Trin wants to know what kind of sick political leader makes deals with a known terrorist organization that tried to destroy democracy in Trinidad and Tobago in order to win an election. Pinochet? Mugabe? Stalin? Read on, see what our own Patrick Manning and the PNM are alleged to have done to thwart the democratic process and hold on to power. The results of the investigation remain to be seen of course, but this news is no surprise to most Trinidadians I am sure. Manning is a dictator and will do whatever it takes to keep our people oppressed, while allowing his criminal supporters free reign over our people. What a sick sick man.
Justice Rajendra Narine, presiding in the Port-of-Spain Second Criminal Court, said the matter caused him some measure of concern. He made reference to parts of the affidavit, although he emphasised that he held no view, nor made any finding with respect to the truth of the allegations contained in the document. Narine delivered a 27-page judgment in which he ordered that 11 properties belonging to Bakr and senior Jamaat member, Kala Akii Bua, be put up for public auction to satisfy a $32 million debt owing to the State for the destruction of Police Headquarters during the 1990 attempted coup. Bakr was not in court yesterday as he is in London with his daughter who will start university soon. The Attorney General was represented by Dana Seetahal, SC, Rikki Harnanan and Sean Julien, while Mark Seepersad, Gerald Ramdeen and Lemuel Murphy, appeared for the 114 Muslimeen insurgents.
After making the orders for the sale of the properties, Narine devoted the last seven pages of the judgment to deal with the controversial affidavit. During the hearing of the summons for sale application, Narine admitted the affidavit into evidence. On an application of the AG, the Court of Appeal struck out the document and Bakr went to the Privy Council. The British Law Lords, on May 5, ruled that the affidavit should be struck out for irrelevance but in the course of his judgment Lord Carswell, who delivered the opinion of the Privy Council, referred extensively to its contents. Lord Carswell stated that the essence of the agreement between the Prime Minister and Abu Bakr “was that certain advantages would be given to the Jamaat out of State property, in return for securing voting support for the Prime Minister’s political party. In the opinion of the Board this was corrupt within the meaning and intendment of Section 3 and each party to the agreement was acting incontravention of the section.”
In reference to the Privy Council’s judgment, In reference to the Privy Council’s judgment, Justice Narine said: “These are the pronouncements of the highest court in this jurisdiction. Yet, as far as the court is aware, no action has been taken by the appropriate authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of these allegations. “The allegations made by the second defendant (Bakr) are extremely serious. If they are true, they strike at the heart of our democratic system of government.” Justice Narine also said: “If the allegations are true, the Prime Minister made promises of state resources to the leader of an organisation which had made an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the country, in return for the Jamaat’s leverage in the marginal constituencies (during the 2002 general election).”
Narine, who will sit in the Court of Appeal next week, added: “The court is confident that the relevant authorities will carry out their constitutional duties without fear or favour. In recent times, there have been investigations and prosecutions of persons in high office. The guiding principle has been that no one is above the law, regardless of his position.” As far as Narine was concerned, this matter should be afforded the urgency and transparency which it deserves. According to Narine, Bakr’s affidavit stated that the Jamaat leader spoke and met with Manning, Larry Achong, Joan Yuille-Williams and Martin Joseph, before the 2002 general election.
According to Bakr, it was agreed that:
• The remaining lands at Mucurapo would be transferred to the Jamaat.
• The Mucurapo Islamic College would be included in the concordat and would receive funding from the Ministry of Education.
• The State would not enforce the payment of damages against the Jamaat.
In consideration of these promises, Bakr said the Jamaat agreed to, among other things:
• Work within the crime-ridden areas to bring about a reduction in crime.
• Work within the marginal constituencies to mobilise young people to vote.
• The Jamaat would publicly come out in support of the ruling party and would endorse the PNM for re-election.
Bakr said that after the election, Manning failed to honour any of the obligations under the agreement, especially the agreement not to enforce the judgment against the Jamaat.
The issue
The background to the case was the armed occupation by members of the Jamaat in 1990 of the Red House and TTT. The complex subsequent history led to two successful appeals to the Privy Council in relation to criminal prosecutions. The Jamaat sued the Police Commissioner in two actions and obtained an award for damages in each, the amounts being some $2 million and $700,000 or thereabouts respectively. Then in 1994, the Government commenced proceedings against the insurgents and Bakr, claiming damages for trespass and damage to, and/or destruction of property of the State at the time of the insurrection.
On September 6, 1996, the Government obtained judgment in default of defence for damages to be assessed. On January 15, 2001, damages were assessed by Justice Joseph Tam in the sum of $15 million, with interest. The debt stands at $32 million. On February 6, 2006, the Attorney General issued a summons on behalf of the Government, pursuant to the Remedies Against Creditors Act, for the sale of 11 parcels of land. On June 8, 2006, Bakr filed an affidavit in opposition to the summons, raising a major issue by way of defence to the claim.
