A contentious affidavit filed by Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr, alleging that favours were granted by ruling People’s National Movement leader Prime Minister Patrick Manning in exchange for helping the party secure votes during the 2002 general election, will be forwarded to the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Acting Commissioner of Police James Philbert for further investigation.

The directive was made by Justice Rajendra Narine in the Port of Spain Second Criminal Court yesterday.

According to Justice Narine: ’Having regard to the extremely serious nature of the allegations, I am directing the registrar of the Supreme Court to forward a copy of the affidavit filed by the second defendant (Abu Bakr) on June 8, 2006, to the acting CoP and the acting DPP for their consideration. 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 has been that no one is above the law, regardless of his position.’

In the 26-page affidavit, Abu Bakr also claimed he held conversations with then ministers Joan Yuille-Williams and Larry Achong and current National Security Minister Martin Joseph.

In a 27-page judgement, Justice Narine said the allegations made by Abu Bakr against Prime Minister Patrick Manning ’are extremely serious’.

’If they are true, they strike at the heart of our democratic system of government,’ Justice Narine said.

Justice Narine said following the 2002 general election, there were several complaints flooding the daily press where citizens in marginal constituencies ’were unable to exercise their right to vote due to intimidation on the part of the Jamaat’.

Justice Narine added: ’If the allegations are true, the prime minister made promises of State resources to the leader of an organisation which had made an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the duly-elected government of the country, in return for the Jamaat’s leverage in the marginal constituencies.’

He noted that the plaintiff (attorney general) did not respond to the allegations of Abu Bakr, but instead, by notice filed on July 12, 2006, ’applied to strike out the affidavit in its entirety on the basis that it was wholly irrelevant since if the allegations were true, the agreement ’is unenforceable as being made for an illegal or no consideration and/or to commit offence and/or contrary to public policy’. However, Justice Narine said when the matter eventually reached the Privy Council, the affidavit was subsequently struck out, with Lord Robert Douglas Carswell raising certain issues about the affidavit’s contents.

’In the opinion of the board, this was corrupt within the meaning and intendment of Section 3, and each party to the agreement was acting in contravention of the section...,’ Justice Narine said, quoting from the Privy Council ruling.

Saying the pronouncements made by the Privy Council are cause for concern, Justice Narine said as far as the court is aware, ’no action has been taken by the appropriate authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations’.

Attorneys Douglas Mendes SC, Dana Seetahal SC, Rikki Harnanan and Haran Ramkarran represented the attorney general while Mark Seepersad, Gerald Ramdeen and Lemuel Murphy represented the Jamaat, Abu Bakr and Kala Aki Bua.