Decision on trial for Bakr tomorrow

Following the submissions of prosecutor Douglas Mendes SC in response to the no-case submission made by defence attorney Pamela Elder SC on December 30, Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls yesterday reserved his decision.

Bakr is before the court charged with sedition, terrorism, endeavouring to provoke the breach of peace and two counts of incitement to demand property with force.

According to Mendes, under Section 14B of the Sedition Act, the accused had made a statement, which is alleged to have seditious intent by engendering hostility and ill will between sections of the Muslim community and encouraging acts of larceny. A proper reading of the act, Mendes told the magistrate, would show the development of the offence.

Regarding the charge of endeavouring to provoke the breach of peace, Mendes said all he was required to do was prove that Bakr had incited an unlawful act in his sermon. He said there was nothing in the act stating that breach of peace was to occur imminently, as Elder had submitted. It was enough to provoke someone to an act even if the act was not committed immediately, he said.

According to Mendes, the evidence was clear that the accused was inciting his listeners to demand property with force. While Bakr never specified what was to be demanded, Mendes said, it was not law that the objects to be demanded needed to be specified.

Under Section 14 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, Mendes submitted, Bakr’s sermon had promoted a terrorist act, intimidated a section of the Muslim community and advanced an ideological religious cause.

Mendes’ submissions were, however, criticised by Elder. According to the defence attorney, Mendes had interpreted the Imam’s sermon without the input of an "Islamic scholar," whom he (Mendes) had promised to call as a witness. She said the prosecutor had "literally" interpreted the sermon himself. Attorney Richard Mason appeared with Elder for Bakr, while attorney Dana Seetahal appeared with Mendes for the State.