作者： admin

Unconfirmed reports of an impending corruption arrest for a sitting Trinidad and Tobago magistrate have sparked a public defense from a team of high-profile local attorneys, who reject all allegations of impropriety and warn that undermining the judiciary poses a grave risk to the nation’s rule of law.

Local outlet *Trinidad Express* first broke the story exclusively yesterday, reporting that the unnamed judicial officer was set to be taken into custody over claims he accepted bribes in exchange for issuing favorable court rulings. While the outlet did not name the magistrate at the center of the claims, attorney Prakash Ramadhar called an urgent press conference at his San Fernando law chambers, with acting Chief Magistrate Brian Debideen in attendance alongside fellow attorneys Michael Rooplal and Vishan Girwar.

Ramadhar opened the conference by addressing the widespread speculation that has followed the *Express* report. Though no official name was published in the original article, Ramadhar confirmed that the allegations tie to a long-simmering public issue connected to specific rulings handled by Debideen. With nearly 40 years of legal practice in the country under his belt, Ramadhar argued that unsubstantiated rumors are too often framed as concrete evidence in Trinidad and Tobago’s public discourse, and false claims are frequently presented as proven fact. He stressed that the current government has prioritized restoring integrity, transparency and lawful process to public institutions, making the unproven tarnishing of a respected judicial officer especially unacceptable.

Ramadhar reaffirmed that the magistrate has upheld his judicial oath and committed no wrongdoing. He added that if formal charges are ultimately filed, the legal team will mount a vigorous defense on his behalf, and leave no stone unturned in clearing his name. “If any action is taken against him, we shall deal with that at that point in time….he will not go unattended,” Ramadhar said. “We will respond with all of our might to restore what is true and what is real…but we hope that the authorities and those who have power to make the decisions before errors are fallen into, will take a very robust approach in looking at what may be presented as potential facts.”

The veteran attorney also pushed back against the assumption that all criminal prosecutions are rooted in solid evidence and good-faith intentions. He cited high-profile past cases involving Naraynsingh, Dhanraj Singh and Sadiq Baksh to illustrate that many public allegations in the country lack merit. “Not every allegation in Trinidad and Tobago is there merit attached to it. It is the courts that we resort to, to fight these things; but when you attack the court, that is where the gravest danger is,” he added.

Fellow attorney Michael Rooplal then broke down the two specific cases at the center of the bribery claims, which date back between 15 months and a year, noting all court proceedings in these matters are part of the public record.

The first case involved an elderly lawful Firearm User’s Licence (FUL) holder who was charged with possession of excess ammunition. The defendant pleaded guilty when the matter was heard at the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court. After the prosecution recommended a non-custodial sentence and the defense presented mitigating arguments, the magistrate imposed a bond, which Rooplal emphasized is explicitly permitted under Trinidad and Tobago law. “The law specifically provides for such a penalty to be imposed on an individual in those circumstances and the magistrate in his lawful exercise of discretion imposed a bond. There is nothing, as far as we can tell, untoward, certainly from our past practice as criminal defence lawyers, in that being done,” Rooplal explained.

Rooplal also addressed a malicious WhatsApp rumor that began circulating after the 2025 ruling in this case, which has recently resurfaced. He confirmed the judiciary previously investigated the claims and issued an official statement confirming the social media content was entirely false, based on the official court recording of the proceedings.

The second case at the center of the allegations centers on a cash detention order under proceeds of crime legislation. Rooplal explained that at the first hearing, the magistrate ruled that the seized mixed currency of Trinidad and Tobago dollars and U.S. dollars would remain in detention, in line with prosecution requests. At a subsequent hearing, after evidence was presented and cross-examination concluded, the prosecution conceded there were no legal grounds to continue holding the local currency, and the magistrate ordered its release. The U.S. currency was ordered held for an additional three months, before a subsequent magistrate ordered its full release. Rooplal confirmed that every ruling issued by Debideen in this matter aligned strictly with the law and followed prosecution submissions.

Rooplal noted that rampant, unregulated speculation on social media has spun out of control in recent weeks, with unconfirmed names being circulated and baseless conspiracy theories spreading widely. The press conference, he explained, was called to allow the magistrate to present his side of the story publicly before any formal action is taken, given that the allegations clearly tie to the matters he adjudicated.

On the eve of the final registration deadline for Trinidad and Tobago’s new Landlord Business Surcharge, dozens of property owners crowded the Inland Revenue Division (IRD) office at the Ministry of Finance in Port of Spain, scrambling to complete their required paperwork before midnight. Throughout the entire morning on June 29, a snaking line of landlords wrapped around the exterior of the IRD building, with many waiting hours to submit their forms and pay the mandatory registration fee.

