The Court of Appeal Tuesday reserved its ruling to Friday on whether prominent businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve, will be released from prison while they continue their legal challenge to the preventive detention orders issued against them under the State of Emergency (SoE).
The Hadeeds and a 69-year-old relative, Star Sabga, were detained late last month as police officers executed search warrants at their homes and offices.
The Court heard submissions from the parties involved and Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, Mira Dean-Armorer and Joan Charles, said they would deliver a ruling no later than 8.00 am (local time) on Friday, hinting also that they could do so earlier if possible.
Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who is heading the legal team of the founding owner of Blue Waters Products Limited and his wife, argued that Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander had failed to place affidavit evidence before the court explaining why he concluded they posed a threat to public safety, except for stating it was based on ‘intelligence’.
The Hadeeds are alleged to have engaged in a conspiracy to murder Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General John Jeremie and other members of the government.
But Mendes said the State has provided no evidence to support the allegations.
‘The only information before the court is the detention order itself and the particulars that the minister provided,’ Mendes said, noting that in that there was intelligence received but which Alexander has not disclosed,
Mendes said that the minister could not rely on undisclosed intelligence without first asking the court to withhold it on recognised legal grounds. He also asked the court to release the couple on strict conditions, including house arrest, saying it would allow Hadeed to continue his medical treatment and reunite the couple with their children.
‘There are third parties who are suffering as well. The children are suffering,’ he said.
In the appeal, the Hadeeds are claiming that High Court Judge Frank Seepersad made numerous errors when he refused to order their interim release pending the outcome of their case alleging that they are being targeted by the government based on their ethnicity and an ongoing legal dispute over the termination of leases for State land.
But in his response, King’s Counsel James Eadie said that Alexander was not required to provide the details which could be prejudicial to national security. He argued that Alexander would be responsible if they were released and the plot they are accused of eventually materialises.
Eadie said that Justice Seepersad’s reasoning for refusing the interim relief was correct.