By SEAN DOUGLAS Wednesday, September 23 2009

SIPARIA MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar yesterday sent a letter to Speaker Barry Sinanan asking that Attorney General John Jeremie be sent to the House’s Privileges Committee for criticising Justice Rajendra Narine’s call for a probe of claims by Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr, of a deal with Prime Minister Patrick Manning to swap campaign support for debt forgiveness.

Jeremie had two Mondays ago criticised Justice Narine’s decision to send the allegation of a deal to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Acting Commissioner of Police for investigation.

Persad-Bissessar yesterday accused Jeremie of misleading the House and of breaching Standing Orders.

She asked Sinanan to recuse himself in adjudging the matter in the Privileges Committee which he chairs, alleging that his reply in the House to her concerns last week Monday suggests Sinanan has predetermined the issue.

“I hereby seek your leave under standing order 27(2) to raise, at the next sitting of the House of Representatives, a matter concerning the privileges of the House of Representatives,” wrote Persad-Bissessar to Sinanan.

Persad-Bissessar, in her complaint, alleged, “In his statement, which was not made on a substantive motion moved for the purpose, the Honourable Attorney General raised in a pejorative and disparaging manner, the conduct of the Honourable Mr Justice Rajendra Narine, in the said court action”.

Persad-Bissessar alleged that Jeremie had said Bakr’s affidavits had previously been struck out as “scandalous” and so had allegedly misled the House. She said, “However the Privy Council in its judgment in Privy Council Appeal Number 30 of 2008 delivered on May 5, 2009 in affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal did so solely on the ground that the material contained in the affidavits was irrelevant, and not scandalous as had been held by the Court of Appeal.”

She complained that Jeremie had failed to cite a key line in the Privy Council’s ruling, “It is on this ground of irrelevance, rather than that of inconvenience or embarrassment to the Prime Minister that the Board considers that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed”.

Persad-Bissessar also alleged that Jeremie had breached standing order 36(10) which bans MPs from criticising the conduct of public officials such as judges except on a substantive motion for that purpose.