The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) Monday said it is concerned about public commentary which has included personal attacks on members of the Court of Appeal following the ruling last weekend involving the prominent businessman, Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve, who remain in prison.
“While robust public discussion of judicial decisions is entirely legitimate in a democratic society, criticism should remain respectful and not descend into unfounded allegations that impugn the integrity or independence of the Judiciary,” LAT said in a statement.
Last Friday, the Court of Appeal upheld an urgent application filed by the state suspending an earlier ruling ordering the immediate release of the Hadeeds and placed under strict house arrest.
Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh and Justices Mark Mohammed and Ricky Rahim in an unanimous decision granted the stay pending a decision of the London-based Privy Council, the country’s highest and final court, where the matter is to be heard.
The Court of Appeal ruled that if the Hadeeds were released and the allegations of an ongoing conspiracy proved to be true, the potential harm to the public interest would outweigh the prejudice caused by their continued detention for a short period pending the Privy Council hearing.
It also ruled that the risk of the Hadeeds being outside of prison, outweighs the concerns over medical attention given to them in prison with the state now committing to allowing improved medical attention to the Hadeeds in prison.
The founding owner of Blue Waters Products Limited and his wife, have been detained since June 24 after police officers arrested them at their home. Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander signed preventative detention orders (PDOs) three days later authorising their continued detention on “intelligence” alleging they were involved in an ongoing conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General John Jeremie and other senior government officials.
No criminal charges have been laid against either of them. Their relative, Star Sabga, 70, who was also detained under a PDO, remains in prison custody since her detention was not challenged in court.
In its statement, LATT said it is important to recognise that the Court of Appeal’s recent decision was made in the context of an interlocutory application and that “such proceedings do not necessarily determine the ultimate legality of the detention or the constitutionality of the Emergency Powers regime.
“Those substantive questions remain capable of judicial determination in the proceedings before the Court,” the LATT said, noting that the Supreme Court “is charged with the weighty responsibility of resolving disputes between parties”.
It said those disputes sometimes involve “the liberty of the subject, and it is to the Supreme Court that we all look to ensure that justice is done”.
The LATT said that the very fact that the issues are before the court “demonstrates that the constitutional safeguards established by the Constitution remain operational during a State of Emergency”.
It said that questions concerning the legality of “detention and scope of emergency powers are matters which our courts are constitutionally entrusted to determine”.
In its three page statement, LATT said it has “every confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and in the judicial process established by the Constitution.
“The LATT urges its members to advise their clients (members of the public) that in exercising their right to comment on and/or criticise the decision, to do so respectfully, and to refrain from attacking the integrity of the Court or making statements which undermine public confidence in the administration of justice”.