Privy Council rules against T&T's Muslimeen; slams alleged deal with Abu Bakr

Trinidad and Tobago's highest court of appeal - the London-based Privy Council - ruled on Tuesday that the state can sell properties owned by Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr to satisfy a $32 million debt arising from the destruction of Police Headquarters during the 1990 attempted coup. The Privy Council also ordered Bakr to pay costs, which would be more than $1 million.

Bakr had appealed to the Law Lords seeking to reinstate an affidavit he filed regarding an alleged deal he made with Prime Minister Patrick Manning to write off the debt as payment for favours to Manning and the People's National Movement (PNM). But the Privy Council said that was a private matter that did not involve the state and was therefore irrelevant to the proceedings.

However the Privy Council said in its opinion the private arrangement between Manning and Bakr was corrupt within the meaning...of Section 3 (of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1987) and "each party to the agreement was acting in contravention of the section.”

The case against the Islamic leader started in 1994 when the State began proceedings against Bakr and 113 members of the Jamaat for burning down Police Headquarters and damaging the Red House during the attempted coup in July 1990. (Read a report on the coup in the NY Times)

On September 6, 1996, the State obtained a judgment against Bakr and the Jamaat and on October 15, 2001 Justice Joseph Tam assessed judgment in the sum of $15 million with interest. The amount reached $32 million in 2006.

However when the Attorney General issued a summons seeking the sale of 11 properties in an effort to satisfy the judgment Bakr swore to an affidavit claiming that he and Manning had met several times and that Manning agreed that the state would not enforce the judgment to recover the money.

Bakr claimed that there was a clear understanding with Manning that he, Bakr, would mobilise young people to vote for the PNM in marginal constituencies in 2002. Bakr said the meetings with the prime minister also agreed on the need for Bakr to assist in curbing the increase in crime in certain areas.

Bakr said he presented Manning with a list of what the Jamaat wanted in exchange for assisting the governing party and the government. The demands included assurances that there would be no attempt to enforce payment of the judgment debt.

The Muslimeen leader claimed that Manning called the judgment a “paper judgment” which would never be enforced.

The Attorney General moved to strike down Bakr's affidavit but on December 8, 2006, Justice Rajendra Narine dismissed the application, following which the Attorney General appealed. On January 15, 2007, the Court of Appeal threw out Bakr’s affidavit. Bakr then appealed to the Privy Council.

“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 Privy Council stated.

In the judgment, one of the Law Lords said: “It is important to note that the case concerns a private law action brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the State of Trinidad and Tobago against the Jamaat for damages. If the Prime Minister made an agreement on the lines alleged in the affidavit, it could not have been made on behalf of the State.”

Lord Carswell said the agreement referred to in the affidavit was on its terms designed to advance the electoral prospects of the Prime Minister’s political party, and was not binding on the State.

“The essence of the agreement between the Prime Minister and Mr Abu Bakr on behalf of the 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,” Carswell said.

The Court of Appeal held that the agreement was illegal at common law. Carswell said the agreement was illegal from its inception.

Bakr is due to return to court on May 13 when it is expected a judge will set a date for the conclusion of the summons for sale order.