TRINIDAD: Radical Muslim Leader Sparks Corruption Probe

• by Peter Richards (port of spain)
• Tuesday, September 22, 2009
• Inter Press Service

He was freed of charges related to the coup attempt, but as he faces a charge of promoting a terrorist act, sedition and four other offences arising out of comments he made during an Eid ul Fitr sermon in November 2005, Bakr has once again divided the country with remarks implicating Prime Minister Patrick Manning in corruption.

In a 26-page affidavit, the leader of the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen group alleges that he and Manning had reached an agreement under which the ruling People's National Movement (PNM) would grant favours to the Muslim group in exchange for helping to secure votes for the party in the 2002 general election.

Bakr said that the deal was reached in the presence of other PNM officials, including current National Security Minister Martin Joseph.

The Court of Appeal and the London-based Privy Council, the country's highest court, have both termed the affidavit 'scandalous and irrelevant' and ordered it to be removed from the record.

However, earlier this month, High Court Judge Rajendra Narine directed the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to probe Bakr's accusations based on the 'extremely serious nature of the allegations'.

The judge said that if the claims were true, 'they strike at the heart of our democratic system of government', recalling that after the 2002 election, several complaints were made in the media that voters in some marginal constituencies were unable to cast their ballots due to intimidation on the part of the Muslim group.

'The court is confident that the relevant authorities will carry out their constitutional duties without fear or favour. In recent times, there have been investigations and prosecutions of persons in high office. The guiding principle is that no one is above the law, regardless of his position,' Justice Narine said.

An enraged Attorney General John Jeremie wrote Chief Justice Ivor Archie and told Parliament last week that while the government is respectful of the rule of law and the doctrine of the separate of powers, Narine had overstepped his authority.

'This is the very same affidavit which the Court of Appeal held was scandalous and irrelevant and ordered it should be removed from the record. How then could the judge consider it proper to include this affidavit and furthermore to send it to third parties?' he asked.

Describing the claims by Bakr as concocted and coming from a man with no credibility, he commented, 'In this country, even the words of an insurrectionist can engage the attention of the police.'

The issue has divided the legal profession.

Former attorney general general Kamla Persad Bissessar supports Justice Narine, saying, 'These are serious allegations that in the public interest ought to be investigated, ought to be clarified.'

However, former Court of Appeal judge Jean Permanand said the judge was wrong to order the probe, as legally, the affidavit does not exist since it was struck out by both the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.

'This is an order which the judge should have followed because there was no appeal on that (striking the affidavit from the record), there was no question on that order that it be removed,' said Permanand, who is a member of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) and the Law Reform Commission.

The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT), in a statement over the weekend, described as 'unprecedented' the criticism of the judge by the attorney general.

'Case law establishes that a filed document may be used even after an order removing the document from the file has been made,' the group said, citing a 1980 legal case.

'Mr. Narine had jurisdiction to have directed that the contents of the affidavit be referred to the commissioner and the DPP. Indeed, to do otherwise would arguably be contrary to the role of a judge as the guardian of the rule of law,' LATT said, noting that it is not unusual for judges to refer to the DPP or the commissioner matters which are of concern to the court for investigation.

The ruling party immediately accused the LATT leadership of engaging the elected government in political warfare.

The PNM said it has noted 'with concern recent developments which have seen the hijacking of the once venerable Law Association by a bunch of political opportunists', and that it was not surprised at the position adopted by the law group that 'continues to parrot positions indistinguishable from that of the opposition parties'.

Meanwhile, Bakr's attorney, Wayne Sturge, wants the High Court to issue a directive restraining the attorney general from making further comments about his client due to potential pretrial prejudice.

Bakr is awaiting an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Terrorism Act governing some of the charges against him.

© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement