Judge Bakr on the facts in the case

AFTER more than two months, the closing addresses have begun in the conspiracy to murder trial of Jamaat Al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr. Lead defence attorney Pamela Elder SC started at 10.30 am yesterday and when hearing ended at 2.55 pm, she was still addressing the jury and alternates. She will continue to do so this morning when hearing resumes before Justice Mark Mohammed in the Port-of-Spain Third Criminal Court. In her address yesterday, Elder asked the jury to judge Bakr on the evidence before the court and not on the attempted coup of 1990 in which her client was the leader. The following is Elder’s address to the jury:

(Elder addresses the jury)

Mr Foreman, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, after about two months of the trial, the time has come for me to perform what could be my last duty towards my client. As I rise to speak to you, I rise with a sense of nervousness, I rise with a sense of fear, because I stand here and I wonder, would I be able to find the words to express to the jury, or to analyse to the jury, the evidence. Would I be able through my words to let the jury see what I have seen. Would I have the strength to discharge this my final task. Notwithstanding that fear, I still rise, confident of the words of a man I deeply respect — Nelson Mandela — that courage is not the absence of fear, but true courage is feeling the fear and proceeding nonetheless.

I proceed to analyse this evidence for you and when I look at the State’s case, because the State’s case stands or falls on the two Bs — Brent Miller and Brent Danglade, otherwise called Big Brent and Small Brent. They sometimes remind me, I have been reading this play Macbeth with my son. They remind me of King Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, of crime, no conscious and it is corroded. It is on their evidence, the State must make you feel sure you can arrive at a verdict of guilty against my client Abu Bakr. Would you take the approach, that Abu Bakr led a coup in 1990, that in 2005 he is before you charged with conspiracy to murder, then he is guilty?

If you take that approach, you will be just as Brent Miller and Brent Danglade. Because you members of the jury went into the witness box (during jury questioning) and you said you will not let his role in 1990 affect you. I had to dig out from you, the prejudice which is so great in society, will not blind you, poison your mind, so it will not affect you. The defence feels you are honest persons, you won’t take the approach ‘well, we didn’t get you in 1990, we will get you now, or since 1990, we only hearing about the Jamaat, the Jamaat, the Jamaat, so you are guilty.” The time will come when you will feel the burden I have been walking with for two years now. You will feel the cross. You stand between Abu Bakr and the State, you are his shield.

I have to ensure that my client has a fair trial when I pass the baton to you. You can only give the State what they want. What I want to ask the State is for cogent, compelling evidence which you will feel sure of against Abu Bakr. We are not asking for the quantity of the evidence, we are asking for the quality of the evidence. Can you feel sure of the evidence of Brent Miller and Brent Danglade? If you are to take the approach that Abu Bakr is a bad man because of his involvement in the coup, how will you categorise Brent Miller and Brent Danglade? You must categorise them as bad men. If you don’t believe Abu Bakr because of the coup, then you must reject the evidence of Brent Miller and Brent Danglade. You will be keeping bad — B is for bad — Big Brent bad, Small Brent bad, who will remain, Coleen Marchand, the alibi witness?

The two Bs for the State say Abu Bakr was involved in a conspiracy, and Coleen Marchand saying from her records and recollection, he was at the Salvage site on the 4th of June. When faced with good — Coleen Marchand because Coleen Marchand’s credibility in respect to her character could not be attacked. Why would you not believe the evidence of Coleen Marchand? Because she is a woman? Because she doesn’t work with nay big firm in Trinidad, because the company she works with is too small? Ethnicity? Why would you reject her evidence? You saw her, you saw her book, you examined her book, look how she kept her records. You will decide whether for reasons you will arrive at, you will accept or reject her evidence. The State, through Mr Cassel, asked Abu Bakr whether he believed the police would suborn witnesses to lie on him. Is that impossible?

Have you forgotten the nature of man, the evil within man? I have put before you the record of Sgt Dick, the capability of that officer and other officers attached to the Homicide Squad. The operation of the police, you may feel it could never be that a police officer will go to that length. I place before you the history, or the credibility rating in this court of Sgt Dick. You have to consider that because that is what the State is saying, the conspiracy theory of the defence is an act of desperation. I often wonder who are the true conspirators, where is the conspiracy? I will examine the evidence. People can plan and re-plan, but one day, their lies will be revealed. It must be remembered, the truth will not be forever concealed. Some of you may have heard of Shakespeare, about the tangled web. They are planning and planning and think they have it tight, but instead, they find a web tangling around them.

