Local News

Analysts: SoE releases could bring political backlash, make public cautious

11 September 2026
This content originally appeared on Trinidad Guardian.
Promote your business with NAN

Akash Sama­roo

Lead Ed­i­tor-Pol­i­tics

akash.sama­[email protected]

Po­lit­i­cal an­a­lyst Dr Win­ford James be­lieves the Gov­ern­ment could face po­lit­i­cal back­lash over the de­ten­tion and sub­se­quent re­lease of sev­er­al high-pro­file in­di­vid­u­als un­der the State of Emer­gency (SoE) with­out any charges be­ing laid. How­ev­er, fel­low an­a­lyst Dr Shane Mo­hammed says the episode may en­cour­age the pub­lic to be more cau­tious be­fore as­sum­ing the guilt of fu­ture de­tainees.

Their com­ments come af­ter Star Sab­ga was re­leased from house ar­rest on Thurs­day fol­low­ing the re­vo­ca­tion of her Pre­ven­tive De­ten­tion Or­der (PDO).

Her re­lease fol­lows the ear­li­er dis­charge of busi­ness­man Do­minic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve Hadeed, who were al­so de­tained un­der PDOs dur­ing the SoE.

None of the three has been charged with any of­fence.

Asked whether the Gov­ern­ment now faces po­lit­i­cal con­se­quences, James said, "The an­swer is clear­ly yes. There is a po­lit­i­cal risk that they have run."

He said that as the SoE and the use of PDOs near their con­clu­sion, the Gov­ern­ment will have to an­swer ques­tions about why in­di­vid­u­als were de­tained for ex­tend­ed pe­ri­ods but ul­ti­mate­ly re­leased with­out charge.

"Peo­ple are go­ing to ask: Why are you lock­ing peo­ple up if you are not able to lay charges against them?" he said.

James ar­gued that the Gov­ern­ment must pub­licly ac­count for its han­dling of the mat­ter and be pre­pared to an­swer ques­tions from the me­dia.

"What you re­al­ly want is an open press con­fer­ence where the Gov­ern­ment is asked ques­tions. Let's see how they an­swer," he said.

He added that the ab­sence of charges would in­evitably fu­el crit­i­cism that the State act­ed on sus­pi­cion with­out hav­ing enough ev­i­dence to pros­e­cute.

"The fact that you have not laid charges against them sug­gests that what­ev­er in­for­ma­tion you have is in­suf­fi­cient to mount charges against these peo­ple," James said.

"We can't run a coun­try on the ba­sis of sus­pi­cion."

Mo­hammed, how­ev­er, of­fered a more mea­sured as­sess­ment, not­ing that PDOs are pre­ven­ta­tive mea­sures and do not nec­es­sar­i­ly lead to crim­i­nal charges.

He said the con­tro­ver­sy has nonethe­less prompt­ed greater pub­lic scruti­ny and could fun­da­men­tal­ly change how cit­i­zens re­spond when peo­ple are de­tained un­der sim­i­lar cir­cum­stances.

"I think the coun­try has learned more about how to ask ques­tions, how to be aware," Mo­hammed said.

He not­ed that the Hadeed mat­ter, in par­tic­u­lar, at­tract­ed sig­nif­i­cant pub­lic at­ten­tion, in­clud­ing from peo­ple who may not have pre­vi­ous­ly paid close at­ten­tion to the use of emer­gency pow­ers.

Mo­hammed sug­gest­ed that, in fu­ture, mem­bers of the pub­lic may be less in­clined to as­sume some­one is guilty sim­ply be­cause they have been de­tained by the State.

He added that the Gov­ern­ment should al­so learn from the con­tro­ver­sy by be­ing "very, very mind­ful" of how, when and why it com­mu­ni­cates in­for­ma­tion on such mat­ters.

Ac­cord­ing to Mo­hammed, the episode presents an op­por­tu­ni­ty for the Gov­ern­ment to de­vel­op more in­no­v­a­tive leg­isla­tive and na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty frame­works, giv­ing the State the tools need­ed to re­spond to cred­i­ble threats while safe­guard­ing cit­i­zens' con­sti­tu­tion­al rights.

How­ev­er, he cau­tioned against al­low­ing the con­tro­ver­sy sur­round­ing the PDOs to over­shad­ow the im­por­tance of pre­ven­ta­tive na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty mea­sures. He point­ed to the 1990 at­tempt­ed coup as a re­minder of the con­se­quences of fail­ing to ad­e­quate­ly de­tect and re­spond to threats.

"We have one main les­son that al­so taught us why we need to be very vig­i­lant, which is 1990," Mo­hammed said.

"For those who have not ex­pe­ri­enced the re­al­i­ties of 1990, and for those who have not re­searched those re­al­i­ties, 1990 pro­vides a very re­al ex­am­ple of why our na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty and pro­tec­tive ser­vices ap­pa­ra­tus must be ro­bust enough to de­tect, pre­vent and pro­tect against threats."