Senior Reporter
Businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve have lost their initial bid for their lawsuit, alleging that they are being targeted by the Government based on their ethnicity and an ongoing legal dispute over the termination of leases for State land, to be expedited.
Delivering a decision yesterday, High Court Judge Vigel Paul dismissed the couple’s application, which was largely based on Hadeed’s health reportedly deteriorating while the couple remain detained in prison for an alleged plot to assassinate Government officials.
In determining the application for a shortening of the timelines for a determination of the couple’s constitutional challenge, Justice Paul upheld objections from attorney Gerald Ramdeen over claims made by Hadeed’s local doctor, Jacqueline Pereira-Sabga.
Justice Paul agreed with Ramdeen that the couple’s lawyers, led by Douglas Mendes, SC, failed to apply to deem Pereira-Sabga an expert witness capable of providing evidence on Hadeed’s numerous medical conditions, his required treatment and the potential effect of his continued detention on his health.
Justice Paul said: “Nothing prevented them from making a composite application. Such would have placed both matters before the court and avoid delay.”
He also considered the fact that High Court Judge Frank Seepersad decided against ordering the couple’s release pending the determination of their substantive case.
In making his decision last week, Justice Seepersad agreed to transfer the case, which was subsequently assigned to Justice Paul.
Justice Paul yesterday noted that Justice Seepersad’s ruling is being appealed.
“It would not be appropriate for this court to form a view over something now before the Court of Appeal,” Justice Paul said.
“There must be a sufficient basis for exceptional treatment. I am not satisfied that the case for urgent directions has been made out,” he added.
Dressed in a T-shirt, a gaunt-looking Hadeed sat silently during the over five-hour hearing, which he participated in via video conferencing from the Golden Grove State Prison in Arouca.
After the decision was delivered, Mendes called upon Justice Paul to adjourn the issue until today to allow him an opportunity to make the expert evidence application.
“Justice is not done by taking these technical points. You must maintain the access to this court so an application that could potentially save his life could be made,” Mendes said.
Justice Paul indicated that Mendes was free to file the application but noted his decision on the urgent hearing of the case was based on several other factors.
Mendes then accused Ramdeen of seeking to delay the determination of the case to prevent the possibility of his clients being released before the ongoing State of Emergency ends in September.
“The State is using the rules against my clients to keep them in detention. You (Justice Paul) have to confront it. He (Ramdeen) is resisting because he is running down the clock,” Mendes said.
Ramdeen repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, suggesting he was being blamed for providing competent representation to Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro and the Office of the Attorney General.
“Mr Dominic Hadeed finds himself in the position he finds himself in is solely because of his lawyers,” Ramdeen said.
However, Ramdeen agreed to the case management conference being set for next Friday. He also promised to file applications for some of the claims made by the couple in their case to be struck out.
The Hadeeds and relative Star Sabga, 69, were detained over two weeks ago after police officers executed search warrants at their homes and business in Tacarigua.
The warrants indicated they were being investigated for conspiracy to commit murder.
Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) subsequently issued by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander stated they were being detained over an alleged plot to murder Government officials and MPs. The probe allegedly stemmed from intelligence gathered by a national security organisation that was not identified in the PDOs.
Justice Seepersad refused their interim release but granted them leave to pursue a substantive case.
Although he acknowledged the conditions the couple have had to and continues to endure in prison, Justice Seepersad said they could be compensated through damages if they are eventually successful in their legal challenge.
“While the court appreciates the distress from detention, it does hold the view that there may be greater harm if they are released and the intelligence upon which the police and minister acted proves to be true,” Justice Seepersad said.
The couple have filed an appeal claiming that Justice Seepersad made over a dozen errors in his decision.
In the substantive case, the couple’s lawyers not only challenged their detentions based on PDOs under the Emergency Powers Regulations (EPR) for the SoE.
They also claimed the move by the current Kamla Persad-Bissessar-led Government 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 during 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 Dominic 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 Blue Waters 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” purportedly gathered by the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) through intercepted communications, a day after Hadeed threatened legal action over the terminated leases.
Stating that their detentions were unreasonable and tainted by bad faith, their lawyers pointed out that the T&T Police Service (TTPS) could have used less draconian methods to investigate them if there was any credible evidence of wrongdoing, which they firmly denied.
“There is no and can be no evidence of any plot by the claimants to murder any person because there was no such plot. There is no basis for concluding that there was any evidence of any threat, real or perceived, against any public official,” they said.
Through the lawsuit, the Hadeeds are seeking a series of declarations, including on the legality of the SoE extension and their detentions under PDOs. They are also claiming that over a dozen of their constitutional rights were breached by the alleged actions of the TTPS and the Government and are seeking financial compensation.
The Hadeeds are also being represented by Gilbert Peterson, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Faris Al-Rawi, SC, Chase Pegus and Carlon Mc Leod.
The AG’s Office has retained British King’s Counsels Sir James Eadie and Robert Strang to represent the State alongside attorney Ramdeen and Dayadai Harripaul.
