PM has no comment on alleged breach of corrpution act, will discuss it with AG

Prime Minister Patrick Manning has reserved comment on a Privy Council judgment that has suggested that if a "land-for-favours" deal with Muslimeen chief Imam Yaseen Abu Bakr is true such an agreement would be illegal and in breach of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1987.

The deal is contained in a controversial affidavit that Bakr submitted claiming that he didn't owe the state millions of dollars because he and Manning had an agreement that the debt would be written off if Bakr helped with the 2001 general election campaign. Bakr claimed that he helped the People's National Movement and Manning win the election and that the debt was paid.

Related story: Privy Council rules against T&T's Muslimeen

Former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Winston Dookeran, the leader of the Congress of the People (COP) have called on Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Carla Brown-Antoine to investigate the matter. They say the Privy Council judgment clearly shows that Manning broke the law if there was a deal with Bakr.

Manning declined comment on the matter Wednesday. "I need legal advice before I comment. I'll have to talk to the attorney general before I make a comment, so I am not in a position to make a comment on the matter," Manning said. He added that he plans to meet with the Attorney General as soon as possible, probably Thursday.

The issue of Bakr's affidavit was a principal matter in the Privy Council ruling. The appeal court in Trinidad had thrown out the affidavit and Bakr took the matter to the country's highest court in an attempt to prove that he had an agreement for the debt to be pardoned since he claimed Manning promised to do it.

But in refusing the accept the affidavit the Law Lords noted that if Manning and Bakr had such a deal it would not impact an earlier judgment on the $32 million owed to the state by the Muslimeen leader since such an agreement would not be binding on the state.

Paragraph 15 of the Privy Council's ruling on Tuesday said "if the prime minister made an agreement on the lines alleged...it could not have been made on behalf of the State".

It stated further that "The essence of the agreement between the prime minister and Mr Abu Bakr, on behalf of Jamaat, 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 (of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987)."

The Privy Council made it clear that it was not making a judgment on the affidavit but on its relevance to the matter of funds owed to the state. “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,” the Law Lords wrote.

In a media statement a spokesperson for the Attorney General failed to address the issue of a possible breach of the anti-corruption act by Manning and suggested that the affidavit was a fabrication.

The statement said the Jamaat "attempted to set up an alleged agreement between Abu Bakr and the honourable prime minister" in defence proceedings for the recovery of damages assessed in the sum of $15 million with interest. That amount is now about $32 million.