By Andre Bagoo Thursday, September 24 2009

INDEPENDENT Senator Ramesh Deosaran yesterday argued that Attorney General John Jeremie was right to openly criticise in Parliament the ruling of one-time High Court judge Justice Rajendra Narine in relation to the Abu Bakr affidavit.

“I think members of Parliament have a right to comment on matters of judgments of the courts,” Deosaran said yesterday during the Budget debate in the Senate.

“I am not saying that they should scandalise the name of the judge or be disrespectful to the function of a judge. I believe commenting on matters and the privileges and immunities of a Parliament should remain secure,” he added.

“And anybody who tries to diminish that right on behalf of the people is really maybe temporarily misguided, or is (engaged in) a premature tackle on a very sacred right that this country and this Parliament should have.”

“If, for example, the Attorney General comments on what Justice Narine did, I think he’s right, especially since he (Jeremie) is Attorney General,” Deosaran said. “Because how would you invoke law reform or any adjustments to the judicial system in Parliament?”

Deosaran said because the courts can review acts of Parliament, and can actually reject legislation found to be in contravention of the Constitution, Parliament itself must be able to comment on what happens in the courts.

Having argued for the rights of parliamentarians to comment on court matters, Deosaran then argued that Narine should not be punished for his actions in choosing to refer a struck-out affidavit to the state authorities. In the affidavit Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Abu Bakr alleges an agreement with Prime Minister Patrick Manning in relation to the 2002 general election campaign. The Appeal Court and Privy Council had ordered the affidavit be struck from the records.

He said Narine had authority to deal with the affidavit as he did and warned that courts are not the final arbiters of truth.

“People believe that whatever the court rules is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But that is not true. The courts will tell you that they are more able to secure fairness, not truth,” he said.

“Striking out does not mean it is no longer in existence. There is a world outside of the courts. The reputation of the Prime Minister is now before the public domain and I would wish that the matter be cleared up some way or the other. I do not think that affidavit should be completely out of existence. I say leave Justice Narine alone. Do not touch Justice Narine.”

“I want the JLSC to stay away from doing anything unfavourable to Justice Narine. I am concerned because a member of that commission (retired Appeal Court judge Justice Jean Permanand) gave her public views already and I thought that was a pre-emptive attack (which increases) in my mind a doubt, if it does reach the JLSC, that Justice Narine will get a fair hearing.”