By Onika James Thursday, October 1 2009

High Court judge Justice Mark Mohammed will decide on Monday, whether or not, he will grant a permanent stay in the Abu Bakr sedition trial, or make an order that public officials, including the Attorney General be warned about making public statements about the case.

Abu Bakr, also called Lennox Phillip, is facing five counts, including charges of sedition, promoting a terrorist act, and inciting others to breach the peace, all of which stemmed from the November, 2005, Eid sermon at his Mucurapo Mosque.

The trial has not been able to start because of pre-publicity statements. A “cooling off” period was granted. However, when the case came up this time Bakr’s attorney, Wayne Sturge, told the judge “things had heated up” again.

Yesterday, Sturge submitted that the Attorney General (AG) John Jeremie, and Prime Minister Patrick Manning (PM) both made statements which could hamper his client in receiving a fair trial.

On September, 14 last, the AG in a speech in Parliament, referred to Bakr as “a known criminal,” “an insurrectionist, and “a man without a shred of credibility in this country.”

Those statements Sturge said, showed that the Ag did not seem to care that the matter was still before the court, hence he should have “known better.”

“My Lord, we have no reason to doubt that your ruling in 2007 was communicated to the AG, the PM, and persons at large including public officers.

“The AG ought to have known that the issues to be determined are sub-judice, and as head of the Titular Bar he ought to have known that one needs to be circumspect if a trial has not yet started. He should have known that statements like that would have a negative impact on the accused.”

In addition to the AG’s comments, Sturge also registered his disgust with statements made by the Manning on the eve of this year’s anniversary of the attempted coup.

“The PM made certain statements this year. The timing could not have been worse.

On the anniversary of the coup at a public meeting, the Prime Minister made reference to a plot to assassinate him. He went into detail on the attempt and sought to implicate Police Constable Clinton Auguste. He implied that the PC had a connection to a certain organisation. He did not call the name, but it was clear from what he said that it could only be the Jamaat. Commentators made the link, and it was not unreasonable for someone to infer that he was referring to the Jamaat,” Sturge charged.

Sturge lamented that, while his client could not escape publicity about the coup, statements such as those made by the AG and the PM will not help the trial to go on.

“The prosecution cannot have its cake and eat it.

The AG has continued to make statements and, there is no evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken steps to warn him.

“The DPP must know that he needs to get serious, if he wants this man to stand trial. My client is not generating any publicity. It is happening based on the action of others,” Sturge added.

Mohammed then adjourned the matter to next Monday for decision.