THE SUB JUDICE rule, which bars public discussion of matters before the court, has long been the favoured tool of politicians looking to deflect scrutiny.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, invoked the rule to justify his position that he should remain silent about his involvement in US court proceedings tied to the Piarco case.

On Wednesday, Mr Armour's predecessor, Faris Al-Rawi, invoked the rule in all but name when he declined to go into details surrounding a putative indemnity agreement between himself and Vincent Nelson, KC, and the question of Cabinet involvement.

And on Thursday, a presiding officer told an opposition senator to be mindful of Parliament's standing orders barring debate of matters under the consideration of a judge when that senator disclosed the reported existence of a police investigation involving high officials.

All were instances in which it was more convenient rather than appropriate to invoke the rule.

The purpose of the sub-judice rule is undoubtedly to protect the impartiality of the court system by shielding it from undue influence, whether at jury trials or judge-alone proceedings.

But too often the rule is invoked in situations in which it clearly does not apply.

For instance, while the existence of a police probe may be a matter of sensitivity, it is not the same as court proceedings.

And while there are also situations in which prosecutors may wish to hold on to the possibility of relaying charges, or in which an appeal is envisioned or planned, such wishes and plans cannot transform matters that are effectively functus, or have run their course, into ongoing cases.

The corollary concern of avoiding 'pre-trial publicity' is also sometimes loosely deployed by politicians where there is no trial on any docket scheduled to take place, no indictment filed and no prima facie or first-instance case ascertained by any magistrate.

And yet when the rule clearly does apply, the same politicians violate it without shame.

Last October, the Law Association had cause to warn about the politicking of a case relating to bail.

In response, the Prime Minister and Mr Al-Rawi seemed to concede the existence of the rule, but criticised the association for not speaking out whenever opposition members, too, breach it.

This kind of thoughtless wheeling-out of the rule only when it suits officials has serious implications for not only the public interest, but also the workings of other arms of the State.

In June, NIDCO boldly declared it could not give further facts relating to an award of more than $800 million against it, citing the sub-judice rule.

Clearly, when high officials echo and parrot this excuse without good reason, it emboldens others to do the same, empowers the culture of silence and erodes the already shaky respect for the public's right to know.