Detained businessman Danny Guerra released

RELEASED: Businessman Danny Guerra who was detained on November 20, under a Preventive Detention Order, was released on Friday. - Photo by Lincoln Holder

AFTER being detained for almost six weeks, on state of emergency (SoE) detention order, businessman Danny Guerra was released by the authorities on January 2.

He was released from the Eastern Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre in Santa Rosa, east Trinidad at about 6.30 pm. His wife was there to receive him. Newsday also understands the preventative detention order was also revoked.

His release came hours after his attorneys escalated their legal challenge to his preventive detention, issuing a pre-action protocol letter to Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander and threatening immediate High Court proceedings unless the detention order was revoked or extensive disclosure was provided by 4 pm on January 2.

The move follows sharp criticism of the SoE Review Tribunal, which Guerra’s attorneys accused of failing to act with the urgency required to protect his constitutional right to liberty during a state of emergency.

Guerra was detained since November 20, under a Preventive Detention Order which was signed by the Minister of Homeland Security on November 19, pursuant to the Emergency Powers Regulations 2025.

In the pre-action letter dated January 2, attorney Nerisa Bala said that if he was not released, Guerra intended to challenge the legality of the detention order itself, the minister’s alleged failure to keep the detention under regular review, and what she described as the surrender of the minister’s independent discretion to the TTPS.

Bala contended that at the time the detention order was issued, the minister had no evidence capable of satisfying the strict statutory pre-conditions under Regulation 2 of the Schedule to the Emergency Powers Regulations.

She argued that Guerra is not a gang leader, is not involved in arms trafficking or money laundering, has no access to high-powered firearms, and was not involved in any plot to assassinate a government minister or escalate gang violence.

The letter asserts that, in the absence of such evidence, the detention order is unlawful and susceptible to judicial review on grounds including illegality, unreasonableness, absence of evidence, and improper exercise of discretion.

Bala argued that even if the detention was initially lawful, the minister has an independent public law duty to continuously review whether it remains justified. She said that duty arises from the extraordinary nature of executive detention, which is not subject to automatic judicial supervision, and from long-standing common-law principles protecting personal liberty .

According to the letter, no effective review of Guerra’s detention occurred since his arrest, despite the fact that no criminal charges have been laid against him more than six weeks later. Bala said this failure rendered the continued detention unlawful and constitutionally disproportionate.

Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander. -

“The proposed claimant continues to be detained at the discretion of the proposed respondent.

“Despite having invoked the provision for the review of his detention by the Tribunal, that Tribunal has failed to discharge its powers in a due and lawful manner resulting in nullifying any relief that it can provide to the proposed claimant in the discharge of its constitutional mandate.

“This is a matter that the proposed respondent must consider to be material to the exercise of his discretion to continue the detention of the proposed claimant.

“Having regard to the preceding the proposed claimant hereby formally requests that the proposed respondent revoke the Preventative Detention Order that was issued on November 19, as this is the only lawful means by which the illegality that has been suffered can be cured forthwith.

“Failing this, the proposed claimant calls upon the proposed respondent to forthwith provide the requested materials by 4 pm January 2.

“Should the proposed respondent not adopt either of these courses of action the proposed claimant will immediately seek relief from the High Court.”

Criticism of Review Tribunal

Guerra invoked Regulation 5 of the Schedule to the Emergency Powers Regulations on November 27, seeking a review by the State of Emergency Review Tribunal. Bala alleged that the tribunal’s handling of the matter had nullified any meaningful relief it was constitutionally designed to provide.

In a separate letter to the tribunal’s secretary dated January 1 and copied to the Chief Justice, Bala accused the body of systemic delay, procedural unfairness and a failure to act as the “guardian of the right to liberty in times of emergency.”

She said the review hearing was held nearly three weeks after the application was filed, defence submissions were not circulated in advance, and the minister was granted additional time to file submissions despite alleged non-compliance with statutory deadlines.

As of January 1, she said, nine days had passed since final submissions were filed without a ruling.

Bala warned that if the tribunal failed to deliver a decision by 4 pm on January 2, Guerra would seek emergency relief from the High Court. She also called on tribunal members to resign.

Minister responds

In a swift response, the Minister of Homeland Security, through attorney Jared Jagroo of Freedom Law Chambers, led by senior counsel Anand Ramlogan, rejected all allegations.

Jagroo said the detention arose during a lawfully proclaimed SoE under section 8 of the Constitution and is governed exclusively by the Emergency Powers Regulations 2025. He said the minister was satisfied that preventive detention was necessary to prevent Guerra from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety.

The minister’s attorneys said information setting out the grounds and particulars of detention was submitted to the Review Tribunal on December 5, with hearings and written submissions concluding on December 24.

They maintained that the minister fully complied with Regulation 6 of the Schedule and denied any breach of statutory duty, procedural unfairness or failure to review.

Jagroo also rejected demands for disclosure of intelligence material and legal advice, describing them as legally unsustainable and barred by public interest considerations and legal professional privilege.

He said any court action would be premature while the Review Tribunal remains seized of the matter and warned that any proceedings would be robustly opposed.

“Your client has already invoked the statutory review mechanism, and the Review Tribunal is actively seized of the matter. In those circumstances any proposed judicial proceedings are plainly premature.

“The statutory process must be allowed to run its course and there is no basis for parallel litigation seeking to pre-empt, undermine, or collateralise the Tribunal’s review.”

Jagroo added, “The minister rejects any suggestion that he or the Tribunal has failed to act lawfully or expeditiously, and further rejects the contention that executive review obligations operate independently of, or in substitution for, the statutory review framework prescribed by Parliament.

“The allegation that the minister has fettered his discretion or surrendered it to the TTPS is entirely denied. “The Regulations expressly contemplate reliance on confidential intelligence and information provided by law-enforcement agencies.

“The minister has exercised his independent statutory judgment, as required by paragraph 2 of the Schedule, and has not acted under dictation or abdicated his constitutional responsibility.

“The minister, therefore, respectfully declines your requests and will robustly oppose any proceedings commenced in disregard of the statutory framework.”

The SoE was declared on July 18, extended for a further three-months in October, and ends on January 31.