By JADA LOUTOO Thursday, June 30 2011

JAMAAT al Muslimeen leader, Yasin Abu Bakr, through his attorney, has expressed concern that his testifying before the Commission of Inquiry investigating events surrounding the July 27, 1990, insurrection, which he led, was likely to taint the criminal trial against him for sedition and terrorism.

Bakr was scheduled to begin giving evidence before the inquiry, but yesterday’s session turned out to be anti-climatic after it was announced that the Muslimeen leader will not be testifying at this session which comes to an end tomorrow (Friday.)

A larger than usual media contingent were present at the Caribbean Court of Justice, Port-of-Spain, where the inquiry is being held.

Bakr is currently before Justice Mark Mohammed, on charges of sedition, promoting a terrorist act, and inciting others to breach the peace, stemming from his November, 2005 Eid sermon at his Mucurapo mosque.

If convicted, Bakr faces a penalty of 25 years hard labour.

The case has been in abeyance since 2007, when Justice Mohammed granted a cooling down period to determine whether adverse media reports at the time had tapered off enough to ensure he gets a fair trial, after his attorneys complained that pre-trial publicity was likely to taint the case, making it impossible for him to get a fair trial.

He has again raised these concerns, and according to one of his lawyers, Naveen Maharaj, the Jamaat leader was prepared to answer all the commission’s questions as well as assist the inquiry, however, not at this time.

Bakr is expected to appear before Justice Mohammed on July 5, at which time a trial date is expected to be set. Maharaj said they will be seeking to have the trial expedited, and perhaps heard in the new law term, which begins in September.

Maharaj said his lawyers were concerned that the questions asked of him at the inquiry may lead to him conceding, on record, that his actions during the 1990 insurrection amounted to a terrorist act, and this can be used by the prosecution against him at his trial.

His attorneys, who also includes Wayne Sturge, are also concerned that any adverse finding against him on the issue of credibility could also be used against him, and prejudice the trial.

Maharaj said Bakr would not want to contribute to the same pre-trial publicity of which he is complaining, by appearing and giving evidence at the inquiry, but he maintained that the Muslimeen leader “wants to testify, and will testify.”

Lead counsel to the commission, Avory Sinanan, SC, said while Bakr’s concerns about possibly incriminating himself appeared legitimate, the commission was not going to wait on him indefinitely.

He said given the fact that the scheduling of criminal trials were set cast in concrete, Sinanan asked that Bakr’s attorneys provide the commission with a written update on the developments in the criminal courts, so that they can make a realistic timetable for his appearance at the inquiry. Commission chairman, Sir David Simmons informed Maharaj that they were acceding to the request to have Bakr testify at a later stage at the inquiry, but urged him to keep the commission abreast as to the developments regarding the criminal trial.

At his trial in the Port-of-Spain High Court, Bakr had complained that pre-trial publicity was likely to taint the minds of potential jurors, making it impossible for him to get a fair trial.

He had asked that his trial be stayed permanently. But Mohammed instead embraced the suggestion by the prosecution of a cooling-off period to sanitise the minds of potential jurors.

Mohammed said at the time, while the court had to balance press freedom with that of ensuring an accused person received a fair trial, the latter was the prevailing factor.