Interviews with several registrants on the ground painted a mixed picture of the process: while most acknowledged the line moved at a steady pace despite its length, many criticized the IRD’s outdated organizational system and inconvenient requirements. One woman who successfully completed her registration after waiting noted that the facility only offers seating for 20 people inside, forcing staff to admit applicants in small batches. Instead of using a modern digital ticketing system to manage queue order, staff rely on a clunky manual process that has people skipping empty chairs to count their place in line – a system she described as thoroughly archaic.

Like many last-minute registrants, this woman said she deliberately chose to beat the June 30 deadline a day early, explaining she had no choice but to come early to avoid what she expects will be an even bigger chaotic nightmare on deadline day. She also pointed out that the large crowd included not just surcharge registrants, but also members of the public completing other routine tax transactions, which contributed to the longer wait times.

Other landlords expressed frustration with the new levy itself, calling the added financial and administrative burden unfair. One woman who had already paid $800 in property tax last year said she was now forced to pay an extra $2,500 just to complete registration for the new surcharge. She added that she had already made one trip to the IRD office earlier, only to find she was missing a required document, forcing her to return a second time on the busy pre-deadline day.

One male registrant explained his last-minute visit stemmed from a packed work schedule that left him no time to complete the process earlier. Another local observer noted that long queues outside the Port of Spain IRD office are extremely uncommon, echoing the point that the large turnout is a combination of routine tax business and the surcharge registration deadline. Notably, the original registration deadline was May 30, before officials extended the cutoff to June 30 in a prior adjustment.

The Landlord Business Surcharge was first introduced as a core measure in the government’s 2026 national budget, codified under the 2025 Finance Act, and is set to officially go into effect starting January 2026. The levy applies to all gross quarterly rental income earned by both residential and commercial landlords operating in the country. Under the tax structure, landlords pay a 2.5% surcharge on quarterly income up to TT$20,000, and a higher 3.5% rate for any quarterly rental income that exceeds that threshold.

In a significant legal development unfolding in a virtual habeas corpus hearing on Wednesday, High Court Justice Frank Seepersad has approved a request from legal representatives for detained businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve to inspect official police station diaries. The ruling comes amid serious allegations that a standard criminal probe into the couple was abruptly reclassified after the habeas corpus challenge was filed, shifting it to fall under the country’s Emergency Powers Regulations.

The Hadeeds were taken into police custody last week as part of a wide-ranging investigation into an alleged conspiracy to target and assassinate sitting government officials. Their legal team, led by a cohort of senior counsels including Douglas Mendes, Gilbert Peterson, Faris Al-Rawi, Carlon McLeod and Chase Pegus, has argued from the outset that the initial arrests followed standard criminal procedure. According to Mendes’ submission to the court, the pair were arrested using the routine police powers that allow officers to detain, question and formally charge suspects, with no public or official indication at the time of arrest that the operation was being carried out under emergency legislation or a formal Preventive Detention Order (PDO).

The critical shift in the case, Mendes told Justice Seepersad, came only after the defense team lodged the habeas corpus application at the High Court this past Saturday. Immediately following the filing of the challenge to the detention’s lawfulness, the couple was suddenly reclassified as being held under a PDO. This sequence of events, Mendes argued, raises profound red flags about potential misuse of standard investigative authority and suggests the procedural shift was not conducted in good faith. He emphasized that the defense’s core argument remains that the couple’s detention was unlawful at the time the application was filed.

Attorneys representing the Commissioner of Police countered that the detention orders were actually drafted and approved prior to the formal issuance of the PDO, a claim the defense says only reinforces their concerns over procedural irregularity. Justice Seepersad clarified that the matter before the court was not a constitutional challenge, but rather a straightforward habeas corpus application. Still, he acknowledged that the judiciary retains inherent supervisory jurisdiction to confirm that proper legal processes are being followed in all detention matters. While he questioned whether the PDO impacts the court’s authority to hear the habeas corpus challenge, and stressed that he does not want to unnecessarily waste judicial time, he ruled that the diary inspection could be completed quickly, and granted the defense’s request.

Following the ruling, Al-Rawi told the court the defense team would complete the diary review, obtain updated instructions from the Hadeeds, and file all responding affidavits by Thursday morning. Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro was present for the virtual hearing and represented by his legal team Ramdath Phillip and Anya Ramute-Mohan.

The hearing unfolded against a broader backdrop of multiple detentions connected to the same police counter-conspiracy operation. Genevieve Hadeed’s aunt, Star Sabga, was also arrested last week in connection with the case and remains in custody, though Justice Seepersad noted that the current habeas application does not address her detention. The matter was first heard on Saturday morning, when it was adjourned to Wednesday to give state legal teams time to file responding affidavits on the lawfulness of the detention. The case is scheduled to reconvene for further arguments at 10 a.m. Thursday.