The State of Emergency Review Tribunal has firmly rebutted public criticism regarding its handling of Preventive Detention Order (PDO) reviews, labeling recent media reports as ‘misinformed’ and inconsistent with the legal procedures it is mandated to follow. In a statement issued on November 7, the tribunal addressed concerns raised by attorneys representing detainees under the state of emergency, who alleged delays or withholding of decisions on their clients’ detention. The tribunal expressed disappointment, particularly given that such claims originated from legal professionals expected to base their statements on factual and legal grounds. It emphasized that, under paragraph 8(1) of the Schedule to the Emergency Powers Regulations 2025, its role is strictly limited to reviewing detention upon request and submitting reports to the Minister of Homeland Security, not directly to attorneys or detainees. The tribunal clarified that its recommendations on whether detention should continue are exclusively provided to the minister, who is then responsible for sharing the relevant portions of the report with the detainee. The tribunal highlighted that it has already completed and forwarded reports on multiple cases, with submissions made on September 12, 19, 28, and October 6, 9, and 22. Additionally, a decision on a preliminary application in another matter was sent to the detainee’s attorney on November 1. These actions, the tribunal asserted, demonstrate its adherence to the Emergency Powers Regulations, countering claims of inefficiency or procedural lapses. The tribunal’s response comes amid escalating national debate over the prolonged detention of individuals under the state of emergency, with attorneys and rights advocates criticizing the review process for lacking transparency and violating fair hearing principles. The government, however, maintains that these measures are lawful and essential for public safety. Earlier this week, former national security minister and several defense attorneys urged the government to release individuals detained for months without charges, condemning the situation as a severe infringement of constitutional rights. Attorney Subhas Panday criticized the tribunal’s independence, arguing that its appointment by the Attorney General compromises its impartiality. Detainees have also reported dire conditions at the Arouca facility, including overcrowding, poor ventilation, and inadequate medical care. Attorneys Sanjiv Boodhu and Darren Mitchell, representing several detainees, claimed the review process has stalled, with their clients awaiting decisions months after appearing before the tribunal. They argued that the tribunal’s failure to provide reports directly to lawyers undermines natural justice. The tribunal was appointed by former Chief Justice Ivor Archie on July 21, in accordance with Section 11 of the Constitution and Paragraph 5(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations, 2025. Attorney David Alexander serves as chairman, with retired Army Major Arden Williams and attorney Shivangelie Ramoutar as members. President Christine Kangaloo declared the state of emergency on July 18, and it was extended for a second three-month period on October 31.