Local News

Alexander says SoE tribunal breached his right to be heard

23 July 2026
This content originally appeared on Trinidad Guardian.
Promote your business with NAN

Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Roger Alexan­der has asked the State of Emer­gency (SoE) Re­view Tri­bunal to with­draw its pre­lim­i­nary rec­om­men­da­tions in re­la­tion to the con­tin­ued de­ten­tion of busi­ness­man Do­minic Hadeed, his wife Genevieve and their rel­a­tive Star Sab­ga over its fail­ure to so­lic­it his views in re­la­tion to the le­gal pro­ceed­ings be­fore it. 

Lawyers rep­re­sent­ing Alexan­der, led by Se­nior Coun­sel Anand Ram­lo­gan of Free­dom Law Cham­bers, made the re­quest on Mon­day af­ter the tri­bunal re­port­ed­ly found that the trio’s con­tin­ued de­ten­tion was not nec­es­sary or ex­pe­di­ent in the pub­lic in­ter­est the pre­vi­ous day. 

In a let­ter sent to the tri­bunal’s chair­man David Alexan­der (no re­la­tion), at­tor­ney Jared Ja­groo not­ed that his client was not no­ti­fied and giv­en an op­por­tu­ni­ty to make sub­mis­sions when the tri­bunal heard the trio’s chal­lenges on an ex-parte ba­sis, last week. 

“It is clear from the pre­ced­ing that the con­duct of the pro­ceed­ings be­fore the Re­view Tri­bunal in the case of each of the de­tainees was con­duct­ed in a man­ner that was pro­ce­du­ral­ly un­fair to the Min­is­ter,” Ja­groo said. 

“This de­prived the Min­is­ter of the op­por­tu­ni­ty to an­swer the case ad­vanced by the de­tainees and has rea­sons why the case of the de­tainees should be re­ject­ed,” he added. 

Ja­groo claimed that Alexan­der’s right to be heard was breached and the ac­tion breached the rules of pro­ce­dur­al fair­ness. 

“The tri­bunal then pro­ceed­ed to de­liv­er a ‘re­port’ the to­tal­i­ty of which amount­ed to an un­sup­port­ed rec­om­men­da­tion with no rea­sons in sup­port,” he said. 

Ja­groo called on the tri­bunal to re­call its rec­om­men­da­tions and re­con­vene the hear­ing to re­view the trio’s de­ten­tions af­ter con­sid­er­ing Alexan­der’s views. 

“Hav­ing re­gard to the im­por­tance of far-reach­ing con­se­quences of any rec­om­men­da­tion that may be made by the tri­bunal and to pro­tect and pre­serve the con­fi­dence in the tri­bunal, we ex­pect that this mat­ter and the re­quest here­in will be treat­ed with the ut­most ur­gency,” Ja­groo said. 

Alexan­der is al­so be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Lester Chari­ah and Lemuel Mur­phy. 

Guardian Me­dia was un­able to con­firm if the tri­bunal even­tu­al­ly ac­ced­ed to Alexan­der’s re­quest with­in the dead­line set by his lawyers. 

Un­der the Emer­gency Pow­ers Reg­u­la­tions (EPR) for the SoE, the three-mem­ber pan­el—David Alexan­der, Ron­nie Per­sad and Ar­den Williams—is em­pow­ered to re­view Pre­ven­tive De­ten­tion Or­ders (PDOs) is­sued by Alexan­der to pro­tect na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty and pre­serve pub­lic or­der. 

How­ev­er, Alexan­der is not re­quired to ac­cept the rec­om­men­da­tions of the tri­bunal and can re­ject such while giv­ing rea­sons for do­ing so. 

The tri­bunal had rec­om­mend­ed that Do­minic Hadeed be re­leased af­ter find­ing that his con­tin­ued de­ten­tion was not nec­es­sary or ex­pe­di­ent in the pub­lic in­ter­est.

Guardian Me­dia has since con­firmed that sim­i­lar ap­pli­ca­tions were filed by Genevieve Hadeed and Star Sab­ga. While the tri­bunal has not dis­closed its rec­om­men­da­tions in their cas­es, le­gal sources said both women were al­so rec­om­mend­ed for re­lease. Calls to the min­is­ter and the tri­bunal for com­ment went unan­swered.

The re­quest by Alexan­der for the SoE Tri­bunal to re­vis­it its rec­om­men­da­tion that Do­minic Hadeed be re­leased is not new.

At­tor­ney Keron Ramkhal­wan, who rep­re­sents in­mate Lloyd Sealey, is cur­rent­ly chal­leng­ing a sim­i­lar de­ci­sion by Alexan­der in April, when the min­is­ter re­ject­ed the tri­bunal’s rec­om­men­da­tion that Sealey be freed.

In Sealey’s case, the tri­bunal al­so found there was in­suf­fi­cient cause for his con­tin­ued de­ten­tion. How­ev­er, in a May 20 re­sponse, Alexan­der re­ject­ed the rec­om­men­da­tion and gave four rea­sons for keep­ing Sealey in cus­tody.

As in the Hadeed mat­ter, Alexan­der said, “I was not af­ford­ed an op­por­tu­ni­ty to be present or make rep­re­sen­ta­tions at the re­view hear­ing.”

He added, “The ab­sence of rea­sons and fail­ure to al­low my­self an op­por­tu­ni­ty to be heard sub­stan­tial­ly weak­ens the per­sua­sive val­ue of the tri­bunal’s re­port and does not oblige me to de­part from the de­tailed in­tel­li­gence and in­ves­tiga­tive as­sess­ments of the Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice.”

Alexan­der said, “I have de­ter­mined that the said rec­om­men­da­tion can­not be ac­cept­ed at this time and the de­ten­tion shall ac­cord­ing­ly con­tin­ue un­der the au­thor­i­ty of the ex­ist­ing De­ten­tion Or­der.”

The cur­rent SoE ex­pires on Sep­tem­ber 17.

Fol­low­ing Alexan­der’s de­ci­sion, Ramkhal­wan was grant­ed leave to seek Ju­di­cial Re­view of the de­ci­sion to is­sue a Pre­ven­tive De­ten­tion Or­der (PDO) au­tho­ris­ing Sealey’s de­ten­tion on March 24, and the min­is­ter’s re­jec­tion of the tri­bunal’s May 20 rec­om­men­da­tion.

Jus­tice Christo­pher Sieuc­hand deemed the mat­ter ur­gent and or­dered Alexan­der to re­spond by 4 pm on Ju­ly 29. A vir­tu­al case man­age­ment con­fer­ence is set for Ju­ly 31 at 3 pm.

Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) chair­man and Op­po­si­tion Chief Whip Mar­vin Gon­za­les crit­i­cised Alexan­der’s de­ci­sion in a Face­book post yes­ter­day.

“The State of Emer­gency Tri­bunal has rec­om­mend­ed that Do­minic Hadeed be re­leased from cus­tody, find­ing that his con­tin­ued de­ten­tion was not nec­es­sary or ex­pe­di­ent in the pub­lic in­ter­est. Rather than act on that rec­om­men­da­tion, the Min­is­ter of Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty has in­stead asked the tri­bunal to re­open the process de­lay­ing, yet again, what should have been a straight­for­ward mat­ter of jus­tice.”

Gon­za­les re­peat­ed his call for “an im­me­di­ate in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to the State’s use of Pre­ven­ta­tive De­ten­tion Or­ders.”

He called on the Law As­so­ci­a­tion, so­cial groups, re­li­gious or­gan­i­sa­tions and cit­i­zens to speak out.