THE Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago yesterday defended itself in the wake of criticisms levelled against it by Attorney General John Jeremie, with regard to a comment it made on Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr’s controversial affidavit.

In a strongly worded letter to Jeremie, president of the Law Association, Martin Daly, said the council ’stands by its statement and does not accept that the opinions which you have provided require us to make any correction of the council press release’. The association had supported Justice Rajendra Narine in his referral of Bakr’s affidavit to the acting Commissioner of Police and the acting Director of Public Prosecutions when the matter was before him in its release.

Following Narine’s ruling, a war of words erupted between the association and Jeremie, with the latter stating the affidavit was ordered ’struck out’ by the Privy Council and reference should not have been made to it by Narine.

Jeremie also told the Senate that he received advice from legal minds B. St Michael Hylton, QC, and Dr Lloyd Barnett, and was satisfied that Justice Rajendra Narine had acted contrary to what was expected of him with regard to the Abu Bakr affidavit.

In his letter yesterday, however, Daly said: ’Having considered the two opinions on this issue on which you rely, the council finds them unconvincing. With the greatest respect, the conclusions stated are not borne out by the reasoning or the case law cited and the conclusions are seriously undermined by the concessions made.’

Daly added that the association also ’considers it disgraceful that you descended into a personal attack on me, presumably using the cover of parliamentary privilege ...’

Noting that the option of using the Court of Appeal to seek redress following Narine’s action was always available, Daly said: ’In view of the fact that you accused someone in the Senate of a lie which you never identified, the council has decided that this letter be copied to the President of the Senate with a request that he advise whether the practices and procedures of Parliament permit such conduct.’