"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. In the opinion of the board, this was corrupt within the meaning and intendment of section 3, and each party to the agreement was acting in contravention of the section... The whole purpose of this agreement was to obtain electoral advantage for one political party, the PNM, by means of using State property, and as such, it was clearly illegal.” — Privy Council, in the recent appeal in Appeal No 30 of 2008 between Yasin Abu Bakr v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [bottom of p9]. In any genuine, functioning, democratic society, the foregoing statement from the highest court would have prompted a police investigation without the intervention of the DPP or Justice Narine. Instead, we have the remarkable situation where the acting DPP, quite rightly, referred the matter to the acting Commissioner of Police, who simply ignored the implied directive to investigate.
Mr Philbert has done his office and himself a great disservice. To “play dumb and deaf,” in response to such a serious matter, by flippantly claiming that he had not “seen or received” Ms Antoine’s letter, is to render himself unfit for the office of Police Commissioner. It is inherently incredible that such a letter would have been sent by the DPP, and not be immediately placed on his desk. Any officer so stupid as to not recognise the urgency of such a letter and place it before the Commissioner should be fired forthwith. But alas, this is not the first time Mr Philbert has come across as if he is prostrating himself before the PNM, ready to join the PM’s so-called national band (with a few colours from the national rainbow missing), “Divine Echoes,” to sing for his supper. Mr Philbert turned a blind eye to the illegal political rally hosted by the PNM in Woodford Square whilst Parliament debated a motion of no confidence in the PM. That matter was before the Integrity Commission, and will probably reach nowhere, because the Government (via the President) refuses to appoint a new commission.
AG Jeremie’s statement in Parliament, in defence of his political leader, was nothing short of a frontal assault on the judiciary. Justice Narine would have been in serious dereliction of duty if he did not refer this matter to the police. The Privy Council dropped a conspicuous hint that any fool could appreciate. Our gun-shy and politically-correct Court of Appeal seemed quite content to bury its head in the sand and simply let the matter pass, without comment, but the Privy Council was prepared to call a spade a spade. It upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, but said enough to point us in the right direction. It is easy to mistake judicial conservatism for political bias or genuflection, but in my experience, our judiciary is independent, but far too reticent. In short, CJ Archie is no more of a PNM Chief Justice than Justice Narine a UNC.
To assert that because the matter was deemed “scandalous and irrelevant” to the issue that was before the court means that it was not worthy of investigation is absurd.
The evidence was not rejected because it was lacking in credibility; it was not allowed because it was irrelevant to the issue the court had to determine. It was not “rejected” in the sense that it was considered untrue. It was not admitted into evidence, and hence could not have been rejected consequent upon judicial inquiry. This is not the first time the PNM has attacked the judiciary. When Justice Amrika Tiwary ruled against PM Manning in favour of foreign officer Feroza Ramjohn, Ken Valley said, in Parliament, that she was “a UNC judge.” After the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Ganga Persad-Kissoon and Feroza Ramjohn, recently, the PM reacted by condemning the service commissions and threatening to abolish them. The Maha Sabha radio licence case led to two complaints before the Integrity Commission which have been investigated and found to be meritorious.
All that’s left to be done is for a new commission to be appointed to decide whether the matter should be referred to the DPP for criminal charges to be laid. Faced with this predicament, the Government has simply refused to appoint the commission, and after public pressure mounted, claimed it wanted to abolish it altogether. Mr Manning boasts about the PNM’s commitment to transparency and good government. This is part of Vision 2020. Transparency, however, means that Mr Manning will not put himself above the law when we have a PNM Commissioner of Police, a PNM DPP and a PNM judiciary. Very soon, his wishes may come true.
By Anand Ramlogan
Site Admin Note: Privy Council Judgment in case of Bakr v AG of Trinidad & Tobago