THE tenure of former independent senator Noble Khan came under scrutiny yesterday by the defence in the sedition trial involving Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Imam Yasin Abu Bakr.

Attorney Wayne Sturge, who is representing 70-year-old Bakr, accused Khan of never speaking out or voting against the People's National Movement (PNM) Government while he sat in the Senate. In response, Khan said he could not remember how he would have voted over the years.

"Do you disagree with my suggestion?" Sturge asked.

Khan replied: "Yes. Because I voted according to the way I see it (the issue being debated). My voting was not governed by voting in favour of the PNM or the other side. I disagree with you. I will have to check the records. I spoke out against the PNM. My position was not to oppose anybody in the Senate."

Khan agreed that he had a "good relationship" with then Attorney General John Jeremie who was also a senator.

"You were an additional PNM senator masquerading as an independent senator," Sturge suggested.

Khan said he was an independent senator appointed by the President.

"A President who was appointed by the PNM," Sturge countered.

The remark prompted an objection from lead prosecutor Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal.

Sturge went on to ask Khan whether Seetahal, who was also an independent senator while Khan was in the Senate, ever opposed the PNM during her tenure.

He (Sturge) also suggested that Seetahal was "another PNM senator masquerading as an independent".

Seetahal again objected accusing Sturge of "gallerying".

Trial Judge Justice Mark Mohammed called on Sturge to rephrase the question.

Khan later said he could not recall how Seetahal would have voted in the Senate. He also denied that Seetahal was masquerading as an independent senator as suggested by Sturge.

"There is nothing that stands out in your mind in relation to Miss Seetahal speaking against the PNM?" Sturge asked.

Khan said Seetahal expressed her view as she saw it fit but not in a way to favour any particular party.

Sturge: "From your recollection she voted with the Government."

Khan: "Well sometimes something comes before the House and you would vote for it. It's not about voting with the Government."

Sturge: "In the main, would Seetahal generally vote with or against the Government?"

Khan: "Generally with."

Sturge asked Khan if he remembered congratulating Seetahal when she was awarded "silk" (Senior Counsel status).

At that point Mohammed said he had a legal issue to raise in the absence of the nine-member jury and six alternates.

At the end of the day's sitting at 1.30 p.m., the issue was still unresolved. Legal submissions will continue when the trial resumes this morning.

The trial is being heard in the Third Criminal Court at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain.

Bakr, of La Puerta in Diego Martin, is charged with communicating a statement having seditious intention, two counts of inciting to demand with menaces with intent to steal and endeavouring to provoke a breach of the peace.

The charges arose out of comments he made during an Eid-ul-Fitr sermon delivered at the Jamaat's Mucurapo Road, St James mosque on November 4, 2005. Portions of the sermon, which dealt with the collection and distribution of Zakaat (money collected for the poor), were aired later that day during CNC3's 7 p.m. newscast.

Khan said he was at home when he saw the newscast and felt "very shocked and traumatised" when he heard his name being called by Bakr.

"He said they (the Jamaat) was coming by me (to collect Zakaat)."

AT A GLANCE Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Imam Yasin Abu Bakr, 70, is charged with: • unlawfully inciting persons present to demand with menaces property of members of the Muslim community who are not members of the Jamaat- al-Muslimeen; • unlawfully inciting persons present to demand with menaces property of (former head of the Inter-Religious Organisation) Noble Khan, with intention to steal. • unlawfully inciting persons present to commit a breach of the peace by enforcing the collection of Zakaat against members of the Muslim community who are not members of the Jamaat-al- Muslimeen; and, • uttering a seditious speech, the purport of which was to engender and promote in his listeners feel ings of ill-will or hostility between members of the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen and other members of the Muslim community who are not members of the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen. Judge: Justice Mark Mohammed, presiding in the Port of Spain Third Criminal Court, Hall of Justice, Port of Spain State attorneys: Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal, Renuka Rambhajan and Shelly Ann Gajadhar. Defence attorneys: Wayne Sturge, Naveen Maharaj and Viveka Pargass.