Akash Samaroo
Lead Editor-Politics
Political analyst Dr Winford James believes the Government could face political backlash over the detention and subsequent release of several high-profile individuals under the State of Emergency (SoE) without any charges being laid. However, fellow analyst Dr Shane Mohammed says the episode may encourage the public to be more cautious before assuming the guilt of future detainees.
Their comments come after Star Sabga was released from house arrest on Thursday following the revocation of her Preventive Detention Order (PDO).
Her release follows the earlier discharge of businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve Hadeed, who were also detained under PDOs during the SoE.
None of the three has been charged with any offence.
Asked whether the Government now faces political consequences, James said, “The answer is clearly yes. There is a political risk that they have run.”
He said that as the SoE and the use of PDOs near their conclusion, the Government will have to answer questions about why individuals were detained for extended periods but ultimately released without charge.
“People are going to ask: Why are you locking people up if you are not able to lay charges against them?” he said.
James argued that the Government must publicly account for its handling of the matter and be prepared to answer questions from the media.
“What you really want is an open press conference where the Government is asked questions. Let’s see how they answer,” he said.
He added that the absence of charges would inevitably fuel criticism that the State acted on suspicion without having enough evidence to prosecute.
“The fact that you have not laid charges against them suggests that whatever information you have is insufficient to mount charges against these people,” James said.
“We can’t run a country on the basis of suspicion.”
Mohammed, however, offered a more measured assessment, noting that PDOs are preventative measures and do not necessarily lead to criminal charges.
He said the controversy has nonetheless prompted greater public scrutiny and could fundamentally change how citizens respond when people are detained under similar circumstances.
“I think the country has learned more about how to ask questions, how to be aware,” Mohammed said.
He noted that the Hadeed matter, in particular, attracted significant public attention, including from people who may not have previously paid close attention to the use of emergency powers.
Mohammed suggested that, in future, members of the public may be less inclined to assume someone is guilty simply because they have been detained by the State.
He added that the Government should also learn from the controversy by being “very, very mindful” of how, when and why it communicates information on such matters.
According to Mohammed, the episode presents an opportunity for the Government to develop more innovative legislative and national security frameworks, giving the State the tools needed to respond to credible threats while safeguarding citizens’ constitutional rights.
However, he cautioned against allowing the controversy surrounding the PDOs to overshadow the importance of preventative national security measures. He pointed to the 1990 attempted coup as a reminder of the consequences of failing to adequately detect and respond to threats.
“We have one main lesson that also taught us why we need to be very vigilant, which is 1990,” Mohammed said.
“For those who have not experienced the realities of 1990, and for those who have not researched those realities, 1990 provides a very real example of why our national security and protective services apparatus must be robust enough to detect, prevent and protect against threats.”
