A High Court Judge has ordered the release of 69-year-old cheese maker Star Sabga on house arrest.
Justice Vigel Paul made the order a short while ago as he upheld an application made by her lawyers.
However, Sabga’s legal victory may be short lived as State attorneys applied for a stay of the decision as was done when businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve obtained a similar conditional release by a panel of the Court of Appeal, two weeks ago.
In his decision, Justice Paul questioned the need for Sabga to remain detained after the Hadeeds were released when Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander revoked preventive detention orders against them last week.
“If persons set to be at the centre of conspiracy can safely be at large, the court cannot see how the continued detention of this elderly woman can be said to be necessary to prevent danger,” Justice Paul said.
Justice Paul found there was no evidence that Sabga was involved in furthering the alleged conspiracy to assassinate key government officials after she made statements in an intercepted telephone conversation with Genevieve in June.
“There is absence of any evidence that she engaged in any conspiracy or engaged in any step other than initial conversation. A case of ongoing danger must require more than intelligence,” Justice Paul said.
Presenting submissions on the application, Sabga’s lawyer Rishi Dass 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.
Describing claims of a murder conspiracy as far-fetched, 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,” Dass added.
He claimed that while Homeland Security Minister 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.
“There is now the wholesale abandonment of assissantaion plot,” Dass said, as he claimed that Sabga’s statements could not amount to sedition as they were not broadcast to the public.
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 said.
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,” Dass said.
Claiming that Sabga lost 29 pounds while detained in prison over the past month, Dass said that the probe could continue while she remains under house arrest.
“We are not seeking to detain Jason Bourne but a 69-year-old cheese maker,” he said.
Dass also accused the State of leaking the recording of the 15 minute intercepted conversation which was widely shared on social media over the weekend.
Responding to the submissions, 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.
“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 said.
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).
“Judges do not have jurisdiction to assess the assessments of intelligence services. The judiciary is not qualified to undertake assessments of risks,” Ramdeen said.
“Is it permissible for the Judiciary to trespass on the constitutionally protected realm of the executive?” Ramdeen asked.
He also called on Justice Paul to give deference to Alexander’s assessment based on his responsibility in relation to national security issues and his role in issuing PDOs under the SoE.
“If you take the decision to release the applicant and tomorrow the Prime Minister is executed, are you responsible to the electorate?” he said.
