ATTORNEY GENERAL John Jeremie, speaking in Parliament yesterday, criticised Justice Rajendra Narine’s referral to the DPP and the police of the Jamaat al Muslimeen’s affidavit that alleged an election-related deal between the Jamaat and PM Patrick Manning. Following is the text of Jeremie’s statement.

MR SPEAKER:

On 27th July, 1990 the Jamaat al Muslimeen launched a vicious attack against the State that was aimed at removing by force of arms the duly elected Government of the day. That attack, let me remind members of this Honourable House, wreaked untold havoc on this country. Large parts of the capital were destroyed and a number of persons, including members of staff of this Parliament and a Member of Parliament, were killed.

In the year 1994, the Government then led by Prime Minister, the Honourable Patrick Manning, commenced proceedings against Yasin Abu Bakr, the Jamaat Al Muslimeen and others claiming damages for the destruction of State property during the failed insurrection and its aftermath over the period July 27, 1990 to August 1, 1990.

I pause to make this point. These proceedings were commenced almost ten years before the elections of 2001. On September 6th 1996, the High Court registered judgment against Mr Abu Bakr and others in default of defence and damages were later assessed in the sum of $15,000,000 with interest.

In February 2006, the Government, which by then was once again in the hands of the Honourable Prime Minister, issued a summons pursuant to the provisions of the Remedies of Creditors Act, Chap. 8:09 seeking orders for the sale of 11 parcels of land, ten of which are owned by Mr Abu Bakr. either by himself or together with others, in order to recover the monies owed to the State. At the date of the issue of the summons for sale, the unsatisfied judgment debt, with interest, stood at $31,680,046.17.

In defence of the summons for sale, Yasin Abu Bakr suddenly recollected, swore and filed an affidavit on June 8th, 2006 in which he alleged that there was an oral agreement made between him and the Honourable Prime Minister to the effect that the order for the payment of damages to the State should not be enforced and that the defendants should never have to pay any money to the State under that order, reciting that he had made a deal in exchange for which his debt would be forgiven in exchange for him assisting the PNM in its election campaign.

It should be noted at this juncture that Mr Abu Bakr had consistently alleged the involvement of various persons at various times in his unforgettable criminal activity of 27th July 1990. First he alleged as it suited him the foreknowledge and therefore the criminal participation in his crime by the Opposition Member for Tabaquite, Mr Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj S.C. No one took the word of a known criminal then over that of the Honourable Member. No investigation was launched then even though the Jamaat produced a tape which they alleged substantiated their claims. Then Abu Bakr made similar claims, contradicting himself against the Honourable Member for Couva North. Again no one took the convenient word of an insurrectionist seriously.

On this occasion however, not surprisingly, he has chosen to attack the Member of Parliament for San Fernando East, who incidentally, is the only Prime Minister to command Governments which have actually pursued this claim against Abu Bakr. Neither the Member for Couva North nor any other Prime Minister of this country has done this.

Instead of being commended for the dogged and successful determination to bring justice to the Jamaat al Muslimeen for its detestable acts, the Honourable Prime Minister is asked to respond to a concocted story from a man without a shred of credibility in this country. Mr Speaker, this Government cries foul.

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. However, Senior Counsel advised that the alleged agreement on which Mr Bakr relied was illegal or contrary to public policy and that in accordance with settled principles of law the High Court should not take cognizance of it. Senior Counsel advised instead that an application be made to strike out the affidavit. Such a course would avoid the time-wasting spectacle of having the Prime Minister deposed to deny the agreement and be subjected to cross-examinations. It appears in hindsight that this is precisely the tactic which was being employed in Mr Bakr’s defence since at no time did his lawyers seriously question the illegality of the alleged agreement.

The application to strike out came before Justice Rajendra Narine who did not consider whether the alleged agreement was illegal and unenforceable, taking the position instead that the application to strike out was premature. This meant that consideration of the question of the controversial affidavit would have to be delayed until after all the evidence was in and cross-examination had occurred. In other words the judge wanted the Prime Minister before him and he wanted him to be cross-examined.

Mr Speaker, the Attorney General challenged this decision in the Court of Appeal which overturned the decision of Justice Narine and unanimously ruled that the application to strike out the affidavit be heard there and then before them. The Appeal Court also ruled that the alleged agreement on which Mr Bakr sought to rely was illegal and unenforceable and could provide no defence to the summons for the sale of his land. The Court of Appeal said as follows at page 21 into 22 of its judgment:

’I think that if the Judge had considered the legal effect of the allegations in the affidavit as he ought to have done he would have come to the conclusion 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’.

The Judge was therefore quite firmly reversed by a unanimous Court of Appeal which included the present Chief Justice and two other senior Justices of Appeal in terms describing the affidavit as scandalous. Mr Speaker, those are not my words but the words of the Court of Appeal.

By a unanimous decision delivered on May 5th, 2009, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, both in respect of its ruling that the application to strike out was not premature and that the alleged agreement could not found a defence. The Board concluded that:

’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. The respondent should not have to incur the expense which would be involved in filing rebutting evidence. Nor should the proceedings be held up over the delay which would be an inevitable consequence of filing evidence, disclosure of documents and possible cross-examination of deponents.’

As such, the Court of Appeal’s decision’s that Mr Bakr’s affidavit be struck out and removed from the record stood and it was the State’s expectation that the relevant authorities would faithfully adhere to the decision of this Republic’s highest court. Mr Speaker the rule of law required no less.

With the status of the affidavit clear as being scandalous, irrelevant, and I would add, incredible, the way was now clear for the summons for the sale of Mr Bakr’s property to be heard and determined. It is important, Mr Speaker, to pause here to emphasise that no question concerning the alleged agreement could any longer be considered by the Court, Mr Bakr’s affidavit having been ordered to be removed from the record by the Court of Appeal as being scandalous. Accordingly as he had now been required to do, On September 11th, 2009, Justice Narine ordered the sale of the Defendant’s properties in satisfaction of the States judgment.

Inexplicably, Justice Narine then, without notice to or invitation by either party, permitted himself to refer at great length to the contents of the very affidavit which had been struck out as being scandalous and had as a consequence become wholly irrelevant to the matter before him, the very affidavit which had been described by the Court of Appeal as scandalous and which more importantly had been ordered to be removed from the record and which as such ought not to have been available to the Judge to refer to.

The Court then, quite remarkably and without saying what enquiries had been made, indicated that as far as the Court was aware, no action had been taken by the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations, the Court then superfluously and publicly directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to forward a copy of the affidavit filed by the Second Defendant on June 8th, 2006 to the Acting Commissioner of Police and the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions for their consideration. This was of course in defiance of the order of the Court of Appeal which had described the affidavit to be scandalous and ordered it to be removed from the Record.

Mr Speaker, I repeat, 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?

Mr Speaker, 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 the allegations made in Mr Bakr’s affidavit, no doubt confident that the relevant authorities would do their job as they in fact have done.

Mr Speaker, in light of the above, I have today penned a letter to the Honourable Chief Justice expressing the concerns of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in relation to these developments.