The same pit you are digging for your enemy, you will fall in it. You could say you planning it good, but you will fall down in the same pit. I refer you to Psalm 7, I think, verses 15 or 16, about the digging of the pit and when you are making mischief, you will fall in that very pit. You may feel you see everything, that you planning everything, but the one who sees it all, will turn your eyes to it. Your lies are going to be revealed to the babes and sucklings. Remember this — thou shall not bear false witness. Brent Miller, Brent Danglade and whoever are the architects of this, the divine command is there and the plot will be revealed to all. They couldn’t see or understand because the command is there, do not bear false witness, for the very pit you are digging, you will fall in that pit. My client went into the box and you know he was not obligated, he could have stayed here and said nothing. This is what is called the safety of the dock.

The law cloaked him with a robe, the presumption of innocence. You have the power to undress him, to remove that robe that shrouds him. You can only do, should only do it if the State has satisfied you to the extent that you feel sure. Once you have reasonable doubt about the State’s case, your duty is to acquit, that is your duty. Look at Abu Bakr, Coleen Marchand and Lindsay Har-nanan, their evidence. If you believe it, then it is ‘not guilty,’ if you have reasonable doubt, then it is ‘not guilty.’ If you reject it, you still cannot say guilty, the accused has nothing to prove. Then you have to go to the prosecution’s case, you have to make the same determination if you are sure. If you don’t believe them, it is ‘not guilty.’ If you have a reasonable doubt about the case, it is ‘not guilty.’ If you are sure they are speaking the truth, then it is ‘guilty.’ You can take whatever approach you can take in the analysis.

The accused went into the box and talked. Some people said he talked too much, that he is guilty, and he didn’t want to answer the questions Mr Cassel wanted him to answer. Abu Bakr is a man who lives to talk. If you ask him about A, he will give you the whole alphabet. Look at the interview he had with Cpl Veronique. Veronique couldn’t capture everything Abu Bakr was saying. That indicates the nature of the individual. He was asked about conspiracy to murder two persons, but he talked about the Caribbean Court of Justice, the Prime Minister, CEPEP, Indians having two salaries.
The interview was about one and a half hours. The conspiracy denial could have taken place in ten minutes. At the police station, he spoke, he was explaining himself in his own style. As his own lawyer, I myself thought “oh God, shorten the answer’, but that is the man.

Mr Cassel put to Abu Bakr that he was at Kent House because he has a connection to the URP. Did you hear any witness come here and say Abu Bakr had a connection to the URP? None. Brent Miller and Brent Danglade were working at the URP. If the State’s case was that they were working at the URP and they were Jamaat members, how does that make Abu Bakr a connection to the URP? It is dangerous. Brent Miller gave evidence. He was led by Mr Cassel and he said he became a Muslim about seven years ago. He told Mr Cassel he was working at the URP since he left school, about 12 to something years ago. If Brent Miller got his URP job before he joined the Jamaat and he was working URP four to five years before he joined the Jamaat, how could his URP job be linked to Abu Bakr?

If someone talks softly and he has an accent, don’t fall for that dangerous line of questioning. Mr Cassel and I have two different styles. If I am questioning you, I questioning you. Mr Cassel put without any evidence being led, that Mr Bakr had a connection with the URP. The accused immediately told him that his own witness in the Magistrates’ Court said that he got his URP job when he met a man who took him to the URP office. Because he was arrested at Kent House and the two witnesses talked about URP and their jobs, the accused has something to do with URP. Brent Miller even told you he was involved in ghost gangs. Mr Cassel’s suspicion is a sin. If you suspect without suspicion you can violate someone’s right. Look at what Mr Cassel asked the accused. He asked him about the visit by Brent Miller to his home and his visit to the prison. Is the accused here to deceive you?

