Attorney General John Jeremie yesterday sought to pre-empt the motion of privilege which is to be brought by Siparia MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar at tomorrow’s sitting of the House of Representatives.

In a personal explanation at yesterday’s sitting, Jeremie sought to clarify statements made in the course of his statement to the House of Representatives last Friday. He noted that he had made specific references to a finding by the Court of Appeal that the affidavit in the Yasin Abu Bakr case was scandalous and irrelevant. (See Page 6.)

He said according to the unrevised Hansard, he also stated that that decision was upheld by the Privy Council.

’Mr Speaker, the decision of the Court of Appeal was not reversed by the Privy Council. It was indeed upheld by the Privy Council. It appears that the Member for Siparia understood that sentence to mean that the finding of the Court of Appeal, that the affidavit was scandalous, was upheld (by the Privy Council). The Council confined itself to saying that the affidavit was irrelevant. So that I regret that the member did not understand what I meant.’

One of the bases of Persad-Bissessar’s motion was that Jeremie had misled the House and cited that the Privy Council affirmed that the affidavit was irrelevant and not scandalous, as had been held by the Court of Appeal.