Senior Reporter
Businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve will have to wait until at least Friday to see if they will be released from detention to be reunited with their three children after spending almost three weeks in prison on an alleged plot to assassinate Government officials.
Appellate Judges Peter Rajkumar, Mira Dean-Armorer, and Joan Charles reserved their decision in the couple’s appeal over being denied interim release by High Court Judge Frank Seepersad, after hearing extensive submissions at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain, yesterday morning.
The panel promised to give their decision no later than 8 am on Friday.
Guardian Media understands that the couple intends to mount a final appeal before the United Kingdom-based Privy Council if they suffer a second defeat in their bid for interim release.
In his submissions, the Hadeeds’ lawyer, Douglas Mendes, SC, claimed that the couple’s children, ages 17, 15, and 12, were severely affected by their continued detention.
“The children are suffering,” Mendes said.
Mendes took issue with the lack of particulars provided by the State to show that the couple was involved in the purported plot.
He claimed that Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander relied on intelligence gathered by an unnamed national security agency and did not provide details that could be objectively assessed by Justice Seepersad and the Court of Appeal.
“You cannot say I cannot disclose the reasons, but I am still going to use it against you,” Mendes said.
“They are asking you to rubber-stamp the minister’s decision and abandon the citizens of T&T,” Mendes added.
He suggested that even if the State was unwilling to disclose alleged evidence gathered during an ongoing police probe, such could have been provided to the courts to make an assessment.
“What did he (Hadeed) say or do and to whom?” Mendes said.
Mendes also took issue with the fact that Alexander claimed that the Hadeeds had the financial resources to fund such a plot.
“His wealth means nothing,” Mendes said.
Mendes called on the panel to order their conditional release by placing them under house arrest so they could be reunited with their children and for Hadeed to continue his treatment for several medical conditions.
Responding to the submissions, British King’s Counsel Sir James Eadie claimed that Justice Seepersad’s decision could not be faulted.
“The judge’s approach to the legal issues was entirely correct,” Eadie said.
Eadie stated that Alexander was not legally required to disclose the particulars before the couple challenged their detentions before the SoE Review Tribunal.
Hadeed’s review was completed on Monday, while his wife’s was heard yesterday afternoon.
“It is not possible to disclose material which is sensitive,” Eadie said.
While he accepted that the tribunal’s recommendations are not binding on Alexander, Eadie suggested that the couple was free to file a case if they were successful before the tribunal and Alexander maintains his position.
He also claimed that Alexander was responding to a credible threat to national security.
“It is hard to believe that another minister would have acted differently,” Eadie said.
“It is the minister who is responsible if the plot comes to fruition,” he added.
Eadie also acknowledged that a final appeal in a case over the legality of an SoE in 2011 was heard by the Privy Council yesterday.
However, he noted that until the country’s highest court delivers its judgment, the Court of Appeal’s ruling upholding regulations for that SoE, which were similar to the regulations in the ongoing SoE, stands.
“The whole regime, which is materially identical, has been considered and determined,” Eadie said.
About the case
The Hadeeds and a 69-year-old relative, Star Sabga, were detained late last month as police officers executed search warrants at their homes and offices.
The warrants indicated that they were being investigated for conspiracy to commit murder based on intelligence gathered by a national security organisation.
Preventive detention orders (PDOs) subsequently issued by Alexander indicated that they were being investigated over a plot to assassinate government officials.
In their substantive case, the couple’s lawyers are not only challenging their detentions based on PDOs under the Emergency Powers Regulations (EPR) for the SoE, they also claimed that the move by the current government led by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to extend the SoE, last month, was unconstitutional as it sought to target members of the Syrian/Lebanese community, a minority ethnic group, and Hadeed personally.
They extensively quoted statements made by Attorney General John Jeremie, SC, in the SoE extension debate in Parliament, in which he repeatedly described members of the community as “the one per cent” and accused them of being financiers of the now-Opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) and of stealing state land.
They suggested that Jeremie was referring directly to Hadeed as the allegation arose after he publicly criticised Government policy in March and after the Cabinet sought to unilaterally terminate leases to State land held by his company in May.
They referenced a letter sent to Hadeed by Jeremie’s office indicating that the police were investigating the issue of the granting of the leases.
They pointed out that the couple and their relative were only arrested based on “intelligence”, a day after Hadeed threatened legal action over the terminated leases.
The Hadeeds are also being represented by Gilbert Peterson, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Faris Al-Rawi, SC, Chase Pegus, and Carlon McLeod.
The AG’s Office is also being represented by Robert Strang, Gerald Ramdeen, and Dayadai Harripaul.
