……”But she remains in prison for 6 more hours pending an appeal”
By FRANCIS JOSEPH
A High Court Judge has ordered the immediate release of businesswoman Star Sabga. But she did not walk out of the Golden Grove State Prison, Arouca, on Monday afternoon.
The same judge granted a stay of her release to the State for six hours in the event they want to file an appeal. That stay runs out at 11.20 pm on Monday.
However Sabga’s release comes with a main condition – strict house arrest pending the hearing of her constitutional challenge against the Preventive Detention Order (PDO) issued against her.
Justice Vigel Paul ruled that Sabga should be released forthwith under a series of stringent conditions after finding there was a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief.
However, the order was stayed until 11.20 p.m. tonight after attorneys representing the State indicated they needed approximately six hours to seek an appeal the decision.
Sabga has been detained since July 25 after Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander signed a PDO against her. She is challenging the legality and constitutionality of that decision.
In delivering an oral ruling around 5.20 p.m, Justice Paul said the court had jurisdiction to grant interim relief in the constitutional proceedings.
He added, “I agree with attorneys for the applicant the court has the power to decide on interim relief.”
Addressing the State’s reliance on national security concerns, Justice Paul said: “The mere assertion of a threat to national security does not usurp the powers of the court.”
Justice Paul said he did not underestimate the alleged threat to the Prime Minister and members of the Government but stressed that the allegation had to be measured against the evidence before the court.
He noted that Sabga was a 69-year-old woman of good character and said there was an absence of evidence placing her in any conspiracy.
Referring to an audio recording relied on by the State, the judge said, “On the material placed before me, as far as the alleged conspiracy ends with that conversation.”
Justice Paul also observed that Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed, whom the State had previously identified as alleged co-conspirators, had since been released. They were released last Thursday after Minister of Homeland Security, Roger Alexander, revoked the PDOs.
The judge declared, “The court cannot see how the continued detention of this elderly applicant could be necessary for the disruption of the alleged conspiracy.”
THE SUBMISSIONS
Sabga’s lawyer Rishi Dass SC claimed that an intercepted telephone conversation between Sabga and Genevieve Hadeed on June 11 had been given a twisted or farcical interpretation by law enforcement officials.
He noted that conversation took place after Attorney General John Jeremie, SC, made comments in relation to the “one per cent” while piloting a motion in Parliament to extend the ongoing State of Emergency by three months.
“It came a day after the AG’s attack on a minority ethnic group in this country. They were venting in a private conversation as anyone may do after being subject to such an attack,” Dass said.
Dass said: “There must be evidence of conspiring not just two women venting among themselves. Worse is said on political haustings everyday. It is practically a thought crime.”
He claimed that while Roger Alexander initially claimed that Sabga and the Hadeed were part of a conspiracy to assassinate key government officials when he issued Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) against them, he subsequently claimed that Sabga’s continued detention was necessary as her statements had the potential to incite violence against public officials.
Dass claimed that the statements linked to Sabga were initially ascribed to the Hadeeds before Alexander disclosed a transcript of the intercepted communication, last week. “It casts a dark shadow on the intelligence services of T&T if they cannot get that right.”
Dass also questioned the need for Sabga’s detention while the probe continues as he noted that the police were still in the process of analysing the electronic devices of the Hadeeds, who were released from PDOs last week.
“No electronic devices were taken from Miss Star Sabga,” her attorney added.
In Response, the State’s attorney Gerald Ramdeen called on Justice Paul to deny the request.
He suggested that Sabga could not seek interim release after filing a constitutional motion alleging a breach of her rights and should have sought to judicial review Alexander’s decision to disregard the decision of the SoE Review Tribunal to recommend her release.
He noted that a panel of the Court of Appeal ordered the Hadeeds’ conditional release before the SoE Review Tribunal recommended that their and Sabga’s detentions should be lifted.
Ramdeen said, “The court is being asked to grant interim relief in a constitutional motion, while the minister’s decision under the constitution remains intact. Relief under the constitution is discretionary.”
Ramdeen also called on Justice Paul to decline to second guess the risk assessment done by Alexander, the police, and the Strategic Services Agency (SSA).
