Richard Lord

?Foul! That is how At­tor­ney Gen­er­al John Je­re­mie de­scribes the de­ci­sion of a high court judge to send al­le­ga­tions in an af­fi­davit of Ja­maat al Mus­limeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr to the act­ing Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions and the act­ing Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er for in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Je­re­mie al­so in­sist­ed that the al­le­ga­tion that Bakr struck a deal with Prime Min­is­ter Patrick Man­ning to for­give Bakr's mul­ti-mil­lion-dol­lar debt to the State, af­ter the 1990 at­tempt­ed coup, is not true. Bakr had claimed that the deal was made since the Mus­limeen helped the Man­ning-led PNM win the 2002 gen­er­al elec­tion.

"It was the State's po­si­tion, from the on­set in the courts, that there was no truth to these al­le­ga­tions, and that, ac­cord­ing­ly, Mr Bakr's af­fi­davit would have to be con­tra­dict­ed," Je­re­mie said. The At­tor­ney Gen­er­al made the com­ments in a state­ment to Par­lia­ment yes­ter­day, be­fore the re­sump­tion of the 2009/2010 bud­get de­bate. Je­re­mie said he wrote a let­ter to Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie, yes­ter­day, ex­press­ing the Gov­ern­ment's con­cern over Fri­day's de­ci­sion by Jus­tice Ra­jen­dra Nar­ine to or­der a probe in­to an al­leged deal be­tween Man­ning and Abu Bakr, based on an af­fi­davit filed by Abu Bakr. "In­stead of be­ing com­mend­ed for the dogged and suc­cess­ful de­ter­mi­na­tion to bring jus­tice to the Ja­maat al Mus­limeen for its de­testable acts, the prime min­is­ter is asked to re­spond to a con­coct­ed sto­ry from a man with­out a shred of cred­i­bil­i­ty in this coun­try. "This Gov­ern­ment cries foul," Je­re­mie said. Prime Min­is­ter Patrick Man­ning, who was seat­ed next to Je­re­mie, was heard shout­ing across the floor: "The tyran­ny of the judge, that was what the prob­lem is."

Je­re­mie said the Court of Ap­peal ruled that the af­fi­davit should be struck out "as be­ing scan­dalous and ir­rel­e­vant... I would al­low the ap­peal and strike out the af­fi­davit and or­der that it be re­moved from the record."

He added that on May 5, 2009, the Privy Coun­cil up­held the de­ci­sion of the Court of Ap­peal. The Privy Coun­cil said: "The af­fi­davit pro­pound­ing the agree­ment was ir­rel­e­vant, as the Ja­maat could not re­ly up­on the agree­ment as a de­fence to the ap­pli­ca­tion for sale of the lands..." Je­re­mie de­scribed Bakr's af­fi­davit as "in­cred­i­ble." He said: "This is the very same af­fi­davit which the Court of Ap­peal held was scan­dalous and ir­rel­e­vant, and or­dered that same be re­moved from the record. "How, then, could the judge con­sid­er it prop­er to re­fer to this af­fi­davit and fur­ther­more send it to third par­ties?

"The ac­tion which Jus­tice Nar­ine took, in this in­stance, is to be con­trast­ed with that of the Court of Ap­peal and the Privy Coun­cil, both of which, de­spite hav­ing the af­fi­davit be­fore them, did not think it fit in ef­fect to re­quire that a crim­i­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion be car­ried out in­to al­le­ga­tions made in Mr Bakr's af­fi­davit, no doubt con­fi­dent that the rel­e­vant au­thor­i­ties would do their jobs as they, in fact, have done."