分类： politics

In a significant development in a high-profile national security case in Trinidad and Tobago, businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve have regained full, unrestricted liberty after Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander revoked their Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) earlier this week. Senior Counsel Faris Al-Rawi, the couple’s lead legal representative, confirmed the revocation to reporters at Port of Spain’s Altus Court Wednesday evening, clarifying that the order is fully void with no residual conditions attached.

Al-Rawi emphasized that the revocation erases the detention order from legal standing entirely. “The revocation of a preventive detention order is as good as it never existed,” he stated. “It is a complete return to liberty. There are no conditions attached to that. This is not home detention.” He added that a full revocation inherently invalidates the original grounds for detention, noting that the state would not have reversed the order if the justifications for detainment still held.

Minister Alexander announced the decision earlier in the day, explaining that he made the call after a comprehensive review of the legal, medical, and constitutional considerations tied to the couple’s detainment. Alexander concluded that continuing to hold the Hadeeds during the ongoing police investigation was no longer proportionate under the law.

The couple was first arrested by the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service on June 24, as part of a wide-ranging probe into an alleged plot to assassinate Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and other senior members of her government. Three days later, on June 27, PDOs were issued against them under the 2026 Emergency Powers Regulations, enacted during the current national state of emergency. A third suspect, Star Sabga, who was detained alongside the couple, remains in custody, with a court hearing scheduled for Thursday to challenge her continued detention. Al-Rawi noted that Sabga, an elderly woman, has been separated from her family for an extended period and has felt the significant toll of her detainment, but declined to comment further on her case.

While the Hadeeds have now regained full freedom, Al-Rawi stressed that the broader criminal investigation into the alleged assassination plot remains active, and multiple ongoing legal proceedings tied to the case are still pending before national and international courts. The constitutional and judicial review challenges that the legal team filed on the couple’s behalf remain active. Additionally, the state has not withdrawn its appeal to the Privy Council, challenging a prior Court of Appeal ruling that granted the couple conditional release. That appeal is scheduled to be heard in October.

Al-Rawi framed the earlier Court of Appeal ruling as a landmark moment for judicial oversight of emergency measures. The court, led by Justice of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, established that courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over PDOs issued during a state of emergency — upending a long-held assumption that citizens could not challenge detainment through the courts once a state of emergency was declared. “The courts have recognised and we endorse the propriety that the State is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court,” Al-Rawi said.

The upcoming appeal hearing before the Privy Council will address a core legal question: what constitutes sufficient objective grounds to issue a PDO. While these orders are often based on sensitive intelligence protected by public interest immunity, Al-Rawi argued that there must still be verifiable, objective evidence to justify depriving a citizen of their liberty. The ruling in this case will set a precedent that extends far beyond the Hadeeds, affecting any future individual subject to a preventive detention order in Trinidad and Tobago. Al-Rawi noted that even though the PDOs have now been revoked, the appeal remains relevant, as its outcome will clarify legal standards for future cases across the country.

Addressing recent reports surrounding Dominic Hadeed’s health during detention, Al-Rawi clarified that the claim Hadeed refused offered medical treatment is inaccurate. “Mr Hadeed never refused medical treatment offered by the State. Mr Hadeed received no medical treatment from the State,” he explained. The confusion arose when the government proposed that Hadeed’s neurological condition be assessed by a neurosurgeon, a recommendation the legal team declined after consultation with medical experts. “The person who was recommended by the State was not qualified to do the job,” Al-Rawi said, adding that he does not believe the recommendation was made with malicious intent, but simply represented a misjudgment of the required specialist qualifications. Al-Rawi declined to discuss Hadeed’s specific medical condition further, framing it as a private matter that was only brought before the court to uphold the state’s legal obligations to detainees, and declined to speculate on whether Hadeed’s health influenced Minister Alexander’s decision to revoke the PDOs.

When asked whether the couple plans to pursue damages or additional legal action against the state, Al-Rawi said no decisions have been made, and no conversations about seeking compensation have taken place at this stage. He confirmed that the existing judicial review proceedings remain active, but said the couple’s primary goal is clear: “They wish to clear their names, move on with their lives. They are not against any government in Trinidad and Tobago…and we will let the courts work this out.”