The accused agreed, he said Brent Miller came to his home and he gave us his version of what happened. Which one of you (jury) is a Muslim? Which one of you know the Koran, and can pass judgment on the accused’s religious beliefs? He is a Muslim, he believes in certain things. How can Abu Bakr answer yes or no to Mr Cassel’s questions. The Constitution gives the right to give these strokes. The Constitution gives the right to practise my religion and it gives me the right to practise the tenets of my religion. Yet, not one of the persons called to judge him knows anything about the Koran. We talk about religious tolerance. Every Thursday, I plead for my client to go and pray for two hours. The court cannot close for two hours, but the country closes for three days for people to go and wine and jam. We have two admitted bandits who could give a statement to the police saying my client was involved in a conspiracy. One brought two mean-looking guns, one was an AK-47, that is an assault rifle, that was developed for war, and he was not charged for anything.

My client who did nothing was charged. He was charged without any proper investigation into what he said. Could that ever be fair? The Lord works in mysterious ways. Thing happen to certain people in the society, so they would know how people feeling. You hear of Vijay Naraynsingh bawling now, you hear of the system of justice not fair. If it was your son or daughter, who would have spoken for them? My client really feels the charge is a joke. He believes Allah is the final judge. The Abu Bakr trial will go down in history, it will show how rotten the system is. Today is me, tomorrow it could be you. Today, Abu Bakr is in the docks, tomorrow Mr Foreman, it could be your son. What is the quality of the justice system operating in the case of your loved ones? Whenever I die, my children will never spit on my grave because my children will stand up and say the people I defended had a fair trial.

In the end, you must say justice was done to Abu Bakr. Decency requires if you accuse a person of a crime and he tells you where he was, the next step is where you go and investigate that. If you say that day you were in work, and they not letting you go and check,  who will go and check, not the police? This is not a dog bite case, but a conspiracy to kill two persons. Not one police officer went and investigate before they charged him. If you are questioning a man two months after the alleged incident, he will tell you where he might have been. They didn’t check; you know where they went, to the DPP. This is a department of persons knowledgeable, trained in the law. Nobody asked for the notes of the interview and to ascertain what he told you. How could someone trained in the law, an independent person, recommend that Abu Bakr be charged before an investigation into his alibi? Is that the system of justice you want for yourself?

Since I got involved in this case, I keep asking myself why, where are the principles of fairness? I got the answer when Big Brent was being cross-examined. The truth will be revealed at the right time. When Big Brent said ‘they want the Imam bad,’ that was the answer. We all know in Trinidad what the police can do, but what about the office of the DPP. The accused is charged and his preliminary inquiry is going on in the Magistrates’ Court. This same officer Forde, after Bakr is charged, finds himself up at Petrotrin. Whom did he speak to? A man at the Pass Office, Denoon. What about the main gate? What about the actual site where he worked. You talked to anyone at Johnson-Simon, you talked to anyone at the salvage site? Why did the investigations stop short? You have to be independent in your investigations. If you found something there to show someone is innocent, or could be innocent, it is your duty to investigate it.

But it just stops there, could that even be right? The whole investigation is not only a joke, I would describe it as scandalous. When this case is finished, whatever the verdict, people should wake up and call for an inquiry into police conduct and how immunity is granted. Out of 1,200 persons brought to this court, you 11 are the few good men and women. When good men remain quiet, that is when the greatest acts of tyranny take place. If that is the way you investigated this matter, is a wonder how the murder rate is soaring? I must tell you what happened to me after church. A little old lady reminded me that Abu Bakr have a problem with pass. She remembered that under the UNC, he went to the VIP Box at Dimanche Gras and nobody, no Minister could say how he got a pass, but he was there, without a pass. I even forgot that. This is Trinidad, you know the politicians.

Everybody knew Abu Bakr was in the Twin Towers when the UNC was forming a coalition. Everybody knows Abu Bakr was there when the PNM won the marginal seats. Wade Mark talks about it all the time in the Senate. The next question is why the Jamaat needs security. Who want more security than the Pope? Who guards the Pope? Swiss guards? Let us go to the expulsions. The accused expelled three persons from the organisation. He expelled Salim Rasheed, Zaki Aubaidah and Kazim. There is evidence they were involved in crime. The accused, although he was charged, did not go in the box and talk about what they did. He did not want to assassinate their characters which did not conform with the ideals of the Jamaat. Brent Miller and Brent Danglade said the shot was for Salim and Zaki. If the Imam gives instructions to kill, they must be killed. Then what happened to Zaki?

