Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Iman Yasin Abu Bakr intends to rely on statements made by Attorney General John Jeremie to support his case that he cannot get a fair trial on the basis of pre-trial publicity.

One of his defence attorneys, Wayne Sturge, told Justice Mark Mohammed in the Second Criminal Court that recent statements uttered by Jeremie in Parliament referring to his client were unfortunate and as a result he was seeking the court’s indulgence to direct the ’Attorney General in whatever way’.

Sturge also referred to several newspaper articles, which published Jeremie’s statement made on September 12, which were in response to a directive made by Justice Rajendra Narine, to refer a controversial affidavit of Abu Bakr for investigation.

Jeremie criticised the decision of the judge stating that the affidavit, which had been described as irrelevant, by the Appeal Court and the Privy Council, had also been struck from the record.

Narine, who has since been promoted to the Appeal Court, had ruled that ten properties belonging to Abu Bakr be auctioned off by the State to satisfy in part a $40 million debt arising out of the destruction of Police Headquarters during the 1990 attempted coup.

It was Narine’s comments during that court hearing, where he referred an affidavit filed by Abu Bakr, in which he claimed that Prime Minister Patrick Manning promised to waive the debt in exchange for support in the 2002 general election.

During yesterday’s hearing, Sturge also asked that Jeremie be placed on notice as it related to his comments being made in the public domain.

Stating that Jeremie is a politician and can heavily influence public opinion, Sturge said this was a cause for concern since members of the public are the ones called upon to serve as jurors.

Sturge further noted that a general order should be made to caution newspapers and Jeremie ’about things which are being said in public setting’.

Justice Mohammed in responding to Sturge said he needed to examine what was said by Jeremie and in what context the statements were made.

’If you wish, you may produce the video tape, but before I go further, I need to see and hear what was said,’ Justice Mohammed said.

Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal who is seeking the interest of the State said the newspaper articles should not be difficult to obtain and if an application was being made then the Attorney General should be properly represented.

Seetahal further pointed out that in the absence of an application before the court, it will be improper for Justice Mohammed to order the video with Jeremie’s comments be made available.

The matter was then adjourned to September 30.

Abu Bakr, is charged with promoting a terrorist act, sedition and four other offences arising out of comments he made during an Eid-ul-Fitr sermon in November 2005 at the Mucurapo Road mosque of the Jamaat al Muslimeen.

Abu Bakr, 67, of La Puerta, Diego Martin, is also charged with two counts of inciting a riot, demanding money by menace and inciting others to breach the peace.

The Jamaat leader is awaiting the outcome of an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Terrorism Act, related to at least one charge against him.