A planned celebration of Indian Diaspora Day, originally set for August 1 in Port of Spain, has been pushed back to August 8 following widespread public anger across Trinidad and Tobago over what community members and leaders labeled a deliberate insult to the nation’s annual African Emancipation Day commemoration. The controversy has sparked a formal appeal to India’s top leadership demanding a review of the Indian High Commissioner’s conduct in the country.

Randall Mitchell, former Trinidadian tourism, culture and the arts minister and ex-member of parliament, penned an official letter addressed to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, copied directly to the Indian High Commission in Port of Spain, calling for urgent action to address the scheduling misstep. In the letter, Mitchell demanded that High Commissioner Dr. Pradeep Singh Rajpurohit be instructed to immediately move the event away from the date of Emancipation Day, and issue a formal public statement acknowledging the deep cultural and historical significance of the observance to all Trinbagonian people. He also called on Indian authorities to launch a full review of the High Commissioner’s decision-making to assess whether he remains fit to effectively represent India in the dual-island nation.

Public backlash began almost immediately after the Indian High Commission published its initial invitation for the open house celebration, targeted at local Indian community and diaspora members, to be held at the mission’s Victoria Avenue location. Hundreds of residents took to social media to voice their anger and frustration over what many framed as a profound act of cultural insensitivity toward Trinidad and Tobago’s large Afro-Trinidadian population and the country’s long history of multicultural coexistence. Multiple online commentators went so far as to claim the overlapping schedule was a deliberate snub against the national commemoration.

Mitchell also publicly called out the mission’s vague wording in its announcement of the rescheduled event. In a Facebook post addressing the change, the High Commission captioned its update noting the open house had been moved to August 8 “in view of August 1 being a public holiday.” Mitchell pushed back against this framing in his own social media response, writing: “A Public Holiday??!!!!??? It’s African Emancipation Day! You’ve been here long enough to know this. Thanks for rescheduling and deleting your offensive post, though.”

Local news outlet The Express reached out to the Indian High Commission for comment on the controversy, but the mission declined to issue any public statement addressing the backlash or the allegations against it.

In his formal letter to Prime Minister Modi, Mitchell emphasized that he was writing as both a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago and a former cultural affairs leader to express his profound disappointment with the mission’s original scheduling choice. He stressed that August 1’s African Emancipation Day is far from an ordinary public holiday: the date marks the formal abolition of chattel slavery, honoring the hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans whose forced labor formed the economic foundation of modern Trinidad and Tobago.

The observance, Mitchell explained, commemorates one of the darkest chapters of global human history, while paying tribute to the struggle, sacrifice and resilience of generations of Afro-Trinbagonian people who were stripped of their fundamental freedom. “For many citizens, it is a solemn national observance before it is a celebration,” he wrote.

Mitchell underlined that diplomatic missions accredited to foreign states hold a core responsibility to understand and respect the host nation’s history, cultural traditions and key national commemorations, noting this expectation is a foundational principle of global diplomacy. He clarified that the controversy does not stem from the Indian High Commission’s right to host events for the local Indian diaspora — every diplomatic mission holds that right and responsibility, he acknowledged. Instead, the offense lies in choosing the one national holiday that carries unique historical and emotional weight for a large segment of the Trinbagonian population.

“There were 364 other days on which such an event could have been held without creating the appearance that the significance of African Emancipation Day was being overlooked or diminished,” Mitchell wrote. Whether the scheduling conflict was intentional or accidental, he added, the choice demonstrates a serious lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity toward the host nation and its people.

“By choosing to host an official diaspora event on this solemn national day, the High Commission has unnecessarily introduced a source of division where there should have been national reflection,” Mitchell said. He added that the most troubling consequence of the decision is the risk it poses to social cohesion in Trinidad and Tobago, a deeply diverse multicultural society made up of people of African, Indian, Indigenous, Chinese, European, Syrian-Lebanese and many other ancestral backgrounds.

