In a significant legal development regarding the challenge to preventive detention orders (PDOs) against a local businessman and his wife, Trinidad and Tobago’s Appeal Court has issued a ruling granting the constitutional challenge the highest possible priority for expedited processing.
The landmark ruling on an urgent procedural appeal was delivered on Wednesday morning, mere hours before Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander issued a public statement announcing his decision to revoke the PDOs targeting Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed.
The legal battle dates back to July 17, when High Court Justice Vigel Paul declined to fast-track the couple’s judicial review and constitutional challenge against their detention, adjourning the case to mid-September for preliminary directions. Dissatisfied with this timeline, the Hadeeds’ legal team launched an urgent procedural appeal to the Appeal Court, arguing the case required immediate resolution given the couple’s ongoing detention and Dominic Hadeed’s worsening health status.
During Wednesday’s hearing before Justices of Appeal Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell and Joan Charles, State attorney Gerald Ramdeen clarified that while the government would not formally consent to expediting the matter, it would also not oppose the request. Ramdeen noted that given the Hadeeds’ continued custody and new medical evidence of Dominic Hadeed’s declining condition, moving forward directly with the High Court judicial review rather than pursuing the full procedural appeal would save significant time for all parties involved.
Ramdeen also emphasized that his position did not reflect a belief that Justice Paul had erred in his initial adjournment decision, noting the new medical evidence that prompted the urgency had not been presented to the High Court at the time of the original ruling. The appellate justices commended Ramdeen and the State for adopting this flexible position, and also noted they had observed Dominic Hadeed appearing visibly uncomfortable during the virtual hearing, further underscoring the need for urgency.
After hearing submissions from both Ramdeen for the State and senior counsel Rishi Dass for the Hadeeds, the Appeal Court issued a formal order mandating accelerated, urgent progression of all directions for the High Court proceedings.
Wednesday’s hearing came exactly one week after a separate three-judge Appeal Court panel ordered the couple to be released from prison and transferred to house arrest at their Bayshore, Westmoorings residence under strict monitoring conditions. However, just hours after that initial release order, a different panel led by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh granted the State an interim stay of the ruling, keeping the Hadeeds in custody at Golden Grove Prison in Arouca. The Chief Justice’s panel extended the stay the following day, pending the State’s final appeal of the release order to the London-based Privy Council, the nation’s apex appellate court.
Originally, legal teams expected the Privy Council appeal to be heard before the end of the current law term at the close of July. But on Wednesday, attorneys were notified that the appeal could not be scheduled any earlier than October. Without an expedited ruling on the Hadeeds’ judicial review or a revocation of the PDOs, the couple would have remained in prison custody at least until the current state of emergency (SoE) expires on September 17.
The Hadeeds’ 70-year-old relative, Star Sabga, is also being held under a separate PDO at Golden Grove Prison. Both the Hadeeds’ and Sabga’s judicial review claims are scheduled to be recalled before Justice Paul on Thursday. While the Hadeeds’ PDOs have now been revoked, the cases will proceed unless the couple formally withdraw their claims.
A separate dispute over Dominic Hadeed’s access to medical care also emerged during Wednesday’s hearing. Ramdeen told the court the State had written to the Hadeeds’ lead attorney Faris Al-Rawi, SC, on Wednesday morning arranging for a government-approved doctor to visit Hadeed in prison to assess his medical condition. However, the Hadeeds’ legal team refused consent, arguing the selected doctor lacked specialized qualifications to treat Hadeed’s specific condition.
Al-Rawi confirmed the correspondence, but added that no medical treatment of any kind has been provided to Hadeed since he was taken into detention, despite a previous Appeal Court order issued the previous Friday requiring the State to allow Hadeed’s own personal doctors to provide care. The appellate justices noted that the Chief Justice’s panel had already formally ordered Hadeed be granted access to his own physicians, and that refusing this order could amount to contempt of court.
Ramdeen responded that the State had not blocked access, but had been waiting for the Hadeeds’ legal team to initiate contact to arrange the visit, a step that had not yet been taken. He reiterated that the State remains fully willing to facilitate any legitimate request for Hadeed to receive required medical care.