Contrary to statements made by the team seeking the interest of Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr, the State remains adamant that Abu Bakr will receive a fair trial.

The assurance came from Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal, who is seeking the State’s interest.

The matter, which is being heard before Justice Mark Mohammed, came up for hearing yesterday in the Second Criminal Court at the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain.

Responding to an application made by attorney Wayne Sturge to have the matter permanently stayed, Seetahal dismissed Sturge’s application, saying there was nothing to lead to a permanent stay since ’this will go against all (legal) authorities’.

She made reference to the trial of Dole Chadee, where pre-trial publicity was a factor of contention with the defence, but this notion was dismissed by the Privy Council and the trial resumed. Seetahal said statements are made by politicians in Parliament on a regular basis and not everything is remembered by the public.

’One must not assume jurors are unintelligent people and cannot separate fact from rumour,’ Seetahal said, noting there will be no merit to the granting of a stay.

Earlier in the proceedings, Sturge referred to Attorney General John Jeremie as being a law unto himself.

Sturge maintained that his client would not receive a fair trial following statements made by Jeremie in Parliament and also articles published in the newspapers.

In his application, Sturge told the court, ’There must be some sort of serious sanction. He (Jeremie) has gone to make mischief for things he should not have done. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) needs to get serious if they want this man (Abu Bakr) to go on trial. Your honour, we submit that he (Jeremie) could not care less that his statements are prejudicial.’

Sturge noted that in 2007, Justice Mohammed placed a stay on the proceedings due to pre-trial publicity, and then DPP Geoffrey Henderson issued a stern warning to Jeremie over public comments in the matter.

He said in the past the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen members have been labelled as terrorists and the issue of Abu Bakr’s credibility has been greatly strained. Any jury in the country, when the time approaches for the trial, will remember statements made by Jeremie, Sturge said.

Following the arguments, Justice Mohammed adjourned the matter to October 5, where he is expected to give his ruling.

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.