There are moments in public life when the law works exactly as written—swiftly, cleanly, and without scandal—and yet commentators still feel cheated of their outrage.
The appointment of Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh is one such moment.
Faced with a sudden vacancy created by Chief Justice Ivor Archie’s retirement, Acting President Wade Mark followed the Constitution to the letter.
He consulted the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, exercised the discretion vested in his office by section 102 of the Constitution, and appointed the most respected jurist on the Court of Appeal.
The Judiciary avoided paralysis.
The Republic moved on.
And yet—like a Greek chorus of professional dissent—Martin Daly SC, the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT), and Dr Vishnu Bisram have all rushed to announce that something must be wrong precisely because nothing went wrong.
Daly: nostalgia dressed as critique
Mr Daly, once a formidable constitutional voice, now mistakes efficiency for impropriety.
He concedes that Justice Boodoosingh is worthy, then insists the process was “botched” because it happened quickly.
But the Constitution imposes no timetable.
“Consultation” means exactly what it says—an exchange of views, not a seminar series.
The Privy Council in Re Application by the President of Trinidad and Tobago (1988) 39 WIR 409 confirmed that consultation requires listening, not obedience.
To invent new steps is to rewrite the Constitution by op-ed.
Daly’s lament about who attended the swearing-in ceremony—ministers, defence chiefs, perhaps a stray trumpet—reveals more about his appetite for theatre than about constitutional law.
The Judiciary’s independence does not evaporate because a soldier saluted at the ceremony.
Daly calls this “disturbing.”
Most citizens would call it orderly.
LATT: principle without precision
Not to be outdone, the Law Association produced a statement long on adjectives and short on law.
It declared it “cannot conclude that a reasonable process of consultation was done,” which is a polite way of saying “we have no evidence of wrongdoing, but we’re suspicious anyway.”
The Association then announced that the President must present names, reasons, and ample time for reflection.
Nowhere does the Constitution say any such thing.
These are administrative-law notions dressed up as constitutional duties.
The President’s obligation is procedural, not deliberative: to consult the two political leaders and then decide.
Confidentiality is not conspiracy; it is constitutional prudence.
The LATT’s attempt to expand the meaning of consultation beyond recognition does not safeguard transparency—it undermines executive certainty.
The country cannot afford a system where every constitutional act requires a town-hall meeting and a press release.
Bisram: agreement followed by protest
Enter Dr Vishnu Bisram, whose letter manages the impressive feat of disproving itself.
After conducting his own “consultations” with lawyers, judges, MPs, and civil society, he reports that Justice Boodoosingh was the overwhelming choice of the legal fraternity and the public.
He calls him apolitical, scholarly, hardworking, and “an excellent jurist.”
Then—without pause—he demands constitutional reform because the process that produced this near-perfect outcome was allegedly insufficiently transparent.
This is reasoning worthy of farce: we got exactly the right result, therefore the process must change.
Dr Bisram’s proposal to involve “civil society” in judicial appointments sounds noble until one asks which civil society and by what metric.
Judges are not elected; their legitimacy derives from independence, not applause.
To invite lobbying into the process would politicise the bench beyond repair.
The law versus the performance
What unites Daly, the LATT, and Bisram is not principle but performance—the conviction that every constitutional act must be wrapped in spectacle to be legitimate.
They confuse transparency with theatrics and consultation with consensus.
But the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago is built on deliberate separation of functions: the President appoints; the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader are consulted; the Judiciary remains independent.
No amount of editorial hand-wringing alters that structure.
The truth is disarmingly simple.
Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh was the most qualified and broadly respected candidate.
He was appointed swiftly, lawfully, and with sufficient consultation under the Constitution.
Those who insist otherwise are not defending democracy; they are demanding drama.
If every lawful act must now be padded with delay, debate, and “civil-society engagement,” we will soon have governance by perpetual symposium.
The Republic does not need that.
It needs public officers who read the Constitution before rewriting it in the press.
The Judiciary has a new Chief Justice, and the Constitution was followed.
The rest is a chorus of self-importance—off-key, off-text, and out of time.
