Senior Reporter
Attorneys representing two men currently detained on Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) have challenged Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander to justify their continued detentions.
The legal team, led by Criston Williams, has argued that constitutional breaches and flawed statutory oversight regarding intelligence information used in the cases were being used to justify the continued incarceration of Rajaee Ali and Earl Richards at Teteron Barracks, Chaguaramas.
In urgent correspondence dispatched to Alexander on July 8, the lawyers called for transparency and accountability on the lawful decision-making expected of the executive.
“The continued failure to lay the annual reports required under the Security Service Agency Act (SSAA) and the Interception of Communications Act (ICA), notwithstanding that intelligence gathering and the use of covert powers appear to have formed a central part of the justification advanced for the declaration of the State of Emergency and the continued detention, the absence of those reports prevents meaningful scrutiny of the intelligence framework relied upon by the State and raises legitimate concerns as to whether the statutory safeguards intended by Parliament to regulate the exercise of such powers have been observed,” the lawyers wrote.
Regarding the outlined issues, the attorneys called on Alexander to provide confirmation of several issues, including whether the annual reports required under the SSAA have been prepared and, if so, the reasons for their failure to be laid in Parliament. They also want him to provide confirmation on whether the annual reports required under the ICA have been prepared and, if so, the reasons for their failure to be laid in Parliament.
The lawyers urged Alexander to take steps to ensure compliance with the statutory reporting obligations under the SSAA and the ICA, and to explain the basis upon which the continued detention of Ali and Richards remains justified, having regard to their status as unconvicted persons and the constitutional presumption of innocence.
They also petitioned Alexander to reconsider the continued necessity and proportionality of the PDOs against the men and their detention at Teteron Barracks.
Ali and Richards were remanded in 2015 while awaiting trial in relation to the indictment arising out of the murder of Dana Seetahal, SC. They were transferred to Teteron Barracks after being classified as “dangerous criminals,” despite what their attorneys argued was a lack of statutory support for that position.
The lawyers said, “Notwithstanding the serious nature of those pending proceedings, they remain unconvicted persons in law and continue to enjoy the constitutional presumption of innocence.”
Previously housed at the Maximum Security Prison (MSP), Golden Grove, until July 18, 2025, when a State of Emergency (SoE) was declared, the men were transferred under military escort to Teteron Barracks.
Their attorneys claimed the transfer was effected without prior notice to anyone, including their family members, and represented a significant departure from the ordinary custodial regime applicable to remand prisoners.
While subsequent public statements by Government officials alleged that the men were associated with what was described as a “radical Islamic criminal gang,” the lawyers stated, “Those allegations remain allegations only and have not been determined by any court of competent jurisdiction.”
The lawyers had previously noted that the detention conditions at Teteron were materially different from those at the MSP. Legal proceedings challenging the legality of the transfers and the conditions of detention were then filed. Among the issues raised were whether Teteron Barracks was lawfully designated as a prison at the time of the transfers; whether the removal of first-division remand prisoners from the MSP was in keeping with the Prisons Act and applicable prison rules and whether the transfers unjustifiably infringed their constitutional rights.
Following the commencement of those proceedings, Alexander designated Teteron Barracks and Staubles Bay as prisons with retrospective effect from July 18, 2025. While that order subsequently received parliamentary approval, the men have maintained that the retrospective designation does not cure the legal deficiencies that existed at the time of their original transfer.
The PDOs were issued pursuant to the Emergency Powers Regulations and their detentions have continued under the ongoing SoE framework.
Accusing Alexander, as the minister responsible for national security, of failing to lay annual reports on the operations of the intelligence agency for several years in Parliament, they stated, “Consequently, there exists no publicly available statutory report by which Parliament, affected persons or the wider public may ascertain the agency’s activities, priorities or operational outcomes during the period in which the intelligence said to justify these extraordinary measures, was allegedly developed.
“Similarly, the annual reports required under the Interception of Communications Act, which are intended to provide Parliamentary oversight regarding applications for and the use of interception warrants, have likewise not been laid for the relevant reporting periods.”
Stressing that they were not accusing anyone, the lawyers underscored, “The intelligence said to have justified the declaration of the State of Emergency, the transfer of our clients to Teteron Barracks and their continued preventive detention has never been capable of scrutiny through the statutory oversight mechanisms established by Parliament.”
“Whether that intelligence was accurate, compelling or otherwise is not the issue. The issue is that the statutory framework enacted to provide democratic accountability has, for several years, remained inoperative.”
“The deprivation of liberty under a PDO constitutes one of the most significant exercises of executive power known to our constitutional framework. In those circumstances, transparency, accountability and faithful compliance with statutory safeguards are not optional considerations; they are indispensable constitutional requirements which serve to maintain public confidence in the rule of law,” they wrote.
The attorneys called on Alexander to explain the continuing failure to comply with the statutory reporting obligations and to indicate the steps being taken to remedy those failures.
