Tag: DPP

Moruga man in court for relative’s death

A 59-YEAR-OLD Moruga man appeared before a High Court Master on Christmas Eve, charged with the manslaughter of his relative Brian Figaro.

Servulus Figaro, also of Moruga, stood before Master Gray in the South Criminal Court “D” on December 24. He was not called on to enter a plea as the matter was adjourned to January 27.

According to reports, Brian Figaro was involved in a heated argument with a relative on December 8. During the altercation, Figaro was allegedly struck several times with a baton, sustaining serious injuries to his head and abdomen.

Three days later, on December 11, Figaro collapsed at his home. He was rushed to the Princes Town District Health Facility, where he was pronounced dead.

Following advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on December 23, Servulus Figaro was arrested and charged.

In a separate incident a 26-year-old Petit Bourg man has been remanded into custody after appearing in court charged with the murder of Mickel Browne.

Dylan Collette of Jackson Street, appeared before Master Indira Chinebas on December 24. In addition to murder, Collette faces charges of possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition and common assault.

The charges stem from an incident on December 5, when 31-year-old Browne of Champ Fleurs, was at a bar in San Juan lining with a group of people. Reports say a gunman approached the group, pointed a weapon at Browne and fired several times before fleeing the scene.

Browne was taken to hospital but later succumbed to his injuries. Collette reportedly surrendered to officers at the Homicide Bureau of Investigations (HBI) Region II on December 19. He is expected to return to court on January 7.

Man charged in fatal crash involving Tobago couple freed

PROSECUTORS abruptly halted a judge-only trial against a Tobago man charged with two counts of causing the deaths of a fireman and his wife in 2023.

On the third day of the trial of Skeater Fredrick, who appeared before Justice Nalini Singh in the Scarborough High Court, charged with causing the deaths of Christian Adams and his wife, Teresa Alleyne-Adams, an employee with the Division of Finance, prosecutors offered no further evidence, bringing the case to an abrupt end.

Up to that point, Justice Singh had received formal admissions from eight prosecution witnesses, while three others gave evidence during the short-lived trial and were cross-examined by Fredrick’s attorney, John Heath, SC.

When the trial resumed on December 17, prosecutor Dylan Martin said, in keeping with the code for prosecutors, the evidence disclosed no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. He said the Director of Public Prosecutions had directed the State to offer no further evidence. Fredrick was subsequently discharged by Justice Singh.

Also representing Fredrick was Adanna Joseph-Wallace, while Cassie Bisram also appeared for the prosecution.

The Adams were on their way to pick up their children when they were killed in an accident on the Claude Noel Highway.

At the time, police reported that a truck travelling east to west along the highway swerved after another vehicle travelling west to east entered its path as it approached the Rockly Vale traffic lights. The driver attempted to avoid the car but still collided with it. The truck then flipped and landed on the white Suzuki driven by Adams.

Police said the husband and wife were crushed and died at the scene. Officers were told they were on their way to pick up their three children from school when the crash occurred.

Eyewitnesses said the truck collided with two vehicles and landed on one. It was loaded with rocks, which fell onto the car, causing the fatalities. The truck later rolled down a hill near the botanical gardens as efforts were made to retrieve it.

Carapo man freed of 2023 Wallerfield murder

A Carapo man charged with murder was discharged by the High Court after prosecutors repeatedly failed to file an indictment in connection with the May 22, 2023 killing of a man in Wallerfield.

Akeem “Copper” Simon, who was before Master Whitney Franklin, was charged with the murder of Fizam Hosein, whose body was found at Block 3 Moonan Road, Wallerfield, after police responded to reports of loud explosions. Hosein suffered gunshot wounds to his face, head and upper body.

Also discharged was Crystal Cindy Le Blanc of Wallerfield and Manzanilla, who had been jointly charged with Simon.

At a sufficiency hearing on December 12, Franklin declined to grant the prosecution any further extensions after what the court described as repeated noncompliance. The sufficiency hearing had initially been scheduled for November 27 after two earlier dates were vacated. On November 27, prosecutors applied for an extension on the morning of the hearing, prompting Franklin to allow the defence time to respond and to set December 12 for a ruling. By December 12, prosecutors acknowledged the case file remained incomplete and that no indictment had been filed. Franklin denied the application for an extension and discharged the accused under Section 5.9 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, citing repeated failures to comply with court orders. In her ruling, Franklin noted there was no indication when warrants obtained under the Interception of Communications Act would be unsealed or when outstanding CCTV footage would be made available.

Simon’s attorney, Roshan Tota Maharaj, had, from the onset, applied to have the matter transferred to a master as quickly as possible soon after the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act (AJIPA) was proclaimed in December 2023. He said the case should serve as a model for how the legislation could deliver speedy justice, arguing that ideally no more than one year should elapse from a murder charge to a case reaching a trial judge, if it progressed that far.

Prosecutors, in written submissions made in November, sought an extension of time and relief from sanctions, because of administrative and staffing difficulties at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They said approximately five witness statements remained outstanding out of some 54 filed, including statements linked to intercepted communications that require court-ordered unsealing of warrants through the Strategic Services Agency.

The state also said statements exhibiting the post-mortem certificate and CCTV footage were outstanding. The application noted illness, staff reassignment and resignations within the DPP’s office as contributing to the delays. Prosecutors argued the delays were not deliberate and that an extension would not prejudice the accused, given the public interest in having the matter prosecuted.

However, Franklin rejected those arguments.

Although discharged on the murder charge, Simon remains in custody on separate charges of possession of firearms and ammunition. That matter is scheduled to come up for hearing in January.

Ex-Cepep contractor ordered to pay costs

THE Court of Appeal has ordered an ex-Cepep contractor to pay the Cepep Company’s costs.

In a written ruling, the court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant a stay of proceedings in the dispute between Eastman Enterprise Ltd and the Cepep Company Ltd, ruling unanimously that the state company remained the successful party on the substantive stay application.

Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud and Ricky Rahim found that while Eastman Enterprise succeeded in challenging the trial judge’s separate order to refer documents to the Director of Public Prosecutions, that issue was limited in scope and did not materially affect the main question of whether the stay should have been granted.

In delivering the court’s ruling on costs, Rajkumar said the established principle that “costs follow the event” applied squarely. The judges held that the stay application was the primary event, and Eastman Enterprise had been unsuccessful both before the trial judge and on appeal.

Rajkumar held that the referral issue, though a distinct event, occupied only a minor part of the proceedings and did not justify disturbing the trial judge’s original costs order. The court found that the referral, made on untested evidence and without the participation of all necessary parties, was premature and properly reversed. However, this did not alter the outcome of the stay application, which Cepep had successfully defended.

Since Eastman Enterprise prevailed on the narrower referral point, the Court of Appeal applied a “moderate discount” to the respondent’s appellate costs.

Eastman Enterprises was ordered to pay 80 per cent of two-thirds of Cepep’s costs assessed by the High Court for the appeal while the judge’s costs order was affirmed.

On November 21, the Court of Appeal upheld a stay of proceedings in the lawsuit brought by Eastman Enterprises over the post-election termination of more than 300 contracts.

The judges held that Eastman was required to follow the contract’s alternative dispute resolution process before suing. However, the judges set aside the High Court’s order sending the case file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, calling the referral “premature and plainly wrong.” The court held that the contract’s mediation and arbitration mechanisms were sufficiently clear to constitute a mandatory condition precedent to litigation and that Eastman could not bypass them by seeking urgent court relief.

Larry Lalla, SC, St Clair O’Neil and Kareem Marcelle represented Eastman. Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop, Jared Jagroo and Asha Ramlal represented Cepep, which has also initiated legal action against its former chairman and board.

In a news release on December 8, following the ruling, Cepep called on contractors to abide by the terms of their contracts adding that it is committed to upholding the rule of law in relation to its conduct of business.

PNM senator: Stand-your-ground law won’t protect people

TEMPORARY Opposition Senator Sanjiv Boodhu said stand-your-ground legislation will not help to reduce the crime of home invasion or protect people who choose to use this law to protect themselves and their property.

He presented his views during debate on the Home Invasion (Self-Defence and Defence of Property) Bill, 2025 in the Senate on December 2.

Boodhu, who is also a PNM deputy political leader, rejected Government Senator Dr Natalie Chaitan-Maharaj’s claim the legislation will give citizens the ability to protect themselves in a home invasion.

He said this is only applicable for people who have legal access to firearms and this is a minority of the population at this time.

“This bill, contrary to the messaging that goes with it, does absolutely nothing to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms anywhere,” he said.

Boodhu said Chaitan-Maharaj was also wrong about the bill being justified by the insufficiency of existing laws to deal with the crime of home invasion, although the offence does not currently exist in law.

He added her argument was nullified by earlier comments by Attorney General John Jeremie, SC, on this subject.

Boodhu said Jeremie referred to relevant legislation which has been in effect since 1971.

“I can’t understand what then is any insufficiency or ambiguity in a 54-year-old piece of legislation.”

He said, “I am not aware in this country, at any time, someone broke into someone’s home…the police arrested them and then did not know what to charge them with or for.”

Boodhu added, “That tells us, there is no insufficiency of the common law.”

He repeated, “I’m not certain what this bill seeks to fix, that needs fixing that needs fixing in the existing law.”

Boodhu told senators there are several stages in a home invasion. These include surveillance of the intended victim, return to execute the crime, escape, evade law enforcement and monetise whatever loot they steal from the victim’s property.

He acknowledged several despicable acts take place during a home invasion.

“Inclusive of severe violence…robbery…larceny…sexual assault…common assault…serious injuries.”

Boodhu said after the perpetrators complete all steps in a successful home invasion, they repeat it on another vicinity

“In repeating a process, one tends to get better.”

Against this background, Boodhu said it is logical that any legislation created to deal with home invasions should propose solutions to neutralise the elements which go into committing this crime.

“But this bill does not address any of those elements.”

While it is common knowledge multiple communication devices are used to plan and execute a home invasion, Boodhu said the bill offers no help to police on this front.

“It does not help the police in intelligence-gathering. It does not aid the police in intercepting communication in each of those steps (in a home invasion).”

Boodhu said the bill does not create a special police unit to deal with home invasions or help the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) with a prosecutor al unit to “aid in the prosecutions of home invasions.’

He added the bill does not help the criminal justice system at all.

“If anything, it adds yet another offence to what is a backlog system.” Boodhu said the only positive here was the former PNM government eliminating preliminary inquiries which eased the backlog somewhat.

Lawyer tells DPP: Disregard Cepep lawsuit files sent by High Court

ATTORNEYS for ex-Cepep contractor Eastman Enterprises Ltd, which is challenging the termination of over 300 contracts by the Cepep Company soon after the April 28 general election, have written to Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, urging him to discontinue any consideration of the material referred to him by the High Court.

In a letter on November 21, attorney Kareem Marcelle informed the DPP of the Appeal Court’s reversal of the High Court’s referral.

He said the documents previously forwarded to the DPP pursuant to the High Court’s now-overturned order were “null, void, unlawful and of no effect.”

“We maintain that the said certified copy of all documents filed in the proceedings below, which was forwarded by the Registrar of the Supreme Court to your good office for consideration, is null, void, unlawful and of no effect.

“Further, any ongoing decision by your good office to ‘consider’ the said matter and/or documents which flowed from the plainly wrong and premature decision by the learned trial judge ought to be rescinded forthwith.

“We look forward to your assistance and lawful consideration in this matter.”

The Court of Appeal, on November 21, set aside a trial judge’s order that directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to send all filings from Eastman‘s lawsuit. to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), ruling that the referral was premature and “plainly wrong.”