Who were on the radio proggramme — Salim and Zaki? No attempt was made on the life of Zaki. Mr Cassel, in his opening, asked ‘who would want to do Salim and Zaki anything?’ The Imam is the leader of the Jamaat, in this court, woman is boss, he can’t tell me how to run this case. Salim was a potential target for many. Look at his lifestyle. Look at the Chinee man kidnapping. What is the ransom? $2 million. You, Mr Foreman, could work for a very long time, you would never see $2 million. There was a kidnapping and there was a ransom of $2 million, and the Chinee man was released. Brent Danglade said Salim called and said to send his money. It seemed there was problems in the ranks. When you look at the three expelled persons, Zaki is his son-in-law, living next door to him. Would he tell Buffy he go call and say where they sleeping?

The Imam on the radio said those boys were his children. He was a father to them. You know is to give love as a father or to receive a father’s love? Salim came here and when asked about the relationship, he said it was like father and son. I was his son, he said. Abu Bakr said when your children do wrong, you have to discipline them in a way they will feel. We are Trinidadians, do we have to do ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) to discipline your children? Each child must be dealt with differently. I remember long time if you give your mother chat in the kitchen, you getting a pot spoon. In the days of the jooking board, you getting a piece of wet clothes across your back. I got licks for not doing homework. You know how many single mothers would want a strong man like the accused in their corner when drug pushers come behind their daughters. Listen to Singing Sandra with ‘Voices in the Ghetto’, ‘drug men eyeing she daughter.’

The accused kept saying on the radio programme they have to get strokes. Zaki showed remorse, so he didn’t get strokes. Abu Bakr told Salim he was bound to get his strokes. This is not just a member of the Jamaat, this is a man he considered his child. Can you discipline a person by killing him? Would you want to discipline a child and kill the child? Brent Miller did not mention the accused wanting to discipline anyone in that room. Brent Danglade said so. He can’t want them dead and at the same time discipline them. The whole of the prosecution’s case is a mess. They didn’t know who to charge. They didn’t even charge Brent Miller. When you looked at the indictment the DPP signed, he never put Brent Miller as a co-conspirator, but he put in other names Dwight, Crock, Skins, Damian. You put five different names, but you leave out Brent Miller. In 2005, you now coming to amend the indictment and put in Brent Miller’s name. Mr Cassel says they can’t find Crock. But I do criminal law, Crock was in jail last year, that Crock is Sheldon Scott.

Mr Cassel says Crock can’t be found, that is why the accused is there alone. Why is he alone in the dock? You can be discriminating against the man? Now, they are saying that some of those he conspired with, we want to take them out — Skins, Crock, Damian, See why I told you your case is a mess. You hear that bad blood was existing between two Jamaat members and the accused. Where was Mr Cassel really getting his evidence, what brief was he reading? Salim and Zaki no longer have a relationship because of ideological differences. Zaki said he received licks in the past, that was in keeping with the principles. The State’s theory that they advanced to you from day one, they haven’t led evidence to support it. It was stated that Buffy was the second in command and Brent Miller the third in command. It is really laughable that Brent Miller says he is the third in command. He now joined, he was not one of the accused’s trusted soldiers, he was not in the coup.

There are those in the Jamaat who took part in the coup and Brent Miller climb to No 3 How you reach there? You can’t read. My client is an intelligent person. You will put someone third in your organisational structure and he can’t read. He did not even take an oath of loyalty. He wants to say he was in the belly of the Jamaat. Since the coup, we as Trinidadians, we have a certain perception of Abu Bakr and the Jamaat. Some people, they use that. Abu Bakr found that the time had come to take definite measures. Brent Miller can’t read, he didn’t take part in the coup, he didn’t take the Baiah, he didn’t take the opening prayer. If you were a Roman Catholic, there are some fundamental prayers that you must know. Imagine, he is in the belly of the Jamaat and he doesn’t know the structure of the organisation. This was a nancy story Brent Miller was giving you.

