Justice Rajendra Narine was wrong to have ordered that the controversial affidavit of Jamaat-al-Muslimeen head, Yasin Abu Bakr, be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for investigation, says former Justice of the Appeal Court Jean Permanand.

Permanand said this affidavit does not exist legally as it was struck out both in the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, and therefore Attorney General John Jeremie was right to write to the Chief Justice over Narine’s actions.

Permanand is now a member of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) and part of the Law Reform Commission, which is under the ambit of the AG’s office.

Speaking on a prerecorded interview for this morning’s TV6 Morning Edition with Andy Johnson, Justice Permanand noted that the judgments of both the Court of the Appeal and Privy Council determined that the affidavit was irrelevant, scandalous and ordered that it be removed from the record.

’The Court of Appeal said that they would strike out the affidavit and order that it be removed from the record, so therefore that is not on the record. So the act of the judge then is really ultra vires, because he has no authority to send something that is no longer on the record before him,’ Permanand said.

Last Friday, Justice Narine ordered the court’s registrar to send Bakr’s affidavit to the DPP and the acting Commissioner of Police (CoP) so that the allegation made against Prime Minister Patrick Manning could be probed.

The affidavit alleges that Manning struck a deal with the Jamaat to secure votes for the PNM in the 2002 General Election.

’This is an order which the judge should have followed because there was no appeal on that (striking of the affidavit from the record), there was no question on that order that it be removed,’ Permanand said.

On Monday at the Parliament sitting, Jeremie, in a statement, raised the same points as Permanand, and indicated that he would be writing to the Chief Justice on Narine’s order.

UNC deputy leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar had argued that Jeremie was in contempt of court and had no right to raise the matter in the House.

Permanand, however, said the AG was within his right as, legally, the affidavit does not exist.

Questioned by Johnson on the disclosure by former acting DPP Carla Browne Antoine to the Express that she had received the contentious affidavit since May and had forwarded it to the Commissioner of Police, Permanand said under the Constitution, the DPP has the power to institute or undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court in respect to any offence.

She added that the DPP also has the power to discontinue any criminal proceedings at any time and therefore if she felt there was something that needed to be probed she had to power to order an investigation under the Constitution.