Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:15 hours 13 min ago
Bakr affidavit
AG presents legal opinions
Published: 30 Sep 2009
Advice received by Attorney General John Jeremie from two international legal experts both confirm that the affidavit by Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr should not have been referred to in the recent court matter involving the Muslimeen and Government.
Jeremie yesterday tabled in the Senate copies of the advice on the issue which he had received from Jamaican legal expert Lloyd G Barnett and former Jamaican Solicitor General B. St Michael Hylton QC. He said their advice supported the position he had taken in respect of the order of the court to produce Bakr’s affidavit.
“I had criticised the order,” Jeremie noted. Last week in the Senate’s budget debate, Jeremie, taking issue with comments by the Law Association on the aspects of the matter, had promised to present copies of the advice he had received on the matter. Jeremie added, “I have today complied with my undertaking to produce these two opinions. One opinion is dated 25th September 2009 when I received it. But at the time that I gave my undertaking I had already had informal advice on the matter.”
The advice submitted by Jamaican legal expert Lloyd G Barnett stated, “When a court orders an affidavit to be removed from the record on the grounds that it is scandalous, vexatious or oppressive, the effect is to destroy or nullify the public or official records of the statements contained in the affidavit,
“Any reference to the affidavit in the same or related proceedings is improper. In fact it is the duty of the Registry to destroy the affidavit because it should no longer be referred to in the pending proceedings,” Barnett’s statement also noted, “In the instant proceedings my understanding is that the trial judge was dealing with a sequel to the Court of Appeal decision which ordered the removal of the affidavit from the record. So not only was there an order of the higher court by which he was bound, but the proceedings were related.”
The advice on the issue pertained to the matter between both parties which was recently adjudicated upon by High Court judge Rajendra Narine (now a Court of Appeal judge) in which the Muslimeen affidavit figured. That document alleged a deal had been struck between the Muslimeen and members of the PNM. The document was struck out by both the Privy Council and local Court of Appeal. However, Narine in a further hearing of the property issue, directed that the affidavit be sent to the acting DPP and police commissioner.
QC’s Advice
The advice of Hylton stated that the judge in the matter at hand should not have referred to the challenged affidavit “In the way that he did or at all,” (sic). Hylton added, “The learned judge made comments and issued directions which do not relate to the present proceedings. In my opinion the learned judge should not have done so.
“It was inappropriate for him to make any reference to the challenged affidavit at all and should have treated it as never having been filed.” Hylton also cited similar cases, noting, “What is clear from this decision and others such as Rossage v Rossage is that the offending affidavit should be removed from the file or ignored by the judge, neither was done in the present case.”
Mr. Jeremie, Sir, as an
Mr. Jeremie, Sir,
as an average citizen I am a bit taken aback.
No disrespect to these two international legal experts.
But why was it necessary for you to seek legal advice from two persons from Jamaica, another Caribbean island, when in the past most if not all have been sought from U.K. Experts?
When this gov't has to proceed with legal matters, they retain the services of Legal Experts direct form the U.K. to represent them. They do not retain the services of Legal minds from Jamaica, or do they?
This case of Mr. Bakr's Affidavit has caused the people of my country to question the behaviour of our P.M., and we need to know the truth, and only the truth, of the matter.
So in light of this, should you Mr. A.G. not have gone directly to the top experts in the U.K. as usual, to seek legal advice, thereby preventing us from wondering and questioning the reasons(s) for your selection of professionals from Jamaica.
We should have no distractions what-so-ever when we receive the advice you will be presenting in Parliament. - We would wish to not question, wonder or postulate in this matter.
PS: The Guardian provided us a few days ago via Centre Stage - Editorial, a legal opinion that differs from the two received by Mr. Jeremie.
Now I am confused!
....there we go
....there we go again!!!!...JJ sprinkles some cash to his bush lawyer buddies to obtain some half-assed justification for his meddling....if this is the type of brains trust that would dominate the local alternative to the Privy Council, then God help us!!!!....
Gardenia, I am confused
Gardenia, I am confused also, as I thought the Guardian gave us the real transcripts. No way did I read that the privy council said it was scandalous. It was irrelevant in this case or was it?. A clever lawyer should have challenged that, But again, if it is an affidavit sworn to on the bible signed, sealed and delivered, and Abu Bakr can be taken to court again for false affidavits why doesn't the AG shut up now and let's hear that an inquiry is under way. If Abu said he met 3 people including the PM, is he lieing?. If Manning govt will take Abu to court, why is he meeting with the guy? The same guy who shot up Parliament. There is something fishy here. Why does not Abu publish photographs of the meetings? or can we find out where Manning and co were at those specified dates and times? Abu did not have a secret tape recorder on him?
As someone else mentioned
As someone else mentioned previously
Why is it that what Judge Narace did is 'so terrible', yet, when another judge sent it a few months ago it was not so 'terrible' albeit that action does not appear to have received as much (if any) attention and as claimed, the request to investigate was... not received by the office?
Why attempt to haul Judge Narace over the coals for this and not the other judge too, when they both seemed to share the same opinion?
La Diva
And if you analyse whats
And if you analyse whats going on: re the sheer volume of intelligent commentaries, letters, questions to all press and online blogs, that we understand the TT public is an intelligent, aware public, it loves politics and its the same for the smaller Caribbean Is, Then we look at the answers from people like Colm, and JJ and Browne and Ms Manning and Lady Finance Minister: these guys/gals can do the spin, more spin than a boll weavel,they blatantly lie. But I think they have a safety barrier in politics knowing that our voices dont stir them up as > 90% of the population they dont hear from so they walk round like ostriches heads in the sand. They will continue on this track until elections then wallop, they get it. If we cant import for Xmas as lack of USD$ then what will happen, shelves will empty, we getting to Mugabe status now? and you read chemical business will be down for more than 9 months. Cranking up after this take 3 months to bring in revenues, lets call it 1 year more.