In overturning the directive, the panel held that the trial judge failed to consider key factors, including the absence of fact-finding, untested allegations, and the involvement of individuals who were not parties to the case. The Appeal Court said the allegations had “not been tested” and could not properly ground a referral.

Although the Appeal Court reversed the referral order, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud, and Ricky Rahim found that Eastman was required to comply with the contract’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure before filing its lawsuit, affirming the trial judge’s decision to stay the claim. Rajkumar, who wrote the decision, said the dispute resolution procedures under the contract’s ADR clause were “sufficiently certain to require compliance therewith as a condition precedent to litigation.”

In August, DPP Gaspard told Newsday he would review the court documents sent to him by the court. At the time, he said he would inform the public of any major developments.

“I will peruse the subject documents. If there is a need for an investigation, that would have to be done by the police.

“I cannot impose any time frame on the police,” he said, adding, “I do consider it my duty to apprise the people of TT of any significant developments, especially since my office is a public one.”

Cepep has since said it intended to pursue all legitimate avenues open to it in the interest of justice and public administration.

“Cepep, however, remains permitted to the pursuit of justice in this matter and has sought legal advice on the fraudulent misrepresentation perpetuated on the company.”

Man accused of shooting at cops, robbing watchman discharged

A man who was charged with robbery with violence, firearm possession, and shooting with intent in a 2016 incident along Soogrim Trace, Chaguanas, which led to a shootout with police, was discharged after prosecutors failed to comply with a High Court scheduling order.

Master Delicia Bethelmy discharged Ron Marchan on November 21, which was supposed to be the start of the sufficiency hearing after defence attorney Bhimal Maharajh asked for the matter to be dismissed under the Criminal Procedure Rules, which allow for a discharge for non-compliance.

In February, Bethelmy had ordered police to submit the file to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) by March 19, with the filing of an indictment, witness statements and other documentary evidence due on June 27 and defence responses by July 25. Submissions were to follow in October, ahead of the sufficiency hearing. At the November 21 hearing, Maharajh argued that the State’s failure to meet the deadlines was “unfair and unjust” to the accused.

Bethelmy found that the State did not meet the deadlines of the scheduling order and discharged Marchan.

Police had accused Marchan of taking part in a February 10, 2016, attack at Seecharan Used Cars along the Uriah Butler Highway in Charlieville, Chaguanas, where a watchman was allegedly dragged from a vehicle, beaten by four men and tied up and sprayed with a liquid in his eyes. Officers later found him bound on the floor after an anonymous caller alerted the Chaguanas Police Station.

The attackers fled in a black Nissan Almera, leading to a high-speed chase along Soogrim Trace, and the car later crashed into an embankment where the suspects allegedly opened fire at officers who attempted to stop them. Police said one suspect, described as a known gang member, was shot in the exchange and later died. His three accomplices escaped across the highway. A pistol was recovered at the scene.

Marchan was arrested one week later, on February 17, 2016, and the case was first brought in the magistrates’ court before being transferred to the High Court under the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

After Marchan was discharged, a police prosecutor placed on record that the complainant had complied with the portion of the order requiring the file to be sent to the DPP.

Cepep contractor suffers defeat as court upholds stay of ‘termination’ lawsuit

THE Court of Appeal has upheld a stay of proceedings in a legal challenge brought by former Cepep contractor, Eastman Enterprises Ltd, over the termination of over 300 contracts by Cepep Company Ltd soon after the April 28 general election.

However, the appellate court overturned the High Court’s order referring the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

In a written ruling on Eastman’s appeal, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud, and Ricky Rahim found that Eastman was required to comply with the contract’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure before filing its lawsuit, affirming the trial judge’s decision to stay the claim. The Appeal Court’s decision was delivered on November 21.

However, the panel ruled that forwarding the case documents to the DPP was “premature and plainly wrong,” setting aside that portion of the order.

Rajkumar, who wrote the decision, said the dispute resolution procedures under the contract’s ADR clause were “sufficiently certain to require compliance therewith as a condition precedent to litigation.”

“In particular, the mechanisms for initiating mediation and arbitration and appointing a mediator and arbitrator were clear and sufficiently detailed to require compliance.”

He said that while the Arbitration Act permitted approaching the court for injunctive relief, it did so as an adjunct to arbitration, where contemplated.

“In this case, it is clear that arbitration could not have been contemplated because the appellant disputed the applicability of arbitration and mediation in the first place. To date, there is no evidence that any ADR procedures have been initiated.” He also said amendments to the act in 2023 could not alter the enforceability of the arbitration clause in the 2022 contract.

“Approaching the court, therefore, on the basis of seeking urgent interim relief ignores the fact that such relief was available within the arbitration process to which the parties had agreed, apart from the fact that the appellant had evinced the intention to ignore and bypass that process completely.

“It could not, therefore, justify ignoring that process based upon any alleged inability to obtain such relief except through the court.”

Rajkumar said held there was no basis for concluding that the trial judge’s exercise of her discretion was plainly wrong. According to the judgment, Eastman supplied about 29 labourers to Cepep, each earning between $1,350 and $1,653.12 per fortnight, while the company received a management fee of $23,947.90 monthly. Cepep terminated the contract under a clause permitting termination without cause by 30 days’ payment instead of notice.

Eastman filed for an injunction on July 9, arguing that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether a 2025 addendum, which it claimed superseded the 2022 termination clause. It said the termination had caused significant hardship to the company and its workers.

On August 7, Justice Margaret Mohammed stayed the proceedings after Cepep argued that Eastman had failed to follow the ADR process in clause 17 of the contract. She also directed the Registrar to send all court documents to the DPP and ordered Eastman to pay Cepep’s costs. In the ruling, Rajkumar held that even if urgency was demonstrated, Eastman could have sought interim measures from an arbitral tribunal under section 20 of the 2023 Act. On the DPP referral, however, he said the trial judge’s order could not stand. Rajkumar noted the referral was made on “incomplete and untested material” before parties had been allowed to respond.

