Attorney Criston J Williams says the legality of the state’s decision to transfer dozens of prisoners from the Maximum-Security Prison to Teteron Barracks of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (TTDF) under the 2025 State of Emergency (SoE) could become another major test of the constitutional limits on executive power.
The matter is scheduled for a virtual case management conference on September 28 and follows a ruling by High Court judge, Justice Westmin RA James, last Friday granting remand prisoner Earl Richards leave to pursue judicial review proceedings against the Commissioner of Prisons and the Attorney General over his transfer to the military facility and the conditions under which he was detained.
Williams is one of two attorneys representing Richards and argues that his client’s constitutional rights were infringed after he was moved from the Maximum Security Prison to Teteron Barracks before the facility had been lawfully designated as a prison.
He is also alleging that subsequent legislative measures could not retrospectively validate what was unlawful at the time.
The High Court challenge come almost a year after detainees were relocated to Teteron under emergency powers, a move that sparked widespread public debate over the treatment of prisoners and the extent of the State’s authority during the State of Emergency.
In their arguments before the court, the lawyers say they were subjected to extraordinary security measures while attempting to meet with their client. In one instance, Lewis said he was instructed to wear a grey nylon drawstring bag over his head while being transported through the military installation and, on another occasion, was told by armed, masked officers that attorneys would have to be searched and blindfolded before seeing their client.
Williams said the case reflects broader constitutional issues surrounding the exercise of emergency powers and the State’s reliance on national security.
Williams said that the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case involving prominent businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve, has fundamentally changed the legal question that arises whenever the Minister of Homeland Security exercises the extraordinary power to issue a Preventive Detention Order (PDOs).
Williams argue that while intelligence sources and operational methods may remain confidential, the State must still demonstrate a sufficient factual basis before depriving someone of their liberty.
“The phrase ‘national security’ has become the end of the conversation for many people,” Williams said, addingh “The Hadeed decision demonstrates that this is not the law.”
Last Friday, Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh and Justices Mark Mohammed and Ricky Rahim in an unanimous decision inn favour of the state, granting a stay ordering the immediate release of the Hadeeds pending a decision of the London-based Privy Council, the country’s highest and final court, where the matter is to be heard.
Williams further argued that information does not become intelligence simply because it is labelled as such and maintained that generalised concerns, broad conclusions and unexplained opinions cannot satisfy the statutory threshold for preventive detention.
Justice James similarly found that Richards had raised arguable grounds suitable for judicial review, rejecting the State’s contention that his complaints should instead be determined by the State of Emergency Review Tribunal.
Williams said he believes the Richards matter demonstrates that the constitutional principles established in Hadeed are already influencing new legal challenges.
He said legal practitioners across Trinidad and Tobago are examining preventive detention orders made during the SoE through the lens of the Hadeed ruling, with future cases likely to focus on whether the information presented to the Minister was sufficiently particularised and analytically robust to justify detention.
Williams said such challenges should not be viewed as weakening national security but as an essential safeguard under the rule of law.
“Public safety and constitutional liberty are not competing ideals; they are complementary obligations that must be carefully balanced whenever the State seeks to exercise the extraordinary power of preventive detention,” Williams said.