Dear Editor: Prime Minister should withdraw reckless comments on alleged “UNC lawyers”

“[…] As a former attorney general and current holder of the designation ‘senior counsel’ (senior advocate of the Supreme Court), Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar ought to know—indeed, is expected to know—that a lawyer’s previous or perceived political affiliation has no bearing whatsoever on their capacity to act ethically, independently, and professionally in legal matters.

“[…] The Prime Minister’s remarks, at best, reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of legal ethics, and at worst, a calculated deflection from the state’s duty to ensure accountability and justice in the wake of the Paria tragedy…”

The following Letter to the Editor on Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s comments on perceived UNC lawyers was submitted to Wired868 by Mohan Ramcharan, a law graduate who lives in Birmingham, England:

I write in firm objection to the wholly inappropriate and professionally reckless suggestion by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar SC, that there exists a “conflict of interest” in the representation of the LMCS Paria Pipeline victims on the basis that their lawyers are allegedly “UNC lawyers”.

As a former attorney general and current holder of the designation “senior counsel” (senior advocate of the Supreme Court), Mrs Persad-Bissessar ought to know—indeed, is expected to know—that a lawyer’s previous or perceived political affiliation has no bearing whatsoever on their capacity to act ethically, independently, and professionally in legal matters.

To imply otherwise not only undermines the professional integrity of the individual lawyers involved, but recklessly casts aspersions on the wider legal fraternity, the administration of justice, and the very ethical standards that the courts rely on to function.

1. Lawyers’ duties are to the court and the client—not to political allegiance:

The Legal Profession Act and the Code of Ethics in Trinidad and Tobago require all attorneys to act in the best interests of their clients and to uphold the independence of the legal profession. The suggestion that a lawyer is conflicted merely because of past or perceived political association is not only legally erroneous but dangerously misleading.

As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has made clear in Randhawa v Isle of Man Law Society [2023] UKPC 14, the touchstone for professional conduct is the duty of loyalty to the client and the duty to the court, and not conjectural inferences drawn from public affiliations or assumptions of bias.

2. The doctrine of conflict of interest requires evidence of actual adverse duty:

A conflict of interest arises only when a lawyer owes simultaneous duties to two or more parties whose interests are in direct conflict. No such allegation—let alone evidence—has been produced here.

The mere political labelling of lawyers as “UNC lawyers” is neither legally determinative nor morally justifiable. It is a smear by insinuation, and it should be condemned as such.

3. Damage to public confidence in the legal profession:

These statements, made by the sitting prime minister, have the potential to undermine public trust in the independence and impartiality of the legal profession and the judiciary. Coming from someone who holds the status of senior counsel—a title meant to embody distinction, integrity, and adherence to the highest standards—this is especially egregious.

It invites the dangerous narrative that legal outcomes are politically tainted, that justice is partisan, and that victims seeking redress must navigate not only law but political suspicion. This is an affront to the rule of law and disrespectful to the bereaved families already traumatised by the tragic deaths of their loved ones.

4. A prime minister must uphold, not undermine, the legal profession:

The role of the prime minister is not only political but constitutional. It requires restraint, respect for institutions, and the protection of the independence of the legal system. Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar, by virtue of her SC designation, should be defending the legal profession, not indulging in careless, populist narratives that seek to taint lawyers by political association.

The Prime Minister’s remarks, at best, reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of legal ethics, and at worst, a calculated deflection from the state’s duty to ensure accountability and justice in the wake of the Paria tragedy.

The public deserves better. The victims’ families deserve better. And the legal profession demands that such baseless insinuations be withdrawn.

More from Wired868

Dear Editor: T&T’s reckless unilateral stance on US-Venezuela standoff is a betrayal of Caricom

“[…] The Government’s position, as expounded by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister, is not neutrality by any Read more

Shameful, preposterous and disrespectful to Caricom! MSJ slams PM’s stance on US naval deployment

“[…] Today the government is putting us on the wrong side of history and in support of a colonial and Read more

Dear Editor: Rights come with responsibilities—T&T must grasp social contract to grow as mature nation

“[…] Dr Eric Williams was clear in his articulation—in a democracy, citizens have both rights and responsibilities. The government, too, Read more

MSJ: Hypocritical USA must not escalate tensions in south Caribbean—focus on Netanyahu instead!

“[…] The US operates with a policy of imperial hegemony—that it and it alone must be in charge. This is Read more

Dear Editor: Gov’t gave criminals symbolic win by cancelling Independence Day parade

“[…] Independence Day is not merely a ritual—it is a vital reaffirmation of national unity, resilience, and cultural pride… Cancelling Read more

Dear Editor: If TTPS “neutralised” threat that caused SOE, where are the arrests? Where’s the rocket launcher?

“[…] Individuals in authority cannot stand before the population and openly claim criminals have weapons of war, the relevant agencies Read more

Mohan Ramcharan

Mohan Ramcharan is a Trinidadian living in England, an LLB (Hons) law graduate, systems thinking practitioner, and critical thinker. He is a product of two cultures and strives to be ethical and impartial in his thoughts and actions.