博客

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.

In a high-stakes constitutional legal challenge brought before the High Court, Trinidad and Tobago’s Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander has publicly defended his controversial decision to maintain 70-year-old Star Sabga in preventive detention, disclosing newly unsealed intercepted communications that he argues confirm the severity of the threat posed to the country’s top government officials.

The core of Alexander’s case rests on a 19-page sworn affidavit, filed July 24 and submitted to the court Friday, which outlines intercepted conversations between Sabga and her niece Genevieve Hadeed — wife of local businessman Dominic Hadeed — pulled from Sabga’s landline and Hadeed’s personal mobile device. The intercepted dialogue, captured amid an ongoing investigation into a suspected coordinated plot to assassinate Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and her cabinet, includes explicit violent remarks from Sabga. After discussing a parliamentary address by Attorney General John Jeremie on a June 2026 state of emergency extension, Sabga allegedly made racist comments targeting the Prime Minister, stated “somebody getting ah bullet in dey head”, and argued that tensions would not subside “until the death of one of her Member for Parliament”, adding “the only way this thing going to end is when ah bullet fly”. Genevieve Hadeed reportedly responded by calling the comments “devil work” that would eventually cool down, a claim Sabga rejected outright.

According to Alexander’s affidavit, national security agencies have interpreted Sabga’s remarks as confirmation of her advance knowledge of a pre-existing plot to harm senior government leaders. He told the court that agencies have advised keeping Sabga in custody while they complete a full risk assessment and a coordinated effort to “neutralize” the purported threat, a process that is expected to take another two weeks to wrap up. Releasing Sabga before this work is completed, Alexander warned, would put the lives of top government officials in unacceptable danger.

The legal clash stems from Sabga’s June 25 arrest under a preventive detention order (PDO), issued alongside PDOs for both Genevieve and Dominic Hadeed, after intelligence uncovered alleged threats against senior government figures. Three days after her arrest, Sabga filed a request for her detention to be reviewed by an independent Review Tribunal. On July 19, the tribunal ruled there was “insufficient cause for the detainee’s detention” and found that holding her longer was not necessary or in the public interest.

Alexander accepted the tribunal’s recommendation to lift PDOs for the Hadeeds, but rejected its ruling on Sabga, outlining multiple justifications for the decision in his affidavit. He argued the tribunal’s process was “procedurally and fundamentally unfair” because his office was never given an opportunity to respond to legal submissions made by Sabga’s defense team. He also noted that the tribunal provided no formal reasoning for its recommendation, did not have access to all classified intelligence available to his department (due to national security restrictions on public disclosure), and did not receive the expert security analysis that guided his decision.

Beyond the immediate threat of violence, Alexander revealed that analysis of the Hadeeds’ electronic devices conducted by partner law enforcement agencies in the United States has uncovered a consistent pattern of communication between Genevieve Hadeed and individuals currently monitored by international and local intelligence agencies in connection with cross-border criminal activity. Alexander said he is confident Sabga has clear links to these individuals that would allow her to pass on her violent intentions to actors capable of carrying out an attack. Based on available evidence, he added, Sabga is the “main proponent of the violent acts” among the three detained suspects, with close family ties to the Hadeeds and direct access to individuals who could turn the threat into action.

Over the past 29 days, Alexander said, security teams have been conducting extensive background checks on all individuals connected to Sabga both inside and outside her local community, part of a coordinated effort to prevent Sabga’s radical views from inspiring others to carry out attacks. This neutralization process, which has already been ongoing for roughly a month, is designed to eliminate any risk posed by Sabga’s contacts before release can be responsibly considered. Alexander warned that releasing Sabga before the process is complete could lead her to take actions that are even more dangerous to public safety than the violent remarks captured in the intercepted communications.

Alexander also explained the separate decision to release the Hadeeds, noting that special circumstances apply to their case that do not extend to Sabga. A medical report received July 21 detailed severe health issues for Dominic Hadeed that require specialized treatment which cannot be adequately provided in a prison setting, and Genevieve Hadeed is his primary full-time caregiver. While Hadeed declined a request for an independent medical examination ordered by the state, his deteriorating health remained a “weighty consideration” that justified ending their detention, Alexander said. He also noted that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has scheduled October hearing dates for the state’s appeal of an earlier Court of Appeal ruling, creating further context that justified the exceptional decision to release the couple.

