Attorney seeks permanent stay of Bakr sedition case

Attorney Wayne Sturge asked a judge Wednesday for a permanent stay of the indictment of Jamat al Muslimeen leader Imam Yasin Abu Bakr's charges of sedition, terrorism and incitement, arguing that adverse publicity about his client has made a fair trial impossible.

Sturge cited comments in 2007 by Attorney General John Jeremie who he tried to link Bakr to a terrorist plot at JFK Airport in New York. He said there is nothing to link Bakr to the New York plot.

Trinidadian Kareem Ibrahim, Guyanese Russel De Freitas, Abdul Kadir and Abdel Nur have been indicted on charges of plotting to blow up JFK International Airport, New York, in 2007.

De Freitas was arrested in Brooklyn on June 1, 2007. Kadir and Ibrahim were arrested in Trinidad on June 3, 2007. Nur surrendered to police two days later in Diego Martin.

On June 29, 2007, the four men were indicted on charges of conspiring to "cause death, serious bodily injury and extensive destruction" at the airport.

Sturge said, "The Attorney General ought to know that the (Bakr) trial has not begun, and that it should begin in due course. As titular head of the Bar, his statements are being made in a negative way about the accused."

He also referred to Jeremie's reaction to the recent ruling by Justice Rajendra Narine that directed the police and the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to investigate an controversial affidavit sworn to by Bakr.

"The AG said that Abu Bakr is an insurrectionist...that is a prejudicial statement,” he told the court,adding that Jeremie was not bothered by what anyone said.

"He was warned once and he continues to do what he wants. He has not taken heed, he will do it again. This is a man who respects no one. He has come again to make mischief," Sturge declared.

Sturge also cited statements by Prime Minister Patrick Manning on the eve of the anniversary of the 1990 attempted coup about an alleged plot to assassinate him. He said Manning sought to implicate a police officer in that plot, who was connected to "some organisation".

Dana Seetahal, who represents the State, argued against a stay, suggesting that there is nothing to support such a move.

She reasoned that people's memories are short and that by the time the trial comes up, jurors would not remember what was said. It would be difficult for people to remember everything, she argued.

"Do you think that the ordinary man would remember the plot raised by the Prime Minister?” she asked.