PM’S promise to Bakr no good

Bakr’s claim stemmed from the State’s attempts to offset the debt which was incurred by the Jamaat with the destruction of Police Headquarters and damage to the Red House during the 1990 insurrection.

In his sworn affidavit the Imam reportedly said the PM had agreed not to enforce the debt owed in exchange for his (Bakr’s) assistance in the PNM’s 2002 election campaign. The State is attempting to recover the money owed with the sale of properties owned by the Imam.

In an application filed on July 12 to strike out Bakr’s affidavit from the record, the State submitted that assuming there was an agreement between the Imam and the PM, it was unsure of the legality of that agreement.

The State deemed Bakr’s affidavit irrelevant to the issues raised by the summons for sale and therefore inadmissible. It also requested a court order for the payment of costs by the defendants.

When the matter was called before Justice Rajendra Narine at the city’s Eighth Civil Court yesterday, it was agreed by the judge and attorneys for the State and the Imam that arguments relative to expunging the affidavit from the evidence would be heard on October 9 and 10.

Attorney for the State Dana Seetahal SC and the Imam’s attorneys Mark Seepersad and Gerald Ramdeen are expected to give written submissions, upon which they will be allowed to elaborate when the matter comes up for hearing in October.