No evidence, no charge: Trinidad judge orders Star Sabga's release

No evidence, no charge: Trinidad judge orders Star Sabga's release

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago — In a decision that has reverberated through the legal and political establishment, High Court Justice Vigel Paul has ordered the release of 69-year-old cheesemaker and businesswoman Star Sabga from the Women's Prison in Golden Grove, placing her on strict house arrest after more than a month of detention without charge under a Preventive Detention Order.

The ruling, handed down on Monday 27 July, marks the second major judicial rebuke of the State's use of emergency powers in its crackdown on an alleged assassination plot. Justice Paul found that the evidence presented simply did not support the continued detention of a woman the State itself had never charged.

"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," the judge said in a statement that has since been widely shared in legal circles. The landmark constitutional ruling is now feeding a wider Caribbean debate about where the line falls between national security and individual liberty.

The State's case against Star Sabga

Sabga was detained under a Preventive Detention Order linked to Trinidad and Tobago's emergency powers. The legal basis for her detention was set out in Legal Notice No. 495 of 2026, gazetted on 2 July 2026. According to that notice, the detainee "has been credibly identified through intelligence received as playing a significant role in an ongoing conspiracy to assassinate members of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago."

The notice further claimed that "the intelligence indicates that the detainee made repeated statements advocating violence against members of the Government." The State pointed to an intercepted telephone conversation on 11 June between Sabga and Genevieve Hadeed, who was also detained under a PDO in the same crackdown.

But Justice Paul was not persuaded that this single conversation — and nothing more — justified keeping an elderly woman in prison indefinitely. The judge noted that the State had presented no evidence that Sabga took any steps to advance the alleged conspiracy after that intercepted call.

What the judge found

Justice Paul's ruling is being described as a firm defence of the principle that a person cannot be held on suspicion alone. He found a clear absence of evidence linking Sabga to any concrete act of conspiracy beyond the initial conversation.

"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," the judge said. This line has struck a chord with many in Trinidad who have watched the emergency powers debate unfold with unease.

The judge also reflected on the irreparable harm that detention without charge can cause. "She is an elderly woman detained without charge. If at trial the detention is declared unlawful, no damages could compensate her for months in prison and damage to reputation," he said.

Sabga's legal team had applied for her interim release pending the full hearing of her constitutional challenge against the Preventive Detention Act. Justice Paul upheld that application, ordering her immediate release from prison on strict conditions while the challenge proceeds.

Release on strict conditions

Sabga did not walk free immediately. State attorneys applied for an interim stay of the ruling, mirroring the approach taken two weeks earlier when businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve obtained similar conditional release from a Court of Appeal panel. In Sabga's case, a six-hour stay was granted, but the Court of Appeal did not extend it.

Shortly after 11.30 p.m. on Monday 27 July — the stay having expired at 11.20 p.m. — Sabga walked out of the Women's Prison. She was escorted by police officers to her Regents Park home in Westmoorings, where she was placed under house arrest in accordance with the court-imposed conditions.

The judge noted that Sabga could be easily monitored by law enforcement at her Westmoorings apartment under strict house arrest conditions. He also made clear that she could still be charged if the police secure sufficient evidence against her. On 30 July, police moved to enforce the house arrest conditions, setting the framework for her continued supervision while the legal proceedings unfold.

The State pursued an urgent appeal against Justice Paul's ruling, but later dropped its bid to return Sabga to prison while the appeal is heard. The Court of Appeal is now set to hear the matter, leaving Sabga under house arrest in the meantime.

The Hadeed case: a family connection

Star Sabga's release cannot be understood in isolation. She was detained as part of a wider crackdown that also swept up Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed, who had been held under Preventive Detention Orders in the same operation. The 11 June intercepted conversation with Genevieve Hadeed placed Sabga squarely inside the same web of intelligence that triggered the emergency powers.

The Hadeeds obtained conditional release from a Court of Appeal panel earlier in July, but that decision was stayed by another panel led by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh pending an urgent final appeal to the United Kingdom-based Privy Council. The PDOs against the Hadeeds were ultimately lifted by National Security Minister Roger Alexander after the appellate court indicated it could only entertain the appeal in October. On 31 July, the Hadeeds walked free as the Privy Council declined a rushed appeal.

The parallel tracks of the two cases have highlighted inconsistencies in how the State has applied its emergency powers. While the government has insisted that the assassination plot was credible and ongoing, the courts have repeatedly asked for evidence that connects the dots between intercepted conversations and actual dangerous action. So far, that evidence has not been forthcoming in either case.

A wider debate over emergency powers

The Sabga ruling sits at the centre of a broader Trinidad and Tobago reckoning with the scope of preventive detention. The Preventive Detention Act allows the executive to hold persons without charge when it claims national security is at stake. But as the Sabga case shows, the judiciary is reluctant to accept intelligence assertions at face value when a person's liberty is on the line.

Justice Paul's observation that "a case of ongoing danger must require more than intelligence" is a direct challenge to the executive's reliance on classified assessments. In a society where many citizens remember past states of emergency and the heavy-handed tactics that sometimes accompanied them, the ruling has been welcomed by civil society groups who have long argued that security powers must be subject to meaningful judicial oversight.

At the same time, the government's urgent appeals and stays suggest that it is not prepared to allow the courts to set the final terms of this debate without a fight. The matter is headed to the Court of Appeal, and very likely beyond, as the legal questions raised by the case are far from settled.

Regional courts and the liberty question

The questions animating this case are not unique to Trinidad and Tobago. Across the Caribbean, courts are increasingly being asked to balance security powers against individual liberty. From CARICOM member states dealing with gang violence and organised crime, to countries responding to states of emergency and public order legislation, the same fundamental tension recurs: how much power should the executive hold to detain without charge when it claims the sky is falling?

Regional courts have been cautious, often demanding that the State show a concrete link between a person's actions and an imminent threat. The Sabga ruling aligns with this emerging jurisprudence, which treats intelligence as a starting point for investigation rather than a blank cheque for imprisonment.

The case also carries practical implications for the Caribbean's reputation as a region governed by the rule of law. Investors, tourism partners and diaspora communities watch these proceedings closely. A legal system that allows an elderly businesswoman to be held for a month without charge — and then requires a court order to secure her release — sends a complicated signal about the strength of constitutional protections.

What comes next

For now, Star Sabga remains under house arrest at her Westmoorings apartment, a condition that Justice Paul described as both sufficient and appropriate. She has not been charged with any offence, and the State has not indicated that it intends to charge her. The constitutional challenge to the Preventive Detention Act will continue, and the Court of Appeal will hear the State's appeal in due course.

The government's decision to drop its bid to return Sabga to prison while the appeal is heard suggests a recognition that the public mood — and the judicial mood — has shifted. But the deeper legal battle is far from over. If the courts ultimately declare the Preventive Detention Act unconstitutional in its application, the government will be forced to re-examine how it handles intelligence-based threats without trampling on fundamental rights.

In the meantime, Trinidad and Tobago finds itself in an uncomfortable moment of reflection. A woman was held for over a month without charge on the strength of an intercepted conversation and a classified intelligence assessment. A High Court judge has now said that is not enough. Whether the appellate courts agree will shape the future of emergency powers in this country for years to come.

For the family of Star Sabga, and for the many citizens who have followed her case with concern, the immediate relief is that she is no longer behind bars. But the principle at stake — that a person should not be detained indefinitely on suspicion alone — is one that the courts, the State and the public will continue to wrestle with long after this chapter closes.

By Sharon Sahatoo, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on sources cited in the article.