AG Jeremie fires back, says Law Association president lied

Attorney General John Jeremie is not giving up the fight to defend Prime Minister Patrick Manning.

And in his latest salvo he has attacked the Law Association for its comments about Manning and retired judge Jean Permanand, even suggesting that Association President Martin Daly lied.

"I must note the remarks made by the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago president attacking a retired judge of Appeal who stated the orthodox position on the inability of an inferior court to use an affidavit which had been struck out in those proceedings," Jeremie remarked in the Senate Wednesday during the budget debate.

"I am the Attorney General, I am used to attack. But when the president of our Law Association speaks a lie, I am obliged to call him out," Jeremie declared.

Jeremie's focus was not on the fiscal measures but on attacking the Law Association, which passed a motion of no confidence in him earlier this year.

The governing People's National Movement has also been on the attack, calling the association a group of political opportunists.

Read the story: PNM calls Law Association "political opportunists"

Jeremie referred to Daly's comments regarding the prime minister's veto of candidates for the post of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the matter of Justice Rajendra Narine’s order to the DPP and police chief to investigate an affidavit in which Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr alleged that he and Manning had a deal.

The document claims that Bakr and Manning met several times before the general election of 2002 and the arrangement between them was for him to mobilize support for the PNM, especially in marginal constituencies. In return, he alleges, Manning agreed to various "favours" including the forgiving of a multi-million dollar debt to the state.

The document was ruled as irrelevant to the case that Bakr took as far as the Privy Council in which he claimed that because of the deal with Manning he did not owe any money to the State.

But the Law Lords ruled the document irrelevant to the case because Manning could not make such a deal on behalf of the state. However they noted that it would have been an act of corruption if the allegations were proved to be true.

On the veto, Jeremie said Manning is the head of the executive branch of government and has a constitutional right to determine who occupies such offices and gave the assurance that "the Prime Minister will not act capriciously in making appointments to executive posts, in particular to key executive positions."

He said if the Prime Minister has concerns about a person who was to fill a post of chief legal officer, the PM had a right to exercise a veto, noting that "...the Prime Minister, as head of the executive, had a right and a corresponding duty under the constitutional and legitimate authority to determine who the chief legal officers in the state’s executive branch should be."

He slammed the association for its reference to Manning's veto.

"I condemn the irresponsible and convenient statements by the president of the Law Association last week who made remarks in opposition to the basic right of the Prime Minister as is established in the Constitution.

"The Law Association president was reported to have predicted that had the veto been challenged it would have been successfully so.

"This is the leader of an association which speaks for 2,500 lawyers, flying in the face of the express terms set out in the Constitution and before the Privy Council has had a say in this matter on two cases now pending before it," Jeremie added.

Jeremie agreed that the posts of chief legal officers should be filled quickly but explained that under the present circumstances the head of government must exercise great care in deciding who holds those are pivotal posts.

"This country faces a crisis again of considerable proportions from white-collar crime perhaps more complex and greater than any we have faced in the past—now more than ever courage is needed in all executive positions," he said.

As of an eample of why such care and caution are needed, Jeremie said a "mistake" by a senior legal officer, whom he didn't name, could end up costing the government as much as $1 billion.

On the matter of the Bakr affidavit Jeremie agreed with Permanand that the affidavit cannot be used by the judge in defiance of an order of a superior court.

He said his opinion is based on expert advice from two distinguished Caribbean experts.

He said in the opinion of legal expert Dr Lloyd Barnett "it was right for Justice Narine to be criticised for his actions,” he said.

Dr Barnet's opinion, as quoted in the Trinidad Guardian says:

“Where 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."

Jeremie said he would write to the Law Association "in the hope that they will cease to act in automatic opposition to the executive. I say no more on this matter at this time."