A newly leaked 15-minute audio recording, capturing what is reported to be an intercepted private phone conversation between Star Sabga and her niece Genevieve Hadeed, has triggered intense political upheaval in Trinidad and Tobago, with senior opposition figures sounding the alarm over potential misuse of state power and violations of constitutional law. The leak comes just days after Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed were released from police custody, while Sabga remains in detention without formal charges as she awaits a court hearing on her constitutional challenge to secure her release. In the private exchange, Sabga can be heard expressing sharp criticism of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General John Jeremie, and other sitting members of the current government.
Law enforcement officials have already confirmed that the unauthorized leak of the recording will be formally probed alongside the ongoing original criminal investigation into the Hadeed and Sabga case. Assistant Commissioner of Police Richard Smith told local outlet the Sunday Express that the leak will be investigated in coordination with the initial inquiry into the case. When pressed on whether investigators have identified potential suspects behind the leak, Smith acknowledged that no conclusions can be drawn at this stage, but added that a full probe will uncover details of how the recording was released to the public.
Stuart Young, former prime minister and current opposition Member of Parliament, has condemned the leak and the underlying interception as clear evidence of abuse of public office. Young argued that if this private conversation was indeed the evidence used to justify issuing preventive detention orders (PDOs), which allowed the detentions to proceed without bail or access to habeas corpus, the situation raises grave constitutional questions for the country. He questioned whether the interception of the telephone call was legally authorized under the nation’s Interception of Communications Act, and demanded full transparency around how the confidential recording ended up in the public domain.
“If that conversation is the basis of preventive detention orders being issued and persons being detained without access to bail and habeas corpus, it is a clear indication to all law-abiding citizens that the Government is violating the Constitution and misusing powers it has given itself in an unjustified state of emergency,” Young stated. He emphasized that the existing state of emergency (SoE) and PDO framework were never designed to replace the country’s established criminal justice system, noting that any person suspected of criminal activity should be formally charged and processed through standard court proceedings. Young further pressed for answers on who authorized the intercept, whether any cabinet members were privy to the recording before its leak, and what legal grounds justified the surveillance. Drawing on his own experience as a former minister of national security and former chairman of the National Security Council during his premiership, Young said he never once requested surveillance targeting any private individual. He went on to accuse the current government of using the state of emergency to target political opponents and crack down on dissent, weaponizing state institutions to silence people perceived as critical of the administration. Young also claimed emergency regulations have been deployed to block citizens from organizing peaceful protests against government policies, and called for the immediate revocation of the state of emergency, arguing it is unjustified and never was a viable solution to the country’s crime challenges. “The Constitution and democracy are under siege and the methodologies of dictatorship are present in Trinidad and Tobago,” he added.
Marvin Gonzales, chairman of the opposition People’s National Movement (PNM), echoed Young’s calls, demanding a fully independent investigation into the unauthorized interception of private communications. In a public Facebook statement, Gonzales said the publication of intercepted private calls requires a “full, independent and transparent criminal investigation.” He pressed the government to confirm whether the required High Court warrants were obtained to legally authorize the surveillance, and asked how the confidential recording was leaked to the public if the interception was carried out lawfully. Gonzales called on the Commissioner of Police to launch an independent criminal probe without delay, warning that any failure by the government to address the situation will only deepen public fears that national security agencies have been politicized for partisan gain. He also urged Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar to address the nation directly on the controversy, and called on the police commissioner to exercise independent oversight to protect the national interest.
Kareem Marcelle, the opposition Member of Parliament for Laventille West, issued an even sharper rebuke of the administration via social media, claiming “This UNC Government is the most dangerous in our nation’s history!” Marcelle argued that future investigations by international human rights bodies and domestic public commissions will likely confirm that the current administration has undermined constitutional checks and balances, and turned national security agencies into tools for political targeting of opponents. He also issued a warning to public officials still cooperating with the administration on what he called unlawful actions, noting: “The UNC has less than four years (MAX) again to protect you for wrongdoings and you to protect them in their wrongdoings! Be sure that your actions are lawful and can stand up to scrutiny when they’re no longer there! That’s all!”
Former government minister Randall Mitchell, also an opposition figure, raised additional questions about the context and handling of the leaked recording, arguing that the content does not support claims of criminal conspiracy by the two women. Mitchell pointed out that the recording appears to capture nothing more than a private conversation in which one individual vented frustration over government policy, rather than evidence of any planned harmful action against any person. He questioned whether inflammatory language in the recording, including references to “revolution,” “bullets,” and threats against a Member of Parliament, has been taken out of context, noting such phrasing could simply reflect intense anger at unpopular government policies rather than a concrete threat. While Mitchell acknowledged that some of the language used in the call, particularly a racial reference, was offensive, he noted that open criticism of the prime minister and public expressions of personal dislike toward her have been made by other public figures before. Mitchell added that criticism of Attorney General Jeremie in the call should be understood against a backdrop of existing public controversies over Jeremie’s conduct, including previous criticisms from the Law Association over alleged interference in criminal prosecutions and threats to the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He further questioned whether the selective release of the recording was intended to justify the controversial detentions, and whether state action taken against the women has been proportionate to the actual content of the conversation. Mitchell also noted that the public has only been given access to a portion of the full recording, and urged citizens to wait for the full context of the conversation to be released before drawing any final conclusions.