Attorney General John Jeremie yesterday kept to his word and circulated in the Senate two legal opinions which he relied upon when he criticised Justice Rajendra Narine’s decision to refer an affidavit of Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr for investigation.

Jeremie made a brief statement to the Senate saying that although one of the opinions was dated after he made his criticisms, he had already received the same advice in an informal matter. The opinions circulated were from Jamaican lawyers Dr Lloyd Barnett and Michael Hylton QC.

On September 11, Justice Narine directed that the affidavit which alleged that Bakr struck a deal between Prime Minister Patrick Manning and other top PNM officials to wipe out a multi-million debt owed to the State for the destruction of police headquarters during the 1990 attempted coup in exchange for muscle support during the 2002 election campaign.

Narine had ordered that Bakr’s affidavit be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Commissioner of Police (CoP) for investigation.

His decision drew condemnation and criticism from Jeremie who on September 14, in a statement to the Parliament, said that Narine was wrong as this affidavit had been struck from the record and deemed irrelevant in both the Court of Appeal and Privy Council.

Jeremie’s attack on Narine provoked criticism from Law Association’s head, Martin Daly.

The issue came up again, last Wednesday, when Jeremie in his budget contribution slammed Daly for his criticisms and again reiterated that Narine was wrong, a view shared by Barnett and Hylton.

Yesterday, the opinions of both attorneys were circulated in the Upper House.

Both attorneys noted that Bakr’s affidavit was ordered to be struck from the record and therefore should not have been referred for investigation by Narine.

Stated Barnett, ’When a court orders an affidavit to be removed from the record on the grounds that it is scandalous, vexatious or oppressive, the effect is to destroy or nullify the public or official records of the statements contained in the affidavit. Any reference to the affidavit in the same or related proceedings is improper... I do not think it was proper for the judge to rely on and use the affidavit which had been ordered removed from the court record and criticism of him for doing so was in order.’

Hylton opined: ’In my opinion, the learned judge should not have done so. It was inappropriate for him to make any reference to the challenged affidavit at all, and should have treated it as never having been filed.’