered litigation.”

He said too many lawyers now pursue payment and compromise positions of principle and too many leaders change their positions on a constant basis.

“Consequently, the needs, goals, entitlements and aspirations of the people are often sacrificed in the halls of courtrooms or at the altar of political expediency.”