“That referral… was premature and plainly wrong,” he said.

The other, filed by PNM MP Stuart Young, SC, in October, seeks judicial review against the Cabinet, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Public Utilities, the Cepep Company Ltd, and its CEO Keith Eddy, over the decision to terminate the hundreds of contracts.

Larry Lalla, SC, St Clair O’Neil and Kareem Marcelle represented Eastman. Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop, Jared Jagroo and Asha Ramlal represent Cepep, which has also initiated legal action against its former chairman and board.

Point Fortin man acquitted of murder

A Point Fortin man who had been on trial for the 2022 murder of Ikem Best has been found not guilty by a Port of Spain jury. He was acquitted on October 9.

Kareem Guadeloupe, 45, was before Justice Gillian Scotland charged on April 15, 2023, for the murder of Ikem Best, who was shot dead on October 7, 2022, along Circular Drive, Francis Lane, Warden Road, Point Fortin.

Best was standing along the roadway when occupants of a grey B15 car drove by and opened fire, killing him. This was his second trial.

His first trial, which began in May 2025 before Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds, was aborted after prejudicial evidence emerged during the proceedings. Justice Ramsumair-Hinds discharged the 12-member jury and three alternates, ruling that the evidence could not be cured by judicial directions.

Guadeloupe consistently maintained his innocence in the fatal shooting of Best. The trial began on September 22.

He was represented by attorneys Michelle Ali and Analisa Ramsaran of the Public Defenders Department, while State prosecutors Kezia Gray-Birkette and Tammy Cato appeared on behalf of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

In 2019, Guadeloupe was also acquitted by a jury of the 2005 murders of brothers Neil and Nigel Seebran.

The brothers were last seen at their home at Sifoo Trace, Granville, Cedros, on the morning of November 17, 2005. Then, on January 12, 2006, their bodies were found huddled in a grave about 100 feet to the back of their home. An autopsy revealed they died from chop wounds.

High Court: DPP’s failure to respond to FOIA ‘unacceptable’

THE Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) came in for a tongue-lashing by the High Court for failing to respond to a request from a former murder accused.

The admonition came from Justice Frank Seepersad as he ruled in favour of Makesi Felix, who sought information relating to his 2016 prosecution on September 22.

“It is evident that the director failed to discharge the statutorily-imposed obligation imposed upon him, and he did not comply with the requirements of section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).” This section compels the public authority to decide within 30 days of a request.

“The obligation under section 15 is not discretionary…” the judge stressed.

Felix, who was arrested in Marabella and charged with the murder of his neighbour Rodney Gloud, spent more than seven years in prison before being acquitted by a jury in September 2024. He claims prosecutorial delays caused him to remain in custody for nearly four years before his indictment was filed in the High Court in October 2023.

Following his acquittal, Felix submitted a FOIA request in November 2024 seeking disclosure of case files, prosecutorial advice, and policies governing the filing of indictments. After receiving no response, he initiated judicial review proceedings in June 2025. The DPP’s office failed to appear at multiple hearings and remained unrepresented throughout the matter.

Justice Seepersad issued an order of mandamus compelling the DPP to provide Felix with a decision on documents related to his 2016 prosecution.

He also criticised the DPP’s inaction, calling it “unacceptable” and warning that it undermines public trust.

“The court is constrained to register its disappointment and dismay over the director’s disregard of his statutory obligation. (This) disappointment is compounded by the fact that the director has failed, refused, and/ or neglected to participate in the proceedings before this court.

“The behaviour displayed in this matter is unacceptable and only serves to undermine public trust and confidence in an office which plays a pivotal role in the criminal justice system.

“The right to access information held by public authorities benefits all citizens. It is enshrined under the FOIA and the same is paramount in a society where public authorities are deeply distrusted and the decisions which are effected by them are often shielded from public scrutiny.”

He stressed that the FOIA represents a “radical departure from the culture of secrecy” and must be defended to preserve transparency and accountability.

“The director’s actions in this matter amount to an anachronism and stand as an anathema to the very ethos of the protection which the FOIA provides.

“Delay in the criminal justice system has to be addressed, and the items of information requested by the claimant may provide an explanation as to the reasons for the nearly four-year pre-trial delay which occurred.

“The right of access to information is especially paramount within the criminal justice system, where fairness demands accountability and transparency by all stakeholders.

“This court will not countenance any attempts by the director to erode, negative, or render illusory the said right and will jealously guard the same to ensure, insofar as no exceptions to the right exist or are operative, that a decision is made relative to the information sought.

“In the circumstances, this court declares that the Director of Public Prosecutions has breached section 15 of the FOIA.”

The judge added, “Section 15 of the FOIA imposed upon the director a positive, clear, and unqualified duty to act.

“Having already declared that there has been a breach of this duty, this court is also resolute in its view, especially when regard is had to the director’s deafening silence and his disregard for the authority of the court having elected to not appear, that a mandatory order is required to compel him to make an access decision in respect of the claimant’s freedom of information request.

“TT is a constitutional democracy. No one is above the law, and this court will fiercely defend the right of every citizen to fair and equal treatment by public authorities and will forcefully insist upon the discharge of statutory obligations by public bodies.”

The DPP was also ordered to pay Felix’s legal costs, which will be assessed at a later date. Ganesh Saroop and Anju Ramkissoon represented Felix.

Rajaee Ali served with SoE detention order

MURDER accused and suspected gang leader Rajaee Ali has been served with a preventative detention order under the state of emergency (SoE).

The order was executed on August 19. This effectively alters his legal status and removes him from the usual protections of the prison rules. His change in status was revealed at a hearing on August 25.

Ali is again challenging his transfer from the Maximum Security Prison to Teteron Barracks, Chaguaramas.

He has sought interim court orders for airing time, access to showers and toilets, weekly family contact, clothing, and confirmation of whether a cellmate has tuberculosis. He is also asking for declarations that his transfer and detention conditions are unlawful, along with constitutional relief and damages.

