Attorneys representing two men being held under Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) during Trinidad and Tobago’s State of Emergency (SoE) have written to Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander, questioning the legal basis for their clients’ continued detention and urging greater transparency over the intelligence said to justify the measures.
According to the Trinidad Guardian, attorneys led by Criston Williams contend that the continued detention of Rajaee Ali and Earl Richards raises constitutional concerns and point to what they describe as failures to comply with statutory reporting requirements governing the country’s intelligence agencies.
In a letter dated July 8, the lawyers asked Alexander to explain why annual reports required under the Security Service Agency Act (SSAA) and the Interception of Communications Act (ICA) had not been laid in Parliament.
“The continued failure to lay the annual reports required under the Security Service Agency Act (SSAA) and the Interception of Communications Act (ICA), notwithstanding that intelligence gathering and the use of covert powers appear to have formed a central part of the justification advanced for the declaration of the State of Emergency and the continued detention, the absence of those reports prevents meaningful scrutiny of the intelligence framework relied upon by the State and raises legitimate concerns as to whether the statutory safeguards intended by Parliament to regulate the exercise of such powers have been observed,” the attorneys wrote.
The lawyers also requested confirmation on whether the reports had been prepared and, if so, the reasons they had not been presented to Parliament.
They further called on the minister to explain the legal basis for the continued detention of the two men, noting that they remain before the courts and have not been convicted.
Ali and Richards have been on remand since 2015 in connection with the murder of Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal.
According to the attorneys, the men were transferred from the Maximum Security Prison at Golden Grove to Teteron Barracks after the State of Emergency was declared on July 18 last year and were subsequently detained under Preventive Detention Orders issued under the Emergency Powers Regulations.
The lawyers argued that the transfer represented a significant departure from the normal custodial arrangements for remand prisoners and have challenged both the legality of the transfers and the conditions under which the men are being held.
he attorneys also referred to public statements by government officials alleging that their clients were associated with what was described as a “radical Islamic criminal gang.”
“Those allegations remain allegations only and have not been determined by any court of competent jurisdiction,” the attorneys said.
The legal team also argued that the subsequent designation of Teteron Barracks and Staubles Bay as prisons, with retrospective effect from July 18, 2025, did not resolve what they contend were legal deficiencies surrounding the original transfers.
While stressing they were not challenging the substance of the intelligence relied upon by the authorities, the lawyers argued that the statutory oversight mechanisms intended to ensure accountability had not functioned as required.
“The intelligence said to have justified the declaration of the State of Emergency, the transfer of our clients to Teteron Barracks and their continued preventive detention has never been capable of scrutiny through the statutory oversight mechanisms established by Parliament,” they wrote.
“The deprivation of liberty under a PDO constitutes one of the most significant exercises of executive power known to our constitutional framework. In those circumstances, transparency, accountability and faithful compliance with statutory safeguards are not optional considerations; they are indispensable constitutional requirements which serve to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.”
In the letter, the attorneys called on Alexander to outline the steps being taken to comply with the reporting requirements under the two laws and to reconsider the continued necessity and proportionality of the detention orders.