PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad — Hadeeds businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve are accusing the Trinidad and Tobago Government of targeting them over their ethnicity and a land lease dispute, according to a judicial review and constitutional motion filed by their legal team. The filing challenges the couple’s continued detention under Preventive Detention Orders issued during the country’s ongoing State of Emergency.
The case was lodged after Justice Frank Seepersad granted the couple leave to proceed earlier this week. Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes is leading the legal team, which argues that the detentions and the broader emergency order were driven by factors unrelated to any credible security threat.
Land Lease Dispute at Center of Claims
The lawyers point to a Cabinet decision in May to terminate State land leases held by Hadeed’s company, Blue Waters, as a turning point in the Government’s posture toward their client. They say the move followed public criticism Hadeed made of Government policy in March, and that a subsequent letter from the Attorney General’s office referenced a police inquiry into how the leases were granted.
According to the filing, that letter warned Hadeed that a detention order could follow if any threat were made against the Prime Minister or the Attorney General. The lawyers argue this sequence shows the detention was not a response to new intelligence but the execution of an earlier warning tied directly to the land dispute.
AG’s Parliament Remarks Cited as Evidence
Central to the constitutional challenge are statements Attorney General John Jeremie made during last month’s parliamentary debate on extending the State of Emergency. The lawyers say Jeremie repeatedly referred to members of the Syrian and Lebanese community as “the one per cent,” describing them as financiers of the Opposition People’s National Movement and accusing them of appropriating State land.
The legal team contends these remarks were directed at Hadeed specifically, and that the emergency extension itself was shaped to target a minority ethnic group rather than a genuine security concern. They argue the couple’s arrest, along with that of a 67-year-old relative, Star Sabga, came a day after Hadeed threatened legal action over the terminated leases, and was based on intelligence the Strategic Services Agency gathered through intercepted communications.
The filing states that no past allegation of criminal conduct existed against either Hadeed, and that their financial standing was used as a substitute for evidence in justifying the detention orders. It adds that Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander failed to weigh relevant factors before signing the orders, including the couple’s clean records, their three young children, and their medical conditions.
TTPS Records Called Into Question
The lawyers also allege irregularities in Trinidad and Tobago Police Service station diary entries connected to the arrests, claiming the couple were not properly informed of the grounds for their detention at the time. The filing goes further, alleging that records were altered or misleading evidence was presented to the High Court to justify holding the couple.
The legal team maintains there is no evidence supporting any assassination plot and says less restrictive investigative steps were available had genuine grounds for suspicion existed. Through the lawsuit, the Hadeeds are seeking declarations on the legality of the emergency extension and their detentions, along with findings that more than a dozen constitutional rights were breached, including equality before the law, freedom of expression, and protection from arbitrary detention. They are also seeking financial compensation.
It should be noted that no charges have been filed against Dominic Hadeed, Genevieve Hadeed, or Star Sabga, and the allegations referenced in the court filing remain unproven pending the outcome of the case and any subsequent proceedings.
Judge Denies Release Pending Case
While granting leave for the judicial review to proceed, Justice Seepersad declined to order the couple’s release while the substantive case is heard. He said the validity of the arrests and detentions was distinct from the minister’s decision to issue the Preventive Detention Orders, meaning even a successful challenge on one point would not automatically undo the other.
The judge acknowledged the conditions the couple have endured in custody but said damages could address that harm if they ultimately prevail. He added that releasing them now carried greater risk should the underlying intelligence prove accurate.
The State’s defense includes British King’s Counsel Sir James Eadie and Robert Strang, working alongside attorney Gerald Ramdeen. The Hadeeds are represented by Gilbert Peterson, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Faris Al-Rawi, SC, Chase Pegus, and Carlon Mc Leod. The case now moves toward a full hearing that will test both the legality of the emergency detentions and the broader claims of ethnic and political targeting at their core.
