Case made out against Bakr

CHIEF MAGISTRATE Sherman Mc Nicolls ruled yesterday that a prima facie case had been made out against Jamaat Al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr on a conspiracy to murder charge. But Mc Nicolls stopped short of committing Bakr for trial at the High Court when his attorney, Pamela Elder SC, informed the court that she wanted the court’s assistance in calling a TSTT employee as a witness for the defence. Mc Nicolls ordered that a summons be sent to the witness to attend court on the next occasion. The inquiry was then adjourned to May 13 as Bakr will be in Rome between May 5 and 10. The Chief Magistrate overruled a no-case submission made by Elder and then called on the Jamaat leader. Mc Nicolls asked Bakr if he wished to make his defence or to remain silent. Bakr replied, “I reserve by defence.”

Mc Nicolls turned to the Jamaat leader and said, “you did not answer my question.” This time, Bakr replied, “I will remain silent on this matter.” The Chief Magistrate then asked Bakr if he was prepared at this stage to give any information on an alibi defence. Bakr said no. He then asked the accused if he wished to call witnesses to which Bakr replied, “I wish to remain silent, but I also wish to call my witnesses.” Elder then asked for the court’s assistance in summoning the officer in charge of the Fraud Detection System at TSTT. The defence attorney told the court that she did not wish to disclose the names of any other witnesses, neither did the defence need any assistance to bring these witnesses to court.

Mc Nicolls then passed the “alibi” document for Bakr to sign. But after perusing the document, Bakr refused to sign it. Mc Nicolls then remanded Bakr on continuing bail and adjourned the case to May 13 for the defence to call its witness. Bakr, 62, is before Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Fourth Magistrates’ Court charged with conspiring with others to murder Salim Rasheed and Zaki Aubidah at Citrine Drive, Diamond Vale, Diego Martin, on June 4, 2003. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Carla Brown-Antoine, who is prosecuting, responded yesterday to the no-case submission of the defence. Brown-Antoine dealt with the submission of the defence that the evidence of the accomplice witness Brent Miller was unreliable. The defence had contended that Miller was a principal accomplice, while Bakr was a secondary one.

But the prosecutor disputed this, saying that there were several known principals in this case—Bakr, the co-accused David “Buffy” Millard, Brent Miller, Dwight, “Crock”, “Skins”, and Damien. “None of the known principals have been let go to capture a secondary offender. You could only be a principal and secondary party to the same offence. Brent Miller was not the principal and the accused was not the secondary,” the prosecutor added. Brown-Antoine said Miller had been charged with the murder of Gilla Bowen arising out of the shooting at MovieTowne. “There was no evidence here that the charges against Brent Miller were dropped for him to testify against the accused. One of the witnesses to the shooting said he could not say if Brent Miller was in the car when the shots were fired. You have no evidence why the charges were discontinued. That matter is irrevelant. Cases have gone to the Privy Council where the principals were used and where the secondary was hanged. Dole Chadee was a clear example,” Brown-Antoine added.

The prosecutor also responded to the submission that the evidence of another witness, Brent Danglade, was also unreliable and could not be trusted. Brown-Antoine added, “normally, you don’t get the conspirators as the conspiracy is usually done in secret. Who is going to be in the room with the conspirators? Who is going to be the witness? One of the conspirators, of course. “Normally, conspiracy is proven by overt acts. It was no surprise in this case that the agreement comes from one of the conspirators. There were four in that room, two were charged and there are two witnesses. There is nobody else to give evidence. Who is going to be a witness to the actual agreement — a priest, the Archbishop?”

When the submissions were completed, Mc Nicolls said he had to consider whether the evidence of Miller was so unreliable and discredited under cross-examination, that no reasonable tribunal could convict. He said the evidence of Brent Miller did not stand alone in the case. There was corroboration, he added. He said he did not agree with Elder’s submissions and found there was a prima facie case made out against the Jamaat leader.