Ali has filed several challenges since his transfer and detention at the military bases in Chaguaramas, under the ongoing SoE, claiming he is being held in inhumane conditions and denied basic rights.

Ali, who has been awaiting trial for the murder of special prosecutor Dana Seetahal, SC, since 2014, said he was removed from the Maximum Security Prison, Arouca, on July 18, hours after the SoE was declared and relocated to a military facility without proper explanation. He told the High Court in an affidavit that neither he nor his attorneys has been able to confirm his precise location, though he believes he remains at Teteron Barracks.

His hearing for interim relief was heard by an emergency judge, Justice Westmin James, on August 25.

His attorney, Keron Ramkhalwhan, said Ali’s wife was contacted by the prison’s welfare office and would be allowed to deliver clothing twice weekly. However, he said some of the other issues may persist, but he and his co-counsel, Anwar Hosein, have yet to receive more recent instructions.

Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, who leads Jared Jagroo for the Attorney General, said while the State is not admitting to any of the allegations, “given the shifting nature of the application, there is anticipation that interim relief may not be necessary.”

He then clarified Ali’s new status as an SoE detainee, arguing that the new classification means he is being held under emergency detention powers, not the prison rules

Ramlogan also told the judge that Ali was being held in a cell by himself, “so there is no likelihood of him contracting tuberculosis,” in response to Ali’s claim that he was placed with a sick inmate.

Ali has accused the authorities of subjecting him to harsh conditions since his transfer. In his latest challenge, Ali said that before his transfer, he was considered a model prisoner. He was allowed daily airing, family visits, halal meals provided through relatives, participation in Eid prayers, and enrolment in CSEC examinations scheduled for 2026. He also served as a mentor to other inmates and was never disciplined for misconduct.

Since July 18, however, Ali alleges he has been confined without airing time, denied family contact, subjected to repeated strip searches, and given questionable meals by masked officers who refuse to identify themselves. He claims his religious dietary requirements are being ignored and that he has been deprived of clothing, toiletries, books, and legal consultation.

On August 8, Ali was reportedly blindfolded and moved to another cell, where he said conditions worsened. According to his affidavit, he shared a small, unventilated cell with another prisoner, relies on a bucket for waste disposal, and endures constant artificial light, mosquito infestations, and threats from masked guards.

“My treatment amounts to punishment without legal justification,” Ali said, arguing that the transfer was done to penalise him rather than maintain security.

President Christine Kangaloo declared the SoE on July 18, citing intelligence that incarcerated individuals were plotting attacks on key national security and justice officials. The government subsequently designated Teteron Barracks and Staubles Bay as district prisons.

Police described the relocations as “rapid containment actions” to disrupt organised criminal networks, but Ali insists he is being used as a scapegoat. He denied involvement in any plot against the judiciary or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, saying, “All I want is my day in court to answer the charges.”

Ali also accused police of intimidation, claiming officers warned Ramkhalwhan that he had threatened the lawyer’s life. Both men have denied the allegation.

In addition to the interim orders, Ali has asked for declarations that his transfer and detention conditions are unlawful, along with constitutional relief and damages.

He now intends to challenge the constitutionality of the detention order. Ali has maintained his innocence and said he has never been convicted or sentenced. He said as a first division prisoner, he is legally presumed innocent and entitled to privileges under the 1943 Prison Rules.

Also appearing at the hearing were Ian Benjamin, SC, and Renuka Rambhajan for the Commissioner of Prisons. James ordered that the prisons commissioner be added as a party to the matter and adjourned the case to September 5, when it will be heard by Justice Marissa Robertson, who is also presiding over Ali’s previous application.

Ex-Cepep board member: I acted in good faith on Cabinet approval assurances

A former member of the Cepep Company Ltd board has insisted she acted in “good faith” when she supported the extension of hundreds of contracts earlier this year, saying she was assured by the then chairman that Cabinet had recently approved the move.

In a response to a pre-action protocol letter from attorney Aasha Ramlal on behalf of Cepep, the ex-director, Camille Hosein, through her attorney Shabaana Mohammed, detailed her account of the events leading up to the controversial decision.

According to the letter, the board member confirmed that a WhatsApp group chat was used for communication among directors, the chairman, the corporate secretary, and the CEO. On April 22, she attended a routine board meeting in person, but said no mention was made of Cabinet approval for contract extensions.

The next day, after the meeting had concluded, the then-chairman allegedly posted a message in the group chat stating that the Cabinet had approved a three-year extension of contracts due to expire in 2025 and 2026. The board was told that a note would follow from the CEO.

Later that afternoon, Hosein received Board Note BN 01/25 but observed it lacked any attached Cabinet minute. When she queried this, the chairman reportedly told her he had been advised directly by then line minister Faris Al-Rawi that the Cabinet had in fact made the decision, though the minute was not yet available.

“She had no reason to doubt the assurance,” the response said, noting that as a sitting Cabinet member, the minister “would obviously be privy to Cabinet decisions.” The director said she therefore assented to the decision the following morning, believing she was simply ratifying an existing Cabinet decision.

Hosein’s attorney stressed that at no point was her client notified that Cabinet approval had not been granted, nor was she ever told that the Board Note contained errors or was to be revised. She also said no corrected note was ever circulated.

The response rejected any suggestion of misconduct, insisting the director had fulfilled her fiduciary duty by making reasonable inquiries and relying on assurances from the chairman, who attributed the information to the line minister.

“My client has provided all the information within her knowledge and intends to co-operate with whatever investigation or inquiry the company may require her assistance in,” the letter concluded.

Cepep’s lawyers, led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, and his firm Freedom Law, wrote to the company’s ex-board members seeking an explanation on the extension of more than 300 core contracts to 2029, on the eve of the April 28 general election. They had been warned they could face legal action over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, fraud, and misrepresentation.

A similar threat has been issued to ex-chairman Joel Edwards, who insists that he never told the board that Cabinet approval was secured, and ordered the note corrected upon realising an error.

He later explained that the board note could be read as referring to a new Cabinet decision, rather than a 2017 authorisation by the Cabinet to issue or extend multi-year contracts without specific new Cabinet approval.

A lawsuit over the termination of the 336 contracts that would have cost the government $1.4 billion is on appeal on a preliminary issue after the High Court’s stay and referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

WPC charged with larceny by trick over FUL

A Woman Police Constable (WPC) is due to appear before a High Court master at the Chaguanas Police Station on August 22, charged with three counts of larceny by trick in relation to allegedly obtaining a total of $37,000 to expedite a Firearm User’s Licence (FUL) application.

WPC Misty Mitchell was charged at the Caroni Police Station by Acting Sgt Joefield on August 21.

A police statement issued on August 22 said an investigation began after a report was made on July 23.

It is alleged that in March, the policewoman obtained $35,000 from a man by falsely representing that she could expedite his FUL application.

In May 2025, she allegedly demanded an additional $15,000, which she arranged to collect on July 26.

On July 26, officers of the Professional Standards Bureau (PSB), with the assistance of officers from a specialised unit, held a sting operation at a service station in Chaguanas.

During the exercise, the suspect was arrested.

She was searched, and the sum of $2,000, which had been provided to her by the victim, was found in her possession. She was subsequently taken to the Caroni Police Station.

After further enquiries, officers acted on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Roger Gaspard, SC, and the suspect was released pending further enquiries.

On August 21, WPC Mitchell was re-arrested and later charged.

DPP discontinues attempted murder case against New Grant woman

THREE criminal charges, including one for the attempted murder of her 13-year-old relative in 2023, against a New Grant woman have been discontinued in the High Court.

The case against Hema Manbodhsingh was called on August 15 before Master Rhea Libert at the South B Court.

The court was informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had entered a nolle prosequi, meaning the state would no longer be pursuing the matter.

A nolle prosequi can be filed for various reasons, including insufficient evidence or new information that supports the accused’s innocence.

Manbodhsingh was represented by defence attorney Subhas Panday.

The charges stemmed from a domestic incident at the family’s home on March 16, 2023, when the child allegedly ate a meal that contained a poisonous substance.

The woman had been charged with attempting to murder the boy, exposing him in a manner likely to cause injury to his physical and mental health and unlawfully and maliciously administering a poisonous substance to the child, thereby endangering his life.

The charges were laid by PC Mohess of the Princes Town Police Station.

When the matter was first brought before a magistrate at the Princes Town courthouse, Manbodhsingh was denied bail and remanded into police custody.

She was later granted bail in the sum of $250,000, with strict conditions, including no communication or contact with the child, pending the outcome of the case.

The child was also removed from the household and has been staying with other relatives in another area.

Cepep contractor appeals High Court’s stay of its lawsuit

LAVENTILLE-based contractor Eastman Enterprise Ltd has approached the Court of Appeal to lift the High Court’s stay of its lawsuit against the Cepep Company Ltd over the April termination of more than 300 contracts.

The appeal, filed on August 14, comes days after Cepep signalled its intention to sue its former board for breach of fiduciary duty over the same contract extensions days before the April 28 general election, which could cost the state an estimated $1.4 billion.

Eastman also wants an order to send its lawsuit and injunction application back to the High Court before another judge, a declaration that the referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was procedurally improper and unlawful and if the court rules in its favour, for the Appeal Court’s order and decision to be sent to the DPP.

In its notice of appeal, Eastman argues that Justice Margaret Mohammed erred in law and fact when she ruled on August 7 that the company’s claim must first go through the contract’s mediation process before being brought to court. The judge also referred the case documents to the DPP for review and ordered Eastman to pay costs.

Eastman’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Larry Lalla, with St Clair O’Neil and Kareem Marcelle, advanced 11 grounds of appeal. They contend that Mohammed misapplied the law on Clause 17 of the contract, wrongly placed the burden on Eastman to object to the wording of the clause, and failed to account for the company’s need for urgent interim relief, which mediation could not provide.

The appeal also challenges the judge’s findings that Eastman “ought to have been aware” of alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in a board note signed by then chairman Joel Edwards, even though she accepted there was no evidence of Eastman’s involvement. Eastman further argues that Mohammed improperly relied on Cepep’s affidavit without giving the contractor a chance to respond, relied on untested evidence, and acted outside her authority in referring the matter to the DPP.

Mohammed had ruled that Clause 17 of the contract, which sets out a tiered dispute resolution process, remained valid even after the agreement’s termination. She said both parties were bound to follow that process, which she argued promoted legal certainty and served the public interest.

The contractor’s lawsuit, which alleges wrongful termination and unpaid wages for thousands of workers, is one of two filed by Laventille-based contractors over Cepep’s decision to cancel 336 extended contracts. The other case was withdrawn after it emerged the company was not on the Companies Registry.

The mass termination, carried out just months after the controversial contract extensions to 2029, has been a political flashpoint, with the opposition accusing the government of mishandling the matter and leaving thousands of workers unemployed.

Cepep case file sent to DPP

THE High Court’s proceedings and documents relating to the PNM’s second Cepep lawsuit have been sent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Supreme Court Registrar Raymond Roberts confirmed to Newsday that the file was sent on August 8 and the DPP’s secretariat acknowledged receipt.

On August 7, Justice Margaret Mohammed stayed the lawsuit and referred the extension of more than 300 Cepep contracts, allegedly approved by the company’s former board without proper authorisation, to the DPP.

In staying the lawsuit filed by a Laventille-based contractor challenging the termination of its contract with the Cepep Company, the judge referred to a dispute resolution clause in the contract agreement, clause 17, which she said must be followed before court action is taken.

She added that serious concerns surrounding the contract extensions warranted referral to the DPP.

“The serious matters concerning the extension of the agreement to September 2029 necessitate the granting of a stay of the claim and all proceedings and a referral of all the documents filed in this action to the Director of Public Prosecution for his consideration.”

The ruling comes amid claims that Cepep’s former board improperly extended 336 contracts — worth approximately $1.4 billion — through September 2029, allegedly based on false claims of cabinet approval. The Cepep Company is now investigating the matter as possible “political fraud.”

The lawsuit by Eastman Enterprises Ltd alleged wrongful contract termination and unpaid wages for thousands of workers. Cepep contends that the former board acted outside its authority in extending the contracts.

In her ruling on the preliminary issue raised by Cepep on the proper forum to hear the contract dispute, Mohammed noted the conflicting accounts between former Cepep chairman Joel Edwards and current CEO Keith Eddy before referring the matter to the DPP.

Edwards, in an affidavit in support of Eastman’s lawsuit, said that during his tenure, cabinet approval was never sought for renewing or terminating contracts. He claimed a board note suggesting cabinet approval for a mass contract extension was a mistake, which he had ordered to be corrected, though he was unable to locate the revised version. He has since denied all wrongdoing, insisting that during his tenure as chairman, he held several discussions with the CEO, the minister and others regarding a 2017 cabinet decision and the authority it gave the board. Edwards categorically rejected claims that he fabricated a fraudulent misrepresentation to deceive Cepep into extending the contracts, insisting he was not guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or any breach of duty.

Eddy, in an affidavit in the Eastman’s case, said he was told by Edwards that the Cabinet had approved the extensions and was assured a confirmation memorandum would follow.

Cepep Company Ltd in Ste Madeleine. – File photo by Innis Francis

Relying on Edwards’ claims and the alleged involvement of then-line minister Faris Al-Rawi, Eddy said he instructed that the Board Note be prepared stating cabinet approval had been granted. At no point, he said, was he informed of any error in the document. Cepep’s corporate secretary, Shalini Gopaulsingh, supported Eddy’s account, stating she was told Cabinet had approved the extensions and was never advised of any correction to the Board Note.

The note was approved by the board with Edwards’ signature and without objection. Acting permanent secretary Savitri Ram-Atwaroo said that no official cabinet record approving the contract extensions could be found, despite efforts to confirm it with relevant ministries. Mohammed observed that while the contractor who brought the case was not implicated in any fraudulent activity, it had benefited from the disputed extension and should have been aware of the irregularities. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the absence of a sworn affidavit from Al-Rawi, as the former minister, Mohammed ruled it was in the interest of justice to stay the proceedings.

“In my view, based on the serious allegation made against him (Al-Rawi), it is only fair that he is given an opportunity to respond.

“In those circumstances, it is prudent at this stage to grant a stay of the claim and all proceedings and to refer the documents filed in this action to the Director of Public Prosecution for his consideration.”’

In a statement on August 7, Al-Rawi pointed to what he described as “critical material” not before the court, including a 2017 cabinet note authorising Cepep to terminate, suspend and hire contractors, and a 2025 cabinet decision approving midyear budget supplementation. Both, he said, had been publicly acknowledged by former finance minister Colm Imbert.

“It is starkly relevant to note that these cabinet decisions and other critical material have not been disclosed in the Eastman proceedings and were therefore not before the Honourable Madame Justice Mohammed in her deliberations leading to the ruling today.

“Any proper investigation into this matter and any questions arising is welcomed. Cepep has a continuing duty of full candour and disclosure.”

Eastman’s lawsuit followed a similar claim filed by another Laventille-based contractor, but was quickly withdrawn after it was revealed the company was removed from the Companies Registry. Both claims sought to overturn Cepep’s decision to terminate the 336 contracts.

Public Utilities Minister Barry Padarath has said an audit of Cepep’s operations remains ongoing. He also said previously he was in the process of seeking legal advice with an intent to report the extension of contracts to the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Fraud Squad for immediate investigation, to determine whether criminal charges for fraud and misconduct should be laid.

Defending the move to dismiss contractors, Padarath, who is the line minister, said the programme had been used as a political prostitute by the PNM.

DPP loses appeal in 20-year bribery case against ex-cop

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Roger Gaspard, SC, has lost a final bid to retry a former police officer for corruption, after the Privy Council dismissed the appeal and upheld a stay of proceedings imposed by the local courts.

The ruling brings to a close a nearly 20-year legal saga surrounding Nawaz Ali’s alleged solicitation and acceptance of bribes. Ali was first tried in 2010 on three counts of corruption related to bribes allegedly solicited in exchange for halting a stolen vehicle investigation. He was acquitted on the first two counts but convicted on the third and sentenced to five years in prison. That conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2010, which ordered a retrial. The retrial collapsed in 2018 when the presiding judge, then-Justice Gillian Lucky, stayed the case, citing unfairness stemming from the exclusion of evidence related to the first two counts.

The DPP challenged that stay, but the Court of Appeal upheld it in 2021. In its final judgment, the Privy Council dismissed the DPP’s appeal, ruling that although the indictment was legally permissible, the proceedings had become oppressive due to excessive delays and flawed judicial decisions.

“This case… is wholly exceptional,” the Privy Council said. “It would be quite unconscionable to permit a further trial which would take place some 20 years after Mr Ali was charged with these offences.”

“The Board unhesitatingly concludes that the State has failed to bring these proceedings to trial within a reasonable time…The decision to uphold the stay is justified on the ground of delay and was one which was plainly open to the second Court of Appeal in 2021. The Board considers that it would be wrong to interfere with it. The position is even clearer now, in 2025, than it was then.”

The judges also rejected the DPP’s concern in his reason for appealing the stay. It was submitted that Ali had been suspended without pay since his arrest and may seek to advance a claim for reinstatement, back pay and pension entitlements. King’s Counsel Peter Knox, who represented the DPP, argued it would be in the public interest that Ali’s guilt or innocence on the third count of the indictment should be determined in a criminal trial. “The Board does not accept that this justifies the removal of the stay. The events giving rise to the charge took place in December 2005 and January 2006, very nearly 20 years ago. These proceedings have been hanging over Mr Ali throughout that time, including the possibility of a five-year prison term with hard labour.