Court orders sale of Bakr properties…
Judge: Probe ‘deal’ with PM
-Francis Joseph
Published: 12 Sep 2009
The Trinidad Guardian
Justice Rajendra Narine, presiding in the Port-of-Spain Second Criminal Court, said the matter caused him some measure of concern. He made reference to parts of the affidavit, although he emphasised that he held no view, nor made any finding with respect to the truth of the allegations contained in the document. Narine delivered a 27-page judgment in which he ordered that 11 properties belonging to Bakr and senior Jamaat member, Kala Akii Bua, be put up for public auction to satisfy a $32 million debt owing to the State for the destruction of Police Headquarters during the 1990 attempted coup. Bakr was not in court yesterday as he is in London with his daughter who will start university soon. The Attorney General was represented by Dana Seetahal, SC, Rikki Harnanan and Sean Julien, while Mark Seepersad, Gerald Ramdeen and Lemuel Murphy, appeared for the 114 Muslimeen insurgents.
After making the orders for the sale of the properties, Narine devoted the last seven pages of the judgment to deal with the controversial affidavit. During the hearing of the summons for sale application, Narine admitted the affidavit into evidence. On an application of the AG, the Court of Appeal struck out the document and Bakr went to the Privy Council. The British Law Lords, on May 5, ruled that the affidavit should be struck out for irrelevance but in the course of his judgment Lord Carswell, who delivered the opinion of the Privy Council, referred extensively to its contents. Lord Carswell stated that the essence of the agreement between the Prime Minister and Abu Bakr “was that certain advantages would be given to the Jamaat out of State property, in return for securing voting support for the Prime Minister’s political party. In the opinion of the Board this was corrupt within the meaning and intendment of Section 3 and each party to the agreement was acting incontravention of the section.”
In reference to the Privy Council’s judgment, In reference to the Privy Council’s judgment, Justice Narine said: “These are the pronouncements of the highest court in this jurisdiction. Yet, as far as the court is aware, no action has been taken by the appropriate authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of these allegations. “The allegations made by the second defendant (Bakr) are extremely serious. If they are true, they strike at the heart of our democratic system of government.” Justice Narine also said: “If the allegations are true, the Prime Minister made promises of state resources to the leader of an organisation which had made an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the country, in return for the Jamaat’s leverage in the marginal constituencies (during the 2002 general election).”
Narine, who will sit in the Court of Appeal next week, added: “The court is confident that the relevant authorities will carry out their constitutional duties without fear or favour. In recent times, there have been investigations and prosecutions of persons in high office. The guiding principle has been that no one is above the law, regardless of his position.” As far as Narine was concerned, this matter should be afforded the urgency and transparency which it deserves. According to Narine, Bakr’s affidavit stated that the Jamaat leader spoke and met with Manning, Larry Achong, Joan Yuille-Williams and Martin Joseph, before the 2002 general election.
According to Bakr, it was agreed that:
• The remaining lands at Mucurapo would be transferred to the Jamaat.
• The Mucurapo Islamic College would be included in the concordat and would receive funding from the Ministry of Education.
• The State would not enforce the payment of damages against the Jamaat.
In consideration of these promises, Bakr said the Jamaat agreed to, among other things:
• Work within the crime-ridden areas to bring about a reduction in crime.
• Work within the marginal constituencies to mobilise young people to vote.
• The Jamaat would publicly come out in support of the ruling party and would endorse the PNM for re-election.
Bakr said that after the election, Manning failed to honour any of the obligations under the agreement, especially the agreement not to enforce the judgment against the Jamaat.
The issue
The background to the case was the armed occupation by members of the Jamaat in 1990 of the Red House and TTT. The complex subsequent history led to two successful appeals to the Privy Council in relation to criminal prosecutions. The Jamaat sued the Police Commissioner in two actions and obtained an award for damages in each, the amounts being some $2 million and $700,000 or thereabouts respectively. Then in 1994, the Government commenced proceedings against the insurgents and Bakr, claiming damages for trespass and damage to, and/or destruction of property of the State at the time of the insurrection.
On September 6, 1996, the Government obtained judgment in default of defence for damages to be assessed. On January 15, 2001, damages were assessed by Justice Joseph Tam in the sum of $15 million, with interest. The debt stands at $32 million. On February 6, 2006, the Attorney General issued a summons on behalf of the Government, pursuant to the Remedies Against Creditors Act, for the sale of 11 parcels of land. On June 8, 2006, Bakr filed an affidavit in opposition to the summons, raising a major issue by way of defence to the claim.
Comments