AN­NA-LISA PAUL

Se­nior Re­porter

an­na-lisa.paul@guardian.co.tt

The mem­bers of the State of Emer­gency (SoE) Re­view Tri­bunal are de­fend­ing them­selves against claims that they have not been per­form­ing their du­ties as re­quired and have fall­en asleep on the job.

In­stead, the Tri­bunal said it met six times to hear ap­pli­ca­tions and sub­mit­ted re­ports to the Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter.

In an un­signed two-page state­ment yes­ter­day, the Re­view Tri­bunal for De­tained Per­sons ex­pressed its up­set fol­low­ing re­cent re­ports in the dai­ly press re­lat­ing to their per­for­mance func­tions.

They dis­missed the re­ports, in­sist­ing, “The Tri­bunal finds it nec­es­sary to cor­rect these said state­ments, which re­gret­tably, are at­trib­uted to mem­bers of the le­gal fra­ter­ni­ty from whom one would ex­pect re­spon­si­ble ut­ter­ances in­formed by the facts and the law.”

Of­fi­cials ad­vised that pur­suant to Para­graph 8 (1) of the Sched­ule to the Emer­gency Pow­ers Reg­u­la­tions 2025, “The Tri­bunal is re­quired to re­view, when re­quest­ed to do so, the de­ten­tions of per­sons who are in pre­ven­tive de­ten­tion pur­suant to the said Reg­u­la­tions.”

“Up­on said re­view, the Tri­bunal must sub­mit a re­port to the Min­is­ter of Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty on­ly, and no one else, spec­i­fy­ing in a sep­a­rate part of the re­port of its opin­ion, whether or not there was suf­fi­cient cause for the de­ten­tion of the de­tainee and may make rec­om­men­da­tions con­cern­ing the ne­ces­si­ty or ex­pe­di­en­cy of con­tin­u­ing the said de­ten­tion.”

The Tri­bunal fur­ther in­di­cat­ed, “It is then for the min­is­ter to cause a copy of that part of the re­port to be de­liv­ered to the de­tainee.

“In com­pli­ance with the said para­graph 8 (1) of the Sched­ule, the Tri­bunal has com­plet­ed and de­liv­ered re­ports in re­spect of the sev­er­al de­tainees.”

The state­ment said the list of ap­pear­ance dates in­clud­ed Sep­tem­ber 12, 19, and 28, along with Oc­to­ber 6, 9, and 22.

The Tri­bunal claimed, “A de­ci­sion in the pre­lim­i­nary ap­pli­ca­tion made in the re­view of an­oth­er de­tainee was made and de­liv­ered to their at­tor­ney on the 1st No­vem­ber, 2025.”

The state­ment added, “The pub­lic is there­fore as­sured that the Tri­bunal has per­formed its func­tions in ac­cor­dance with and pur­suant to the pro­vi­sions of the said Sched­ule to the Emer­gency Pow­ers Reg­u­la­tions con­trary to what is al­leged in news­pa­per re­ports and will con­tin­ue to do so.”

An at­tor­ney who ap­peared be­fore the Tri­bunal on be­half of her client on Oc­to­ber 22, told Guardian Me­dia on Wednes­day, that she was still wait­ing to hear from them re­gard­ing a re­quest to have her client’s Pre­ven­tive De­ten­tion Or­der (PDO) re­voked.

Ear­li­er this week, de­tainees at the East­ern Cor­rec­tion­al and Re­ha­bil­i­ta­tion Cen­tre (ECRC) em­barked on a peace­ful hunger strike, call­ing on Min­is­ter of Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty Roger Alexan­der to re­voke the Pre­ven­tive De­ten­tion Or­ders for those who have not been in­ves­ti­gat­ed or charged af­ter months in cus­tody.

At­tor­ney Sub­has Pan­day con­demned the on­go­ing de­ten­tion of peo­ple for months with­out charges at the East­ern Cor­rec­tion­al and Re­ha­bil­i­ta­tion Cen­tre in Arou­ca, de­scrib­ing it as a “fla­grant breach of con­sti­tu­tion­al and hu­man rights.”

Mean­while, pres­i­dent of the Crim­i­nal Bar As­so­ci­a­tion, Se­nior Coun­sel Is­rael Khan, said de­tainees had a con­sti­tu­tion­al right to plead their case be­fore the Re­view Tri­bunal, and fail­ure to do so would be a breach of due process.

How­ev­er, At­tor­ney Gen­er­al John Je­re­mie as­sured the State act­ed in ac­cor­dance with the Con­sti­tu­tion and was not abus­ing its pow­ers. “The State has act­ed strict­ly in ac­cor­dance with the Con­sti­tu­tion and has ad­hered to all of the rel­e­vant process­es es­tab­lished by law.”