Former Attorney General Kamla Persad-Bissessar wrote the Speaker of the Trinidad and Tobago House of Representatives Tuesday asking Barendra Sinanan to haul Attorney General John Jeremie before the Privileges Committee for criticising Justice Rajendra Narine.Earlier this month Narine called for an investigation of an affidavit by Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr alleging that Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Bakr had a deal to help Manning's People's National Movement (PNM) win the 2002 election in return to favours, including the forgiving of a multi-million-dollar debt owed to the state.
The allegations were contained in an affidavit that had been rejected by the Trinidad and Tobago Appeal Court and the Privy Council as irrelevant to a case against Bakr in which the Muslimeen leader claimed that he didn't owe the state.
However, the Privy Council ruled that while the document was not relevant to the case it would constitute a breach of the country's anti-corruption laws if the allegations were true.
Justice Narine ruled that both the Director of Public prosecutions (DPP) and the police commissioner should investigate the matter.
But Jeremie responded in Parliament with harsh criticism of the judge, saying the allegations were not true and that there would be no investigation.
Read the story: Jeremie's letter on Bakr affidavit matter sent to CJ
The Law Association took issue with Jeremie and defended the judge, which led to a counterattack from the PNM, in which the party called the association a bunch of "political opportunists".
Read the story: Law Association slams AG for attack on judge
Read the story: PNM calls Law Association "political opportunists"
Persad-Bissessar's letter to Sinanan accused Jeremie of misleading the House and of breaching Standing Orders.
She also asked the Sinanan to recuse himself in adjudging the matter in the Privileges Committee which he chairs, alleging that his reply in the House to her concerns last week Monday suggests Sinanan has predetermined the issue.
“I hereby seek your leave under standing order 27(2) to raise, at the next sitting of the House of Representatives, a matter concerning the privileges of the House of Representatives,” wrote Persad-Bissessar to Sinanan.
"In his statement, which was not made on a substantive motion moved for the purpose, the Honourable Attorney General raised in a pejorative and disparaging manner, the conduct of the Honourable Mr Justice Rajendra Narine, in the said court action," she said.
The MP noted that Jeremie's statement that Bakr’s affidavits had previously been struck out as "scandalous" was misleading.
"The Privy Council in its judgment in Privy Council Appeal Number 30 of 2008 delivered on May 5, 2009 in affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal did so solely on the ground that the material contained in the affidavits was irrelevant, and not scandalous as had been held by the Court of Appeal," she said.
She noted a section of the Privy Council ruling that Jeremie omitted when he addressed Parliament on the matter: "It is on this ground of irrelevance, rather than that of inconvenience or embarrassment to the Prime Minister that the Board considers that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed".
Persad-Bissessar also alleged that Jeremie had breached standing order 36(10) which bans MPs from criticising the conduct of public officials such as judges except on a substantive motion for that purpose.
That was the same issue raised by the Law Association, which suggested that Jeremie's cricism bordered on contempt of Parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment