Lawyer asks judge to halt Bakr's sedition trial

Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr's lawyer asked a High Court judge Thursday to stop the sedition trial of his client because of adverse pre-trial publicity.

Wayne Sturge told Justice Mark Mohammed comments of Attorney General John Jeremie, on the decision of Justice Rajendra Narine to send Bakr’s affidavit to the acting Commissioner of Police and the acting Director of Public Prosecutions in the summons for sale case are damaging.

He said as titular head of the Bar, Jeremie should be more careful as to what he says relating to Bakr and he asked the judge to direct Jeremie to "shut up".

It was not the first time the issue has come up in Bakr's trial on charges of sedition, terrorism and incitement.

The same judge - Justice Mark Mohammed - delayed the trial last year to allow the publicity to subside.

When Sturge raised the matter again Thursday he also pointed to comments made on television by retired Justice of Appeal Jean Permanand, suggesting that Bakr's affidavit has no legal validity.

Permanand is a member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and also chairman of the Law Reform Commission.

Sturge also cited a report in the Trinidad Express in which he said the newspaper suggested that Bakr was a liar.

"I want to put the court on notice that we will be coming for a permanent stay of the indictment," he added.

Dana Seetahal, SC, who represented the State, told the court there was nothing wrong with what Jeremie stated and even suggested that politicians should be be believed.

In any case, she told the judge he had no authority to direct the Attorney General to be silent as suggested by Bakr's lawyer.

Mohammed said he would look at the issue again, and give his ruling next Tuesday.

Bakr's charges stem from his sermon to commemorate Eid-ul-Fitr on November 4, 2005, at his Mucurapo Road mosque.