Excerpt of the judgment delivered by Justice Rajendra Narine in court last Friday.

On 8th June, 2006, the second Defendant (Abu Bakr) filed an affidavit comprising 62 paragraphs and 26 pages in which he set out details of meetings and conversations which he had with prominent members of the People’s National Movement, notably Ms Joan Yuille Williams, Mr Martin Joseph and Mr Larry Achong in the year 2002, in the months preceding the 2002 general elections.

The second Defendant also deposed to details of meetings and conversations that he held with the Prime Minister in 2002. At these meetings he claims that he came to an agreement with the Prime Minister in the following terms:

1. The remaining lands at Mucurapo would be transferred to the Jamaat. This was about three acres to the rear of the mosque.

2. The Mucurapo Islamic College which is located on the Jamaat compound in Mucurapo, was to be included in the concordat with the Ministry of Education and was to receive funding from the Ministry.

3. The State would not enforce the payment of damages against the Jamaat and the Jamaat would receive compensation as ordered by Mr. Justice Best in HCA No. 3982 of 1990.

1. The Jamaat would work within the crime-ridden areas to bring about a reduction in crime.

2. The Jamaat would work within the marginal constituencies to mobilise young persons to vote.

3. The Jamaat would publicly come out in support of the ruling party and would endorse the PNM party for re-election.

4. The Jamaat would work actively in campaigning for the PNM party in the marginal seats.

5 .The Jamaat would be responsible for implementing the orderly implementation of social programmes in the targeted marginal constituencies.

The plaintiff (AG) did not respond to the allegations of the second Defendant. Instead, by Notice filed on 12th July, 2006, the plaintiff 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 a criminal offence and/or contrary to public policy’.

The allegations made by the second Defendant are extremely serious. If they are true, they strike at the heart of our democratic system of government. Following the results of the 2002 general elections there were numerous complaints in the daily press that citizens in the marginal constituencies were unable to exercise their right to vote due to intimidation on the part of the Jamaat. 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.

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 on 8th June, 2006 to the Acting Commissioner of Police and the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions 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.

It is imperative, in the interests of preserving public confidence in our independent constitutional offices, in our criminal justice system and in our democratic system of government, that this matter should be afforded the urgency and transparency which it deserves.

In closing, I wish to emphasise that I express no view, and I make no finding with respect to the truth of the allegations contained in the affidavit. However, in my view the allegations strike at the heart of our system of government and merit the urgent attention of the relevant authorities.