Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr yesterday won his malicious prosecution case against the State but got only $5,000 in damages. In a 23-page judgment, which was delivered in the Port-of-Spain High Court, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled that Bakr was entitled to nominal damages only because the charges he had faced did not cause any damage to his reputation. “It cannot be said that Bakr is a man of good character nor can it be said that he was, at the time the instant charges were instituted, a man of unblemished reputation. “In fact, in the minds of most of the citizens of this country Bakr is cloaked with a shroud of infamy,” Seepersad said.
Bakr led the 1990 coup attempt and was later charged with treason. However, he and his men were subsequently freed by the court. In his ruling yesterday, Seepersad said: “In the instant matter and having regard to all the relevant circumstances which include Bakr’s admitted and unapologetic assault on the nation’s democracy, as well the current criminal pending charges against him, damages to his reputation cannot and simply does not arise.” In a brief interview at the Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, afterwards, Bakr said he would appeal. “It is outrageous. How can you find that a police officer maliciously prosecuted a man and only give him $5,000?” Bakr asked.
He also suggested the 1990 coup attempt should not have been considered relevant. Bakr filed the lawsuit in 2010 after he was charged with being in possession of a rifle, 569 rounds of ammunition and a hand grenade in 2005. The weapons were allegedly found in a cupboard at the Jamaat’s mosque at Mucurapo Road, St James, during a police raid on November 10, 2005.
Although Bakr was in Remand Yard on sedition charges at the time, he was still charged with being in constructive possession of the illegal items. A little over two months after Bakr was charged, he was freed after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) issued a notice of discontinuance. In the lawsuit, Bakr claimed that as a result of the charges, he suffered mental anguish and pain, as well as injury to his reputation and character.
Seepersad ruled that Bakr failed to prove the damages he alleged but had proved the arresting officer in the case, PC Frith, maliciously prosecuted him. “The court is of the view that the officer was prompted by improper motives and that the desire to secure the ends of justice was not the predominant motive. “The complainant seemed to have been preoccupied with Bakr’s history and there was no proper and objective assessment of the evidence,” Seepersad said. He said that from the evidence in that case, PC Frith did not have “reasonable and probable cause” to charge Bakr.