A high-profile legal battle over the pre-trial detention of a 70-year-old woman linked to an alleged assassination plot took a new turn on Friday, as attorneys for Star Sabga pushed to have her constitutional challenge fast-tracked under the same urgent timeline granted to her co-accused, wealthy business couple Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed. Sabga, who is related to the Hadeeds, was taken into custody one day after the couple was detained via Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs) on June 24, and all three are held in connection with the same alleged conspiracy. Just moments after the Court of Appeal concluded an urgent hearing for the Hadeeds on Thursday, Trinidad and Tobago’s Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander moved to revoke the PDOs against the couple — but left Sabga’s detention order intact. Representing Sabga, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes — who also represents the Hadeed couple — argued before High Court Justice Vigel Paul that there was no logical basis to delay Sabga’s constitutional claim now that the Hadeeds have been released from custody. Mendes emphasized that Sabga is being held on substantially the same evidence as the co-accused who were already granted an expedited hearing, noting “The State is saying let us release the co-conspirators but let us take our time with Star Sabga.” He further warned that the window to hear Sabga’s challenge is rapidly closing: the current national State of Emergency (SoE), which authorizes the detention orders, is set to expire in September, and if the case is not heard before the PDO expires on its own, the challenge will become moot. Mendes rejected the State’s argument that the Court of Appeal’s urgency order was tied specifically to Dominic Hadeed’s documented health issues and ongoing detention, stressing that appellate judges framed the entire related matter as one of extreme urgency, with no limiting conditions attached. Fellow senior counsel Rishi Dass added that the recent affidavits filed on Sabga’s behalf only update the court on new developments, including the Hadeeds’ release, and contain no material that would prejudice the State’s position. “They are saying that Star Sabga was in a conspiracy with them. The Hadeeds are now free,” Dass argued, reiterating that the case demands immediate court attention aligned with the appellate court’s direction. However, Gerald Ramdeen, who represents the State, pushed back against the request for an automatic extension of the urgent hearing order. He noted that the Court of Appeal’s direction for an accelerated hearing was specific to the Hadeeds’ separate proceedings, and was granted on the basis that the couple remained in custody at the time and Dominic Hadeed had pressing health concerns. Now that the Hadeeds have been released, Ramdeen argued, the original justification for urgency no longer stands, and Sabga’s case cannot be automatically merged into the existing timeline. Ramdeen also pointed out that no formal application for an expedited hearing had actually been filed with the High Court before Friday’s proceeding, and that the volume of last-minute affidavit evidence from Sabga’s legal team has left the State without adequate time to review the material and prepare a response. In the past week alone, Sabga’s legal team filed a 64-page affidavit Wednesday, a 62-page supplemental affidavit Thursday morning, and notified the State hours before Friday’s hearing that they intended to rely on five additional affidavits from the earlier appellate proceedings. “It is unfortunate and regrettable where someone is detained,” Ramdeen acknowledged, “but each party has to be afforded a certain level of fairness.” He also noted that Sabga, detained since June 25, did not have a constitutional claim filed on her behalf until July 8, questioning the sudden push for extreme urgency after a two-week delay. After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Paul declined to automatically extend the Court of Appeal’s urgency direction to Sabga’s hybrid constitutional claim and judicial review. The judge ruled that Sabga’s legal team must file a formal written application for an expedited hearing by the following Monday, and adjourned the proceedings to 2 p.m. that same day to hear the application. Paul also agreed to grant the State’s request for additional time to respond to Sabga’s new affidavit evidence, ruling that a short delay of a couple of days was not unreasonable under the circumstances, noting that Sabga had not even reviewed the content of Homeland Security Minister Alexander’s responsive affidavit yet. The judge added that he also needs to obtain a full transcript of Thursday’s Court of Appeal hearing to clarify the exact basis on which appellate justices Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell and Joan Charles granted the expedited hearing for the Hadeeds. In a nod to procedural fairness, Ramdeen confirmed that the State would arrange special access for Sabga’s legal team to meet with their detained client over the weekend — a break from usual visiting rules that prohibit inmate visits on weekends — so Sabga can review Alexander’s affidavit and prepare a response. The legal team for Sabga includes four senior counsel alongside junior attorneys, while the State is represented by Ramdeen and two additional attorneys.