Bakr verdict today

THE PROCESS has been long, the jury has been sequestered for seven weeks, but today they will be going home because it is D-day for Imam Yasin Abu Bakr, who is charged with conspiring to murder two former members of his Jamaat Al Muslimeen. The on-and-off summing up of Justice Mark Mohammed finally got underway yesterday after it was shifted twice. When hearing ended at 4.20 pm yesterday, Mohammed told the jury that he has just one more hour before he puts Bakr’s fate in their hands.

The Muslimeen leader’s trial will be regarded as one of the longest in the history of this country, although the evidence was considered rather short. From the questioning of 1,100 potential jurors to pre-trial legal submissions, Justice Mohammed conducted the trial at the Hall of Justice amid tight security with two sets of searches being conducted on everyone before they reached the Port-of-Spain Third Criminal Court. Yesterday, Mohammed spent more than six hours analysing the evidence of the prosecution and defence to the jury and giving directions in law regarding critical issues in the trial.

Mohammed told the jury that the case against Bakr rested on Brent Miller and Brent Danglade. He described Miller as an alleged co-conspirator who by his own admission said he was present when Bakr gave the orders to kill two former Jamaat members Salim Rasheed and Zaki Aubaidah. Mohammed also described Miller as an accomplice who, according to law, could be a competent witness for the prosecution. According to the judge, “some accomplices may come from the belly of the underworld. It would be foolish of you, Mr Foreman and members of the jury, to expect honest and upright persons to become witnesses. People who participate in a plan to kill persons are normally from a different breed.” Mohammed continued, “These persons may be persons to whom a human life means little or nothing. You have to face the fact about that. They may not be your world, but that may be the real world out there.”

Mohammed told the jury that they may view the evidence of the accomplice witness in a certain manner. “There may be all sorts of reasons for him to tell lies and to implicate other persons. There must be strong motivation to give false evidence. He may want to curry favour with the prosecution. He may want to place the accused in a bad, or worse light.” Mohammed pointed out that Miller was not charged with conspiracy to murder as the accused was. He, Miller, was charged with the murder of Jillia Bowen at MovieTowne. But this charge was discontinued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Since then, Miller received an immunity from prosecution on the conspiracy to murder charge. Mohammed described Danglade as a major criminal, who is facing murder and kidnapping charges in respect to a man called Dennis Jordan.

“He may well be thinking if he gives evidence to the prosecution, he may be dealt with leniency down the line in other matters. He may want to curry favour for the prosecution. He may have a strong motivation to give false evidence. He is a witness with an interest to serve,” Mohammed added. He further told the jury, “you must view the evidence of these two witnesses with a great amount of care and with a great amount of caution.’’ “If you are sure that they are speaking the truth, you are entitled to rely on their evidence.

If you believe they are not speaking the truth, then reject it. Brent Danglade’s evidence is viewed as supporting Miller’s evidence.” Apart from the evidence of the two Brents,  Mohammed told the jury that there is circumstantial evidence on which they could rely. Bakr, 64, is charged with conspiring with others to murder former Jamaat members Salim Rasheed and Zaki Aubaidah at Citrine Drive, Diamond Vale, Diego Martin on  June 4, 2003.