Trinidad and Tobago has spent generations building a foundation of mutual respect and understanding across its diverse communities, Mitchell noted, and that hard-won harmony cannot be taken for granted. “It must be protected through sensitivity, respect and good judgment—particularly by foreign diplomatic missions,” he wrote.

African Emancipation Day, he underscored, is one of the few national observances that calls on all citizens, regardless of background, to reflect on the enduring legacy of chattel slavery and the ongoing importance of national unity, human dignity and equal justice. Mitchell emphasized that India and Trinidad and Tobago share a generations-long, deeply meaningful bilateral friendship, and that this relationship deserves diplomatic representatives who appreciate the history of both nations and exercise sound judgment when handling matters tied to national identity and historical remembrance.

“This decision falls well below that standard and risks undermining social cohesion in a multicultural society where racial harmony must never be taken for granted,” Mitchell wrote. “It is precisely because of the seriousness of that risk that I believe this matter warrants immediate intervention by the Government of India.” He closed his letter by expressing trust that the Indian government will treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves and take appropriate steps to preserve the long-standing warm friendship between the two nations.

A major political firestorm has erupted in the country’s national security circles after former police commissioner Gary Griffith publicly called for the immediate dismissal of Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander. Griffith’s demand came just moments after Alexander announced he was revoking controversial preventive detention orders (PDOs) that had been in place for months against local businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve.

In his official statement following Alexander’s announcement, Griffith launched a scathing attack on the government’s handling of the entire case, labeling it as “total incompetence at the highest level” of government. He issued a stark warning that ordinary taxpayers could end up being forced to cover a massive multimillion-dollar legal settlement if the couple pursues legal action over their wrongful detention. “Somebody must pay for this—and not the taxpayers,” Griffith emphasized, pushing directly for the minister to step down to take accountability.

Alexander defended his decision to revoke the PDOs, outlining that he made the call after a full re-evaluation of all circumstances surrounding the couple’s detention. Key factors that shaped his ruling included an official recommendation from the State of Emergency Review Tribunal, which concluded that keeping the Hadeeds in detention was “not necessary or expedient in the public interest,” as well as new, undisclosed medical information related to Dominic Hadeed’s health. The minister also stressed that the active criminal investigation into the alleged plot to assassinate Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and other senior government leaders remains fully ongoing, with no changes to the probe’s status.

Despite this explanation, Griffith argued that the sequence of events—first detaining the couple for months without charges, then releasing them—lays bare deep, systemic flaws in how the government is exercising emergency powers granted during the state of emergency. He pointed out that Alexander alone, acting on his sole authority and citing what was claimed to be “credible intelligence,” ordered the couple’s months-long incarceration without any formal criminal charges being filed.

“This is tantamount to what takes place in a police state or a dictatorial country,” Griffith said, adding that if the initial intelligence used to justify the detention had actually been as solid as the government claimed, law enforcement and investigators would have been able to convert that information into court-admissible evidence to support formal criminal charges. Instead, Griffith said, the intelligence failed so completely that authorities were never able to meet that basic legal threshold.

The former police commissioner also publicly questioned Alexander’s professional qualifications to hold the senior national security post, arguing that the minister lacks the relevant, on-the-ground experience needed to properly oversee the country’s entire national security apparatus. He reiterated his warning that the legal consequences of the botched detention will likely carry a huge price tag for public coffers, saying “This incompetence is now likely to cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.”

Griffith also pushed back against Alexander’s previous claim that he only signed off on the detention orders based on materials put before him by other officials. “He is not a rubber stamp,” Griffith said, noting that the emergency powers legislation explicitly places sole authority for approving PDOs with the minister—no other official, including the Commissioner of Police or Chief Justice, holds that power. He warned that the broad discretionary authority granted to the minister under the Emergency Powers Regulations, which allows for depriving citizens of their liberty based solely on intelligence assessments, carries a high risk of abuse, noting that what counts as “credible intelligence” is ultimately a subjective call dependent on the minister’s personal judgment.

Griffith concluded by saying that Alexander’s mishandling of the high-profile case has already caused significant embarrassment to both the sitting government and the country as a whole. He added that this embarrassment could be prolonged as the case moves through domestic courts and potentially even reaches the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the country’s highest court of appeal.

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.