Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr yesterday launched a scathing attack on the administration of justice as he accused a judge and several judicial officials of being biased against him.
Bakr made the remarks in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday after Justice Frank Seepersad refused to recuse himself from his trial for malicious prosecution against the State for charging him with a murder in 2010 for which he was eventually freed.
In rejecting the application, which was based on Seepersad's dismissal of a parallel constitutional motion over the same issue two years ago and another malicious prosecution claim in which Bakr was only awarded $5,000 in compensation, he (Seepersad) said that the application should have been made before the start of the trial.
After the ruling, Bakr was invited to take the witness stand to testify but instead began a rant against Seepersad.
"He (Seepersad) is biased. I will not subject myself to being tried by this court," Bakr said as he got up and walked out of the court. The case was stood down for a short time as Bakr's lawyer Farid Scoon attempted to pacify a visibly agitated Bakr.
After the break, Bakr returned to the court, apologised and completed his testimony and cross-examination.
"I am sorry about earlier. I was just expressing my feelings. I apologise," Bakr said as he apologised for his outburst.
In his lawsuit Bakr is alleging that Coroner Nalini Singh acted maliciously when she charged him and his former follower Brent "Big Brent" Miller with murder following the conclusion of a coroner's inquest into the death of 22-year-old mechanic Israel Sammy in September 2010.
Sammy, also a former member of Bakr's organisation, was shot dead behind his Valot Street, Boissiere Village, Maraval on May 20, 1998. Singh's decision was eventually overturned one month later when Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard said that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charge.
During his testimony, Bakr repeated challenged State attorneys to produce the transcripts of Sammy's inquest which he said proved his allegations. However, he claimed that the transcript, which is not evidence in the case, had been altered.
"I would request that the transcript should be show to the court because it was jumbled up and they scratched off all the things that were said," Bakr said.
His allegation was strongly challenged by attorneys Ravi Rajcoomar and Jagdeo Singh, who represented the magistrate and the State.
Both attorneys questioned Bakr's claims as they noted that he had not made the allegations against Singh's judicial support staff in his lawsuit and had no evidence to do so.
Bakr also noted that like Seepersad, Singh had refused to recuse herself from the case, upon his attorney's request in 2009.
In her testimony, Singh was questioned by Scoon on the evidence she relied on to summon him to the inquest and eventually recommend the charge.
Singh said that Bakr had been implicated in Sammy's murder in a statement from Miller and that she summoned him to inform him of the allegations and for him to properly defend himself at a preliminary stage.
She later admitted that the statement given to her by police was a copy that had not been signed by Miller.
Singh will continue her testimony when the trial resumes on February 21.