This is a small contribution concerning the affidavit which is purported to be made by Yasin Abu Bakr, leader of the Jamaat al Muslimeen, in which serious allegations are stated against Patrick Manning, the Prime Minister. An affidavit is a declaration made by an individual in which he or she makes statements believing them to be true and correct.
The individual swears before a Commissioner of Affidavits that the contents of the declaration are true and correct and he or she signs the declaration. The commissioner also signs the document. The affidavit becomes a legal document. If in the declaration any statement or part of the declaration is false and the individual knew that at the time of signing the document the statement was false, then the individual has committed a breach of the Statutory Declaration Chapter 7 No 4 and the individual is liable to fine and imprisonment.
With regard to this particular affidavit, if any of the statements are false Bakr has committed an offence and he must be fined and imprisoned. However, he has nothing to prove. If the affidavit affects Manning then the onus is on him to prove that Bakr has made false statements against him. If Manning does not prove that the statements are false and incorrect and if he takes no action against Bakr, then it means that Manning has accepted that the statements are true and factual.
The question has arisen that since the affidavit was thrown out by both the Appeal Court and the Privy Council then it is not valid. That is not true. The affidavit still remains an affidavit; it remains a valid document. It is still a legal document and can be used in other matters. Both the Appeal Court and the Privy Council have thrown it out because it is "scandalous and frivolous" and does not qualify to be used in the case before them.
Neither of these legal bodies has said that the affidavit is wrong in law or it contains falsehoods. Neither has either said it contains truths. The statements in the affidavit must be investigated to ascertain the veracity of them. Justice Rajendra Narine is right. The contents of this or any affidavit must be verified as containing only what is true and correct.
He has done the right thing by sending the affidavit to the Commissioner of Police to investigate the contents. If there are any falsehoods in this affidavit then he must prosecute Bakr through the Director of Public Prosecution. If there are any illegal or false promises made by Manning, which he has not fulfilled or cannot fulfil, then he must not be above the law. He must be prosecuted as well.
One must note that Justice Narine also did the right thing by ordering that the properties of the Jamaat be sold. In doing so he has not given any credence to the affidavit. He has not ruled against the Appeal Court or the Privy Council. He has only indicated that the affidavit, as any other affidavit, requires investigation and appropriate action.
Many people are securing affidavits to suit their particular cause and sometimes the statements they give to the Commissioner of Affidavits are questionable. These statements smell of falsehood and not being true and exact. One must always give true and correct statements in such a document. It will be well for the public to know that securing an affidavit must be done honestly, truthfully, correctly and transparently and then the contents will be able to stand in any court.