标签： Trinidad and Tobago

On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump moved forward with new permanent double-digit tariffs on goods from 60 major U.S. trading partners, just hours after temporary stopgap levies—imposed following a Supreme Court defeat earlier this year—officially expired. The new measures set tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on covered imports, covering 99% of all goods entering the United States. The Trump administration justified the new taxes by alleging that these trading partners have failed to adequately enforce bans on imports produced through forced labor, with 10% duties on exports from Trinidad and Tobago remaining unchanged from the earlier temporary regime.

Speaking on behalf of the administration, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer framed the move as a long-overdue push for global policy alignment, noting, “The United States has had a forced labour import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.”

The new tariffs replace the temporary 10% global levies that were set in place after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier, broader tariff regime in February. That original 2024 action invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), under which Trump imposed double-digit tariffs on nearly all global imports, framing the country’s decades-long trade deficit as a national emergency. The Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not grant the president authority to implement tariffs under that framework, forcing the administration to issue refunds to importers that had paid the disputed duties.

Following that ruling, Trump implemented temporary 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, a provision that limits temporary trade measures to a 150-day window. That window closed at the end of yesterday, prompting the transition to the new permanent structure under Section 301 of the same 1974 Trade Act. This statute grants the president authority to impose import taxes and other trade sanctions against nations found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” trade practices. Trump previously relied on Section 301 to implement large-scale tariffs on Chinese goods during his first term, measures that ultimately survived legal challenges in federal courts.

Key sectors are exempt from the new round of tariffs, including domestic oil and gas production and fertilizer imports. Goods that qualify for duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)—the revised North American trade pact negotiated by Trump during his first term—are also spared from the new duties.

The Trump administration has signaled that additional Section 301 tariffs may be on the horizon: the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has already launched an investigation into whether 16 major trading partners, which account for 70% of total U.S. imports, have engaged in overproduction that suppresses global prices and puts U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. That probe is still ongoing, with no final timeline for completion announced.

Trump has long positioned steep tariffs as a core policy tool to revive American manufacturing, and last year formally overturned decades of bipartisan U.S. policy that prioritized lower trade barriers and increasingly liberalized global trade. However, the new tariffs drew immediate pushback from congressional critics, who argue the forced labor justification is a thin pretext for a broader protectionist agenda.

“Today’s forced labour justification is too convenient to be taken seriously,” said U.S. Representative Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the ranking Democratic member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “Forced labour is a real and pervasive problem in our supply chains and demands serious enforcement. It should never be cheapened into a pretext for a tariff policy built on dubious legal theories and personal grievances.”

In a dramatic act of political defiance that electrified gathered supporters Thursday night, Marvin Gonzales, chairman of Trinidad and Tobago’s main opposition People’s National Movement (PNM), publicly burned a court order tied to an investigation into the party’s iconic Balisier House headquarters, declaring the opposition would never be intimidated by what he frames as a politically motivated attack.

Addressing a crowd of enthusiastic PNM backers assembled outside the party’s long-time headquarters in Port of Spain, Gonzales launched a blistering attack on the ruling government, accusing it of weaponizing state institutions to selectively target the opposition ahead of growing political tensions. The investigation at the center of the standoff centers on the funding used for Balisier House’s reconstruction, launched after a court ordered the PNM to disclose detailed records of how the project was financed. The PNM has already mounted a legal challenge to the proceedings, turning the headquarters itself into a symbolic battleground for national politics.

In a fiery speech peppered with rhetoric that repeatedly called out Attorney General John Jeremie by name, Gonzales framed Balisier House as far more than just a physical building. “We will not be afraid of this order because the PNM, ladies and gentlemen, is not only in brick and concrete and mortar; the PNM lives in the heart and the dreams of every single citizen of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,” he told the cheering crowd. Even if the government chose to destroy the physical structure, he added, the party’s core would remain unbroken.

Gonzales insisted the entire investigation is not a push for transparency, but a calculated component of a broader government campaign to erode the opposition’s standing ahead of upcoming political contests. He went as far as to frame the court order itself as a politically corrupted document, saying, “It was conceived in political sin. It was born in sin and it was shaped in political iniquity.”

Moments after delivering those remarks, Gonzales set the court order ablaze on stage before exiting, declaring that the document would not be allowed to desecrate the land where the PNM was founded. “We will send them to the political ashes in the political cemetery of the people of Trinidad and Tobago,” he added, to loud applause from supporters.

The PNM chairman doubled down on his accusations, claiming Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar personally selected Jeremie to lead a coordinated effort to persecute political opponents through state agencies. “I say to Kamla Persad-Bissessar and John Jeremie, we will not allow you to interfere in the people’s house. Get your grubby hands and get your dirty hands off the people’s house because this is our house. We will stand our ground and we will defend this country, we will defend this party,” Gonzales said.

Throughout the address, Gonzales also revisited longstanding criticisms of Jeremie’s track record, recalling that when Jeremie previously served as Attorney General under a PNM administration, the Trinidad and Tobago Law Association passed two separate motions of no confidence against him in 2009. The first motion, Gonzales explained, stemmed from Jeremie’s alleged attempt to interfere in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, then led by Geoffrey Henderson. The second motion accused Jeremie of meddling in criminal prosecutions for political gain.

Gonzales also leveled new accusations against the current administration, claiming Jeremie has recently restructured national security agencies to consolidate power under his own control: he moved the Anti-Corruption Bureau directly under the Attorney General’s Office, and placed a division of the national spy agency under his immediate authority.

In addition to the Balisier House controversy, Gonzales raised new questions about unexecuted Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs), asking “Where are the missing PDOs?” He claimed that out of 465 PDOs issued by police, only 435 have been executed, leaving 30 orders unaccounted for with no official explanation. He also alleged that corrupt officers have been extorting citizens, telling them they can avoid arrest under the outstanding orders if they pay thousands of dollars in bribes. Gonzales called on Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro to launch a full investigation into these extortion claims.

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.

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.

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.