Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Lawyers representing businessman Dominic Hadeed, his wife Genevieve and her aunt Star Sabga are still seeking the disclosure of an unedited copy of an intercepted telephone call that led to them being held on Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) during the recently completed State of Emergency (SoE).
The issue arose as the trio’s lawsuits over their detentions came up for case management before Justice Vigel Paul yesterday afternoon.
The trio’s lawyer, Douglas Mendes, SC, claimed that he and his colleagues have only previously received extracts of the recording from State attorneys.
“Unless you explain why it should not be disclosed, we are entitled to it,” Mendes said.
“It is a crucial piece of evidence. The entire case turns on this recording,” he added.
Responding to the submissions on behalf of the State, attorney Gerald Ramdeen called on Mendes to wait until his client files its evidence in the cases early next month as the full recording may be included.
Justice Paul agreed, as he said he would consider submissions on the issue if the recording is not included in the State’s evidence.
During the hearing, Ramdeen objected to an application from the trio for Hadeed and Sabga’s doctors to be deemed experts and provide evidence over their current medical condition after they were released from custody.
Mendes stated that the doctors’ previous evidence related to the duo’s medical conditions while being detained in prison.
Justice Paul gave directions for the filing of submissions and promised to rule on the issue on December 18.
The trio was detained under PDOs in late June based on purported intelligence gathered by the Strategic Services Agency (SSA).
The relatives were accused of conspiring together to allegedly assassinate key government officials.
The Hadeeds’ bid for interim release was initially blocked by Justice Frank Seepersad before being upheld by a panel of the Court of Appeal, which took issue with the justification put forward by Alexander for their detention on the PDOs.
Another Court of Appeal panel led by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh stayed their colleagues’ findings pending the determination of a final appeal before the United Kingdom-based Privy Council.
The SoE Review Tribunal then recommended the trio’s release from detention.
The PDOs against the Hadeeds were eventually dropped after the Privy Council indicated that it could only hear the State’s appeal later this month. The stay was mainly based on the appeal being heard by the country’s highest appellate court within two weeks.
In late July, Justice Paul agreed to place Sabga on the house arrest conditions that were set by the initial Appeal Court panel for the Hadeeds.
The T&T Police Service (TTPS) and the AG’s Office appealed the ruling but later discontinued the challenge.
The PDO against Sabga was eventually lifted shortly before the SoE ended last month.
The relatives are currently pursuing a substantive lawsuit challenging their detention and alleging that they are being targeted by the Government based on their ethnicity, and a separate legal challenge from the Hadeeds over a move to terminate their leases for State land.
They are claiming that their arrests came after Attorney General John Jeremie, SC, made veiled threats directed at them while addressing a Parliamentary debate on extending the SoE.
They have also raised issues with the grounds used for their detention, as statements allegedly made by Sabga in an intercepted conversation with Genevieve were wrongly attributed to Hadeed in his PDO.
The Hadeeds are also represented by Gilbert Peterson, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Faris Al-Rawi, SC, Chase Pegus, Dharmendra Punwasee, Jerome Rajcoomar and Carlon Mc Leod.
The Attorney General’s Office, Ministry of Homeland Security and the TTPS are also being represented by Dayadai Harripaul and ASP Ramdath Phillip.
