I WRITE in response to a letter dated April 3 from Anand Beharrylal, KC, headlined ‘Stop attacking the Judiciary’.

Sir, this is Trinidad and Tobago. I will advise you, as you sit in faraway London, that there are no discernible trends of attacking members of the Judiciary.

There was a very pertinent comment by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, and occasionally there are observations of certain practices on the bench, but these in no way could be argued as coalescing into a trend.

Please do not confuse Trinidad and Tobago with Donald Trump’s alternative universe in the United States, in which litigations are now a public sharkfest-everybody from a sitting judge to his clerk, his daughter, down to his family dog, are fair game.

Since Independence, thanks to our founding father, Dr Eric Williams, this country has followed the tradition of English jurisprudence, holding the liberal democratic fundamentals outlined in your letter-for example, a respect for the rule of law and the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary.

So to sit in London and warn us that comments on the Judiciary hold a ‘frightening prospect’ is unnecessary at best, and scaremongering at worst. Add to your comments those of a sitting judge, criticising the Prime Minister publicly, but under the cover of anonymity, then yours may be interpreted as disingenuous, hinting more about the cliques that exist within the Judiciary, and leaving one to speculate on your true agenda.

More recently, the Leader of the Opposition has added her criticism of the Prime Minister’s statement, but the self-proclaimed senior counsel’s comments really are always of little value, and not deserving of attention.

Be assured that members of our supporting institutions are alert to the separation of powers, its boundaries, and the dangers of even slight slippages, and how autocracy can loom attractively ahead. This country travelled that road recently and its memories are still fresh. In other words, there are guardrails.

I take your concern that a judge’s performance on the bench should be beyond public criticism. But how does this society respond when a judge uses his status to venture into the role of public commentator? He, or she, then assumes dualistic roles, best likened to the faces of Janus, the mythical Roman god-that is, interpreting the law from the bench, but then edging sideways into public policy formation, with instructions to its makers.

Mr Beharrylal, this is where ‘the frightening prospects’ arise-a judge sits in the Hall of Justice Monday to Friday, but ‘veiledly’ seeks to join social activists on weekends.

Of course, there are other matters that may hold ‘frightening prospects’, such as the conflicts among members of the bench; for example, this judge not speaking to that judge; names such as the ‘Gang of Six’ being bandied about; and some judges being known for slighting the work of others.

In other words, there are festering conflicts which do not play out publicly and which, if not addressed, could hold ‘frightening prospects’-not as potentially dangerous as Republican appointees versus Democratic appointees in the US judicial system.

Your comments come at a time when we the mourn the death of former chief justice Michael de la Bastide, whose presence on the bench, I will admit, would not have created fears of ‘frightening prospects’.

Yes, there is a lot that could be said about the delivery of the Ivor Archie court and, of course, the performance of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, but for now, I will not say ‘frightening prospects’.

Leigh Courtney Christopher Maracas, St Joseph