Psst .. Psst .. La Diva, ..
Psst .. Psst ..
La Diva, .. Judge Rajendra NARINE.
The answer as to why - that's a million dollar question/answer!
They will never tell. We just have to use our vivid and intelligent imagination.
Have a good day.
And Narace is the Minister
And Narace is the Minister of Health, aka Mr H1N1 whose Insurance Company insures Government buildings and vehicles.
Oh my!
Oh my!
Thanks Gardenia and The Prince. Yes, not even I, as La Diva could/should be allowed to get away with THAT one!
Unfortunately I cannot edit the comment now so alas, my humanity is there for all to see! (^_^)
My apologies to Judge Narine, fellow readers, bloggers and blagger. In the meantime, I will borrow Mike Tyson's quote, to come full circle:
I might just fade into Bolivian, you know what I mean?" (^_~)
La "blushing" Diva
Neither did I read that the
Neither did I read that the Privy Council said that it was scandalous.
The direct quotes from Privy Council Appeal No.30 of 2008 in which the word scandalous appears is as follows, all of this is in the documents that sets out the case not the judgement.
It reads in section 3 (the case preamble) "By notice dated 12 July 2006 the Attorney General applied to strike out Mr Abu Bakr’s affidavit, pursuant to RSC Order 41, rule 6, which provides that the court may order to be struck out of any affidavit “any matter which is scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive.”
And also in section 12 (it refers to Mendonca J's written judgement of 15th January 2007 that "It therefore could not be relied on as a defence to the summons and the affidavit was accordingly irrelevant, as well as comprising scandalous material".
It is interesting to note that section 16 reads "The case made on this appeal was concerned with a different issue. The essence of the argument advanced by the Attorney General in seeking to strike out the affidavit is that the agreement on which the Jamaat rely was illegal, both by statute and at common law, and as such could not be enforced".
And in section 21."This being so, the affidavit propounding the agreement was irrelevant, as the Jamaat could not rely upon the agreement as a defence to the application for sale of the lands". It finishes "It is on this ground of irrelevance, rather than that of any inconvenience or embarrassment to the Prime Minister, that the Board consider that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed" .
Read the judgement youself, you can get it here: -
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/050509_Lennox_Philip_Judgeme...
I think JJ is doing a rain dance, so as to flood us out and impose the nine day wonder syndrome!
High fives, Ashley Merton ,
High fives, Ashley Merton , you should be an investigative journalist . I would like to opine that most of the bloggers here , do plenty investigating and therefore , John Jeremie , along with the PM and his other minions cannot mislead the readers . Maybe another judge will be fired by Manning because it appears that the only one in T&T that he can't fire is Calder Hart .
ATW - Barbados .
Sworn on a Bible? If a holy
Sworn on a Bible?
If a holy book was used, I don't think that Abu would use the bible. He would go for the Koran - he is of the muslim faith.
But do you know that there are some among us who says that it is a sin to violate the holy book by using it to swear and take an Oath.
The first time I was faced with this I was floored, the young lady said her Bible could not be used .. it is real, and we have to use an alternative.
This article raised a lot of questions, as I see we are questioning ???
We live in a age where we
We live in a age where we will witness true transition, Barack Hussein Obama has put his hand on the bible and took the oath of office, here we see the generation of government that are here to transcend the barriers of race, religion and culture, here we see government that is put in place to accomplish the things the old regime could not have accomplished, we are now seeing the changing political land scrape of our future, No Religion, No Race, No Culture. The face that will be accepted by all to get the policies that were a problem when presented under a different face.
This is the new bread of politician I have been speaking about.
Is anybody still wondering
Is anybody still wondering why these people want to establish the CCJ and get rid of the PC ???
I can always get lawyers to
I can always get lawyers to support any, and I do mean any, contentions I may have.
Rik Hansel
A little birdie told me that
A little birdie told me that JJ is raising the issue of the validity of the affidavit as a red herring because it might preclude the revelation that the meetings were secretly taped!
A really good analysis of the issue is available here.
I have heard the same tune
I have heard the same tune from a little bird, but could not have placed any value to it, but still am digging, nothing hides forever.
What a shame this AG has put
What a shame this AG has put our good citizens through. Imagine of all places two Jamaican legal experts. I wonder how much he paid for this advise. This man will stop at nothing to defend Manning and his bank of merrymen. They are just pointing their finger at justice Narine to make the man look bad. I just cannot believe this man is our AG. This man should be working at the Emperor Valley zoo with a big shovel in his hand. Anyone want to guess what his duties are.
.....guess who's paying for
.....guess who's paying for JJ's exantaying?......
As the saying goes:"two
As the saying goes:"two swallows do not make a summer". So too 2 opinions from our Jamaican legal fraternity do not make Jeremie's own opinion right. Are you saying that the value of 2 Jamaican lawyers is worth more than the considered views of the entire local Law Association? Both cannot be right, ipso facto one is wrong. Maybe we now need an independent legal forum to adjudicate this matter. No wonder so many people still want to hold on to the Privy Council as the final Court of Appeal, until they could have confidence in the Regional CCJ. Sad but true.
There are some lawyers who
There are some lawyers who are like doctors. Some doctors ask you how much sick leave do you want and some lawyers ask you what sort of opinion do you want and for whom.
“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” George W.Bush 43rd US President.
This quote is so appropriate to JJ and his clique, they are the only ones he is fooling.
Bush bright eh?