Alexander mum on SoE review tribunal recommendations

Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander speaks with the media in Port of Spain. - File photo

SIX reports from the State of Emergency Review Tribunal have been submitted to Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander. Still, the minister has yet to say if any detainee has been informed of the tribunal’s findings.

The tribunal said its reports were delivered to the minister on September 12, 19, and 28, and October 6, 9, and 22. Questions were sent to Alexander on November 10 and 11, seeking confirmation on whether the reports had been forwarded to the detainees and whether he intended to act on the tribunal’s recommendations concerning detainee, prisons supervisor Garth Guada.

There has been no response from the minister, the ministry’s permanent secretary or its corporate communications unit, all of whom were e-mailed questions regarding whether detainees, including Guada, have received copies of the tribunal’s opinions or whether the minister intends to act on the tribunal’s advice.

Guada’s attorneys also did not respond to questions on November 10. Attorney Darren Mitchell, who represents at least six detainees, said his clients have not received anything from the minister. However, the tribunal’s secretary informed him that reports had been sent to the minister for three of his clients.

According to the regulations, gazetted on July 18, when the President declared the SoE, the tribunal submits its opinion to the minister on whether there is sufficient cause for detention. It may also include recommendations about whether it is necessary or advisable to continue detention.

The detainee must be given a copy of that specific part of the report and is entitled to know the tribunal’s conclusion about their detention. The rest of the report remains confidential and is not to be shared with anyone except the minister, who may choose to disclose it, but only if he authorises it.

The regulations also stipulate that the minister may, at his discretion, revoke a detention order if the tribunal finds insufficient cause for detention. The discretion is entirely the minister’s since the tribunal’s report is not binding, and its view does not automatically cancel the detention. The decision still rests with the minister, who may choose to act on the recommendation and release the detainee, or not. It does not compel the minister to revoke the order, as the decision to do so still rests with the minister.

A 2024 Court of Appeal ruling in Earl Elie and others, delivered by Justices Allan Mendonca, Prakash Moosai, and James Aboud, provided guidance for detentions under SoEs, noting that while detainees under emergency powers may be denied bail or habeas corpus, they are entitled to know the grounds of their detention and have their cases reviewed by a tribunal. The court further held that a minister’s decision not to act on the tribunal’s recommendation was subject to judicial review.

Elie and two others, detained during the 2011 state of emergency, were released without charge when it ended that December. The matter is now before the Privy Council.

On November 7, the tribunal, in a release, pushed back against public criticisms over its handling of preventative detention order reviews. The tribunal was responding to comments by attorneys representing detainees held under the SoE that their clients’ detention had been delayed or withheld.

The tribunal stressed that under paragraph 8(1) of the Schedule to the Emergency Powers Regulations 2025, its role is limited to reviewing detention when requested and preparing a report for the Minister of Homeland Security, not for attorneys or detainees.

The law requires the tribunal’s recommendations and opinion on whether detention should continue to be submitted only to the minister, who must then provide the relevant portion of the report to the detainee.

“It is then for the minister to cause a copy of that part of the report to be delivered to the detainee,” the statement explained.

As it provided the dates on which it forwarded reports to the minister, the tribunal assured,

“The public is therefore assured that the tribunal has performed its functions in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of the said schedule,” it said, adding that it will continue to review detention cases when applications are properly brought before it.

Attorneys have criticised Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro’s recent support for continued detention under the SoE, saying police are using PDOs as a substitute for proper investigation.

“The police have given up on crime detection investigations and convictions to embrace successful policing. They have found a back door which requires no effort,” Mitchell said on November 11.

On October 31, the government extended the SoE for a second three-month period in Parliament.

So far, some 98 of 156 PDOs have been executed by the police.