Some details of the ongoing investigation cannot be disclosed publicly, Alexander added, because doing so would tip off persons of interest and derail the covert operation. The probe relies on complex intelligence gathering, analysis of devices not owned by Sabga, and investigative work conducted outside of Trinidad and Tobago that is not fully under the control of local agencies. Risk assessment and threat neutralization work remains incomplete, with some data retrieval dependent on third-party partners. Alexander acknowledged his legal obligation to conduct ongoing review of Sabga’s detention, but argued that the balance of public safety and legal obligation still favors keeping her in custody. He has asked the High Court to reject Sabga’s request for interim release. The case is scheduled to resume in court tomorrow.

A politically explosive intercepted private phone conversation between prominent Trinidad and Tobago figure Star Sabga and her niece Genevieve Hadeed has been leaked to the public, igniting widespread debate across the Caribbean nation after its contents dominated social media conversations over the past 24 hours. The leak, which was first formally disclosed in a court affidavit filed last Friday by Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander as part of his defense for the preventive detention of Sabga, contains a series of vicious verbal attacks against sitting Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, with Sabga openly calling for her immediate removal from office.

In the hours following the leak’s spread across social platforms, the most inflammatory portions of the recording quickly drew public attention. Throughout the conversation, Sabga repeatedly lashes out at the Persad-Bissessar administration, claiming that government officials have unfairly targeted and falsely accused innocent citizens with no connections to criminal activity. When Hadeed interjected to reference comments from Attorney General John Jeremie — who recently switched parties from the long-standing People’s National Movement (PNM) to the ruling United National Congress (UNC) — claiming U.S. intelligence services would track down individuals engaged in criminal activity, Sabga dismissed the claim outright as a “damn lie.”

Sabga went on to make the extraordinary and unsubstantiated claim that former U.S. President Donald Trump personally disliked Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar, refusing to take her calls specifically because of her race. She further alleged that the Prime Minister alienated new political opponents on a weekly basis, and was allowing her policy and decision-making to be completely controlled by Attorney General Jeremie. The conversation soon shifted to a recent controversy surrounding Jeremie’s comments about members of Trinidad and Tobago’s elite “one percent” who had their U.S. travel visas revoked. As Hadeed expressed concern that the country was moving toward a “nasty road” and noted that she and Sabga’s circle had been targeted because of their past support for the PNM, Sabga doubled down on her claim that innocent people were being unfairly targeted.

The recording captures Sabga launching even more scathing attacks, accusing Persad-Bissessar of destroying the country with false claims and making additional racist remarks directed at the Prime Minister. She singled out hardworking local business owners — who she noted employ large numbers of Black Trinidadians — and called for prominent community leaders to publicly and aggressively condemn the Prime Minister. Sabga warned repeatedly that Persad-Bissessar was leading the nation down a “deadly, deadly, dangerous route” and demanded that Jeremie be removed from his position immediately. She also raised unfounded security concerns about the construction of the new U.S. Embassy on the former Country Club site, claiming its proximity to the Chinese Embassy made it an inherently dangerous location.

Touching on the ongoing national state of emergency, Sabga claimed the measure was being extended solely to strip ordinary citizens of their fundamental civil rights, repeating her baseless claim that Trump disliked Persad-Bissessar because of her race while contradictorily asserting that the Prime Minister was under the control of U.S. government interests. Going further, Sabga described the democratically elected Persad-Bissessar government as one that Trinidad and Tobago “never should have” elected, openly calling for mass riots to force the Prime Minister out of office. When Hadeed noted that around 20 individuals had lost their U.S. visas, and that only her husband had publicly come forward as a “brave soul” (with Arab members of the group choosing to stay private), Sabga repeated her claims that the Prime Minister was putting the entire nation “in a state of danger.”

When Hadeed attempted to calm the conversation, labeling the ongoing political chaos “devil work” and predicting tensions would eventually cool, Sabga pushed back sharply. “This will never cool down, Genna. Something have to happen for this to cool down. And what have to happen for this to cool down is the death of one of a member of Parliament,” she is recorded saying. Later in the conversation, she doubled down on the extreme rhetoric, stating that political conflict would only end “if a bullet fly.” Sabga also added criticism of U.S. foreign policy globally, claiming that widespread anger at American military intervention around the world had pushed people to the point where they were ready to “blow up” U.S. interests, and repeated her criticism of Trump’s policy toward neighboring Venezuela.

The disclosure of the intercepted conversation through court documents has already reshaped the local political landscape, raising urgent questions about the use of government surveillance powers, the preventive detention of political opponents, and the growing polarization of Trinidad and Tobago’s political sphere ahead of any potential upcoming elections.