At least 25 people detained under Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) during the ongoing State of Emergency (SoE) are considering legal action against the State in a bid to secure compensation for their incarceration, according to attorney CJ Williams.
Speaking with Guardian Media yesterday, Williams said Quantum Legal is currently representing at least 25 former detainees, but he expects that number to rise as more individuals seek advice on their legal options.
“I would say approximately 25 minimum,” Williams said. “However, from our clients inside, there are a number of persons who wish to come and ask CJ what’s next.”
He said each case would be assessed on its individual merits before any decision is made on whether to pursue legal action.
“What I can say is that some persons have a clear-cut case where they ought to be entitled to some sort of compensation,” Williams said.
However, he stressed that detention under a PDO does not automatically entitle a person to damages.
“We must take it on a case-by-case basis,” he said.
According to Williams, a key consideration will be how Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander exercised his discretion in authorising each PDO.
“It all boils down to how a minister exercised his discretion on a case-by-case basis. It’s not like one shoe could fit all,” Williams said.
He pointed to the case of artiste Joseph “Medz Boss” Ollivierre, whose PDO was later revoked. Williams said Ollivierre allegedly remained in custody because of an administrative error within the prison system, a circumstance he believes could warrant legal scrutiny.
The potential lawsuits form part of a broader response by Quantum Legal to the fallout from the SoE, which ends on Thursday.
Any legal challenge, however, will not likely as clearcut as it seems for the former detainees.
Under the Emergency Powers Regulations, 2026, which govern the issuance of PDOs, the Government included a provision shielding the State from the type civil liability which followed the SoE in 2011.
The regulation states: “No person shall be liable to any suit or action in respect of any act done under lawful direction and authority pursuant to the provisions of these Regulations.”
However, the regulations also provide for the possibility of compensation from public funds, at the discretion of the President, where a person is found to have suffered loss or damage as a result of the exercise of certain emergency powers.
The provision states that the President may award compensation if satisfied that an individual has suffered loss or damage through the exercise of powers under Regulation 3, except subregulation (2)(j), and Regulation 4.
The wording, however, appears open to interpretation and raises questions about the distinction between pursuing a civil lawsuit against the State and seeking compensation through the mechanism established under the regulations.
The SoE was proclaimed on March 3, 2026, amid Government concerns over organised gang violence, rising crime and threats to members of the protective services and Government.
Parliament subsequently approved extensions of the emergency measures, with the current extension set to expire on Thursday.
Under the Emergency Powers Regulations, authorities were granted expanded powers, including the authority for the Minister of Homeland Security to issue Preventive Detention Orders to anyone deemed to be a threat to national and public safety.
Guardian Media is awaiting a response from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General John Jeremie, Defence Minister Wayne Sturge and Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander on the issue.
Contacted yesterday on the issue, former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj said he was uncertain whether the regulations governing the current State of Emergency (SoE) permit individuals to sue the State, but noted that he had successfully challenged the Government’s actions during the 2011 SoE.
Asked whether the same legal remedies available under the 2011 SoE would apply today, Maharaj said he could not say, as he was unsure whether the regulations were identical.
“I do not know whether the regulations under this emergency are the same as those regulations,” he said.
Maharaj recalled representing three individuals during the 2011 SoE, in a case that resulted in the Court of Appeal awarding damages in their favour. However, he said the matter remains unresolved, as he is challenging the amount of compensation awarded, while a separate challenge to the legality of the SoE is still pending before the Privy Council.
“Under those regulations, I claimed compensation and the court awarded damages. However, we are challenging the quantum of that compensation. The Court of Appeal awarded damages, but we believe the amount was inadequate and that issue remains before the courts,” he said.
Maharaj represented Earl Elie, Dominic Pitilal and Ashmeed Mohammed, who argued that the SoE proclamation, regulations and their arrests violated constitutional protections. They also complained of restrictions on access to legal representation during their detentions.
In 2017, the High Court found that some of the detainees’ constitutional rights were breached, particularly regarding access to legal counsel, although the court did not invalidate the entire SoE. The matter later went to the Court of Appeal, which awarded damages to the claimants but both the claimants and State challenged aspects of the ruling, leading to appeals to the Privy Council.
