ATTORNEYS representing Star Sabga, the 70-year-old relative of businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve, yesterday sought to persuade the High Court that an Appeal Court order directing that the Hadeeds’ constitutional challenge be heard as a matter of extreme urgency should also extend to Sabga.This even though she was not an appellant in those proceedings.
Attorney Douglas Mendes SC.
Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes argued before Justice Vigel Paul that Sabga remained imprisoned in connection with the same alleged assassination plot as the Hadeeds and had been detained on substantially the same evidence. As such, he submitted that there was no justification for delaying the hearing of her constitutional claim after the Hadeeds had already been released from custody.Mendes was also one of the attorneys who has been representing the Hadeeds since June 24, when they were detained under Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs).Sabga was detained the following day.Just minutes after the Appeal Court hearing on Thursday had ended, Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander took the decision to revoke the PDOs against the Hadeeds but not Sabga.“The State is saying let us release the co-conspirators but let us take our time with Star Sabga,” Mendes said, as he urged the judge to treat her case with the same urgency recognised by the Court of Appeal.Justice Paul, however, declined to automatically extend the appellate court’s directions to Sabga’s hybrid constitutional and judicial review claim, indicating instead that her attorneys should file a formal application seeking an expedited hearing, noting that there was no such application before him.He directed that the application be filed by Monday and adjourned the proceedings to 2 p.m., the same day.Although the Court of Appeal on Thursday ordered that the claim brought by Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed be accelerated because of their urgent nature, attorney Gerald Ramdeen, appearing for the State, argued that those directions were specific to the Hadeeds’ proceedings and could not simply be imported into Sabga’s separate claim.Ramdeen noted that when he indicated before the Appeal Court that the State would not oppose an expedited hearing, the Hadeeds were still detained. The health condition of Dominic Hadeed was also taken into account.“The indication I gave to the Court of Appeal (Thursday) was on the basis that the Hadeeds were in prison, so I do not know about any expedition anymore,” Ramdeen submitted.Mendes rejected that interpretation, saying the appellate judges had not limited their order to the Hadeeds’ continued detention or Dominic Hadeed’s medical condition.“The order of the court was that the appeal was of extreme urgency,” Mendes argued. “They did not state that it was based on the continued detention of the Hadeeds and Dominic Hadeed’s medical condition.”He said Sabga remained imprisoned on “almost identical facts” and warned that unless the substantive claim was heard promptly, it could become academic once the detention order expired with the end of the State of Emergency (SoE) in September, Mendes stated.“Time is running,” Mendes said. “The detention orders have a specific life. If the matters are heard after the order has expired, the matter would be useless.”Ramdeen pointed out there was currently no application before the court seeking to expedite Sabga’s substantive claim.“There is only an application for interim relief,” he said, adding that if Sabga wished to have her case fast-tracked, a formal application should first be made.Justice Paul agreed, saying he preferred to have a formal application before the court rather than simply extending the Court of Appeal’s order.The judge said he also needed to obtain a transcript of the Appeal Court proceedings to determine on exactly what basis Justices Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell and Joan Charles directed that the Hadeeds’ judicial review and constitutional claim be expedited.Earlier in the hearing, the State successfully obtained additional time to respond to affidavit evidence filed on Sabga’s behalf.Ramdeen said the litigation had become increasingly complex over the past week, with multiple affidavits being filed in quick succession.He told the court that a 64-page affidavit was filed on Wednesday, followed yesterday morning by a further 62-page supplemental affidavit. Shortly before the hearing began, the State was also notified that Sabga intended to rely on five affidavits previously filed in the Court of Appeal proceedings.Ramdeen argued that the State had not been afforded a fair opportunity to review the material or obtain instructions from its client.“It is unfortunate and regrettable where someone is detained,” he said, but added that “each party has to be afforded a certain level of fairness.”He insisted there was no attempt to delay the proceedings but said it would be unfair for the interim relief application to proceed before the State had an opportunity to properly answer the new evidence.Attorney Rishi Dass, SC, who also appeared for Sabga, urged the judge to hear the application immediately, relying on the Court of Appeal’s finding that the related proceedings were of “extreme urgency”.Dass said the latest affidavits merely updated the court on recent developments and contained nothing that would prejudice the State.He also pointed out that Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed had since been released after the minister revoked their PDOs.“They are saying that Star Sabga was in a conspiracy with them. The Hadeeds are now free,” Dass submitted.Ramdeen responded that the Hadeeds were released because of the minister’s decision to revoke the detention orders, not because of any court order.He also criticised the timing of Sabga’s legal challenge, noting that although she had been detained since June 25, no claim had been filed on her behalf until July 8.“Her claim was not urgent all the time, but they are coming before the court to say that it is now urgent,” said Ramdeen.Justice Paul ultimately accepted the State’s request for additional time, saying that “a couple more days” was not unreasonable in the circumstances.The judge also noted that Sabga had not yet been made aware of the contents of an affidavit filed by the Homeland Security Minister.Ramdeen stated that while it is not customary for inmates to have visitors on weekends, the State will ensure the attorneys are given access to their client for her to respond to what is stated in Alexander’s affidavit.Appearing along with Mendes and Dass for Sabga are Gilbert Peterson, SC, Faris Al-Rawi, SC, Chase Pegus and Carlon McLeod, while Dayadai Harripaul and Ramdath Phillip appear with Ramdeen for the State.
