18 hours ago
5
Senior Reporter
Businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve, have secured an urgent hearing before the Court of Appeal next Tuesday, as they seek to overturn a decision by Justice Frank Seepersad refusing their release from detention over an alleged plot to assassinate Government officials.
The couple was granted the expedited hearing after their procedural appeal against Justice Seepersad’s ruling came up for case management before appellate judge Peter Rajkumar at the Hall of Justice in Port-of- Spain yesterday.
Justice Rajkumar also gave the parties the option of filing additional evidence and submissions ahead of the hearing.
The appeal date was set less than 24 hours after High Court Judge Vigel Paul rejected an application to expedite the couple’s substantive constitutional claim, in which they allege they are being targeted by the Government because of their ethnicity and an ongoing dispute over the termination of leases for State land.
The application before Justice Paul was largely based on claims that Hadeed’s health has deteriorated significantly while he and his wife remain detained under Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs).
The Hadeeds and relative Star Sabga, 69, were detained more than two weeks ago after police executed search warrants at their home and Trincity business.
According to the warrants, they were being investigated for conspiracy to commit murder based on intelligence gathered by a national security organisation that was not identified in the PDOs.
Justice Seepersad refused their application for interim release but granted them leave to pursue their substantive claim. While acknowledging the prison conditions the couple has endured, Justice Seepersad said any harm suffered could be addressed through an award of damages if they eventually succeeded in their legal challenge.
In their appeal, the couple’s attorneys raised more than a dozen grounds, arguing that Justice Seepersad made several errors in refusing interim relief.
Among their arguments is that the judge was wrong to conclude that damages would be an adequate remedy if they ultimately succeeded in their constitutional claim.
“The continuing deprivation of liberty is the paradigm of irreparable harm. Liberty taken cannot afterwards be restored. The breach, having occurred, cannot ever be undone,” the lawyers argued.
They also contended that Justice Seepersad incorrectly required the couple to prove their continued detention was unlawful, when the burden instead lay on the State and the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) to justify the legality of the detention.
The attorneys further argued that the judge failed to properly assess their allegations of discrimination.
“The learned judge erred in law, in his provisional assessment of the merits, by unduly deferring to the Minister, in circumstances where the appellants had adduced credible and largely unchallenged evidence that demonstrated that, prima facie, the arrests, detentions, and PDOs were procured for an improper purpose and in bad faith,” they stated.
They also claimed the judge failed to adequately consider evidence concerning the conditions under which the couple is being held at the Golden Grove Prison in Arouca.
In their substantive constitutional claim, which was reassigned to Justice Paul after Justice Seepersad ruled on interim relief, the Hadeeds challenge not only their detention but the legality of the Government’s extension of the State of Emergency (SoE) last month. They contend the extension was unconstitutional and was intended to target members of the Syrian-Lebanese community, a minority ethnic group, as well as Hadeed personally.
Their attorneys extensively cited statements made by Attorney General John Jeremie during the parliamentary debate on the SoE extension, in which he repeatedly referred to members of the community as “the one per cent” and accused them of financing the now Opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) and benefiting from State land. The lawyers suggested the Attorney General’s remarks were directed at Hadeed, particularly as the allegations emerged after he publicly criticised Government policy in March and after Cabinet sought to terminate leases held by his company in May. They also referenced a letter from Jeremie’s office indicating police were investigating the circumstances surrounding the granting of the leases.
The attorneys said the Hadeeds and Sabga were arrested based on intelligence purportedly gathered by the Strategic Services Agency through intercepted communications, one day after Hadeed threatened legal action over the terminated leases. Maintaining the detentions were unreasonable and tainted by bad faith, the attorneys said the TTPS could have employed less restrictive investigative measures if there was credible evidence of wrongdoing.
The Hadeeds are seeking a series of declarations regarding the legality of the SoE extension and their detentions. They also claim their constitutional rights were breached.
The Hadeeds are represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, Gilbert Peterson, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Faris Al-Rawi, SC, Chase Pegus and Carlon McLeod. The AG’s Office has retained British KCs Sir James Eadie and Robert Strang to represent the State alongside attorney Gerald Ramdeen.
English (US) ·