This is where you have to use your maturity and diffuse that. That is the inner sanctum. The Prime Minister has a Cabinet, and within the Cabinet he has a few chosen ones, the inner Cabinet. Brent Miller says he was No 3. I never see so many police officers in a case before. So, Brent Miller, tell the court of the structure of the Jamaat, but he couldn’t. Who is his riding partner — Brent Danglade who is also a member of the Jamaat. Brent Danglade couldn’t even say his partner was No 3. Who could tell us how this Jamaat is organised? You know who? Someone who is truly a member, Salim Rasheed. The accused said so. Salim said he was a member since he was a teenager. He took part in the coup. He knows the Jamaat. He was expelled in 2003. Did Salim ever tell you that Brent Miller was No 3 in command? Did he ever tell you that Buffy was No 2 in command? Salim never said that Brent Miller was No 3 or Buffy was No 2.

Buffy never led the prayers at the Jamaat, the No 2 person did that when the accused was away. You have to give a proper analysis to determine if these two people are speaking the truth. The DPP has taken the approach that they were speaking the truth. I normally view that the person who did wrong, is normally charged. You must remember, that Abu Bakr said he never had anything to do with this conspiracy charge. He swore on the life of his mother, he swore on the lives of his 14 children, and he swore on the lives of his four wives. He says he was not involved in the conspiracy. He said God be my judge, although man has the power. For you to understand and appreciate when Abu Bakr swears by God, he knows the sanctity of that oath. Mr Cassel seems to be putting the State’s case on coincidence. The accused said it is a dangerous perception. Suspicion is a sin. At this time of his life, he has not sought to condemn anyone. He will not stand here and lay blame on them, the same persons they said he wanted to kill.
It brings us into the realm of circumstantial evidence.

It is dangerous to convict someone on circumstantial evidence. You don’t judge man because of coincidence. It is dangerous, it creates suspicion.
You have to consider the lifestyle, Salim driving a Benz which he bought for $40,000, how they were shot at, they went to the police station, what a police officer said, they went back to the mosque, the accused inquired who shot at them, they said they did not know. You have to look at all the circumstances. The accused said on the programme he did not shoot at them, that they knew who shot at them and they would have to deal with their problem. People were shooting at Salim and Kazim long before plans to expel them. Their lifestyle. Couldn’t someone who had it for Salim take the occasion to shoot at Salim? This man, Abu Bakr, led an attempted coup and the National Security forces didn’t know about this. He would sit in a room and plan to kill two persons with people he didn’t know. Would he go on the radio and tell people he plan to kill two people?

You can’t ignore their lifestyle, the kidnapping and the $2 million ransom. Do you think there is anybody in Trinidad who did not know of the relationship between Bakr and the UNC and the PNM? Anybody don’t know Bakr is a former police with the Mounted Branch? People say that he fell off a horse and hit his head. Let us go to the immunity. His Lordship may tell you that in giving an immunity, a man should get an independent lawyer, not someone from the DPP’s office. In the interest of justice, you must wonder why the practice, that is in accordance with wisdom, why the deviation? Why was Brent Miller in that office with Cpl Forde and an officer in the DPP’s Department. Why was a prosecutor serving an immunity on a man? There is something in law called undue influence, where you bash in his head on a wall, or squeeze a part of his anatomy to make him talk. 
Look at the relationship — Brent Miller, Cpl Forde, and a prosecutor.

That is why you have transactions and undue influence. That transaction is no good. You don’t use your office to influence anybody in a particular way. The immunity was signed by the DPP on the 26th of September. It was served on Brent Miller on the 28th of September, and Brent Miller gave evidence on the 29th of September. He said he decided to give evidence before this immunity was given. I want to know when Brent Miller decided to give evidence against Abu Bakr, and who he communicated with. I want to know why the DPP immuned him if he didn’t ask for an immunity. I want to know why he wasn’t told if he didn’t give the evidence he will be charged with the accused. The State who has a burden to prove can’t tell us when the decision was taken. You know the calypso ‘Jumping on the Soca Train,’ well, everybody jumping on the Immunity Train. You are granting immunity to a person who is an accomplice.

Once you know that, the red light is up and he will lie on another person to save his skin. The DPP knows this man is an accomplice. You know how dangerous an accomplice is. The DPP has that power. I have never held that power. It is not the power who makes the man. It is how he exercises that power. Abu Bakr is in the dock. Who roams the streets, Brent Miller. Picture that AK-47 with 7.62 type of ammunition. When I told Brent Miller he should be in jail, I meant it. Each round of ammunition is a life. Forty-two rounds, 42 lives. (Hearing was adjourned to this morning when Elder will conclude her closing address)