“They are rightly stayed. A stay, however, is not the same as an acquittal. For all practical purposes, it determines these criminal proceedings which will never now proceed to a determination on the merits.

“Even if Mr Ali had been acquitted on all counts, this would not have prevented his employer from alleging and adducing evidence to prove in disciplinary or civil proceedings that Mr Ali solicited and received bribes.

“As it is, he was convicted by the jury on count three, and it is a consequence of what has been said above that that conviction ought not to have been quashed by the first Court of Appeal. He was safely convicted…The outcome of these criminal proceedings will be of no assistance to Mr Ali in any disciplinary or civil proceedings.”

According to the evidence at the first trial in 2010, the key prosecution witness, Azard Hosein, testified that on December 25, 2005, Ali and other officers came to his premises and accused him of possessing a stolen vehicle. He was taken to the Cunupia police station, where Ali allegedly told him the matter was serious and could be expensive. Hosein said Ali suggested he could avoid trouble by paying $9,000 to the officers. Hosein reportedly said he could only come up with $3,000, and later agreed to pay $6,000 after Ali consulted with a sergeant.

According to Hosein, his son withdrew $4,500 that day, which he handed to Ali at the station. The son provided withdrawal slips showing he had withdrawn the exact amount around the same time.

Later, Hosein reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau. On January 4, 2006, acting on instructions, he arranged to give Ali the remaining $1,500 in marked bills supplied by the police. Hosein testified that he handed the money to Ali in a room at the back of the station. This was confirmed by an officer who testified that when he arrived at the station shortly after, he found Ali with an envelope in his pocket containing the marked bills. The serial numbers matched the copies taken earlier, and the envelope had the agreed markings.

Ali, in his defence, agreed with Hosein’s version of events only up to the point of arriving at the station. He said he merely took a witness statement from Hosein and returned his documents after the sergeant found nothing conclusive. He denied asking for money or receiving $4,500. Concerning the January 4 meeting, Ali claimed Hosein had referred to bringing “the thing,” which he believed meant documents. He admitted receiving an envelope but denied discussing money, saying he was surprised when the envelope was found to contain cash. Ali did not appear at the appeal before the Privy Council and was not represented.

Lords Hodge, Briggs, Leggatt, Richards and Sir Andrew Edis presided over the appeal. Sir Andrew wrote the decision.

Vincent Nelson loses Appeal Court bid to challenge corruption conviction

CONVICTED King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson has lost his plea to the Appeal Court for permission to challenge his 2019 corruption conviction.

Justices Nolan Bereaux, James Aboud and Geoffrey Henderson on July 29 ruled Nelson failed to prove misconduct by state officials and waited too long to file his appeal.

Justice Henderson, delivering the decision of the three-judge panel, said Nelson, a UK-based tax attorney, voluntarily entered a plea deal in 2019 and had every chance to tell the trial judge about any promises or threats he now claims led to his guilty plea. Nelson was represented by senior counsel at the time but raised no concerns about improper inducements.

Nelson pleaded guilty in June 2019 to conspiracy to commit corruption and money laundering in a legal-fee kickback scheme. He was fined $2.25 million in March 2020 after agreeing to testify against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen. Those cases were dropped in 2022 after Nelson refused to testify until a $95 million civil claim over an alleged indemnity agreement was resolved. The judge in that matter is still to deliver a ruling.

In his appeal, Nelson argued that former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi promised him immunity, a pardon and payment of fees, and that he only gave a self-incriminating statement because he believed he was protected. Justice Henderson noted that Nelson offered no sworn statement from the attorney who relayed the alleged promise, and the evidence showed he acted voluntarily throughout the plea process.

On the issue of delay, the court found Nelson’s October 2023 appeal was filed more than four years after his conviction and over three years after sentencing. Henderson said Nelson’s explanations, including illness and an expectation of a pardon, were not convincing enough to justify the lengthy delay.

The court concluded that granting an extension would undermine the integrity of plea agreements, which rely on safeguards in the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Agreement) Act. “No satisfactory or convincing reasons have been proffered which justify the lengthy delay,” Henderson wrote.

In his appeal, Nelson contended he was misled by broken promises, threats, and executive overreach.

Nelson’s appeal notice was filed in October 2023 – five years late. His lawyers, led by Edward Fitzgerald, KC, say he missed the 14-day deadline because of state misconduct surrounding his plea agreement. Justice of Appeal Mark Mohammed dismissed an earlier application last year, prompting this new bid before the three-member panel.

Fitzgerald claimed Nelson only provided a self-incriminating statement after Al-Rawi promised immunity, a pardon, and payment of outstanding fees. He said Nelson was a confidential informant whose identity should have been protected, but the state “flagrantly” broke the agreement.

“Why would he put his head in a noose unless he believed he was protected?” Fitzgerald asked, noting Nelson was paid £1 million ($8.99 million) just days after giving the statement.

He argued Nelson was “tricked.”

“It may have been a false promise, a trick, an overreach, but we say that a promise was made.”

The DPP’s lead attorney, Ian Benjamin, SC, argued, however, that Nelson was a seasoned barrister who knowingly entered a plea deal and waited years to challenge it for personal advantage.

“He wanted leverage, a ‘strong bargaining position,’” Benjamin said, adding that Nelson’s affidavit was riddled with contradictions. “He led, initiated, designed and executed the strategy of negotiation with the [former] attorney general.”

Benjamin also stressed that only the DPP controls prosecutions and pardons come solely from the Mercy Committee, not the attorney general.

“There is no prospect of success,” he concluded.

Henderson, a former DPP, was in agreement.

“Standing against the applicant’s claim of inducement is a body of material that demonstrates that the applicant voluntarily pleaded guilty.

“On the totality of the credible and admissible evidence, the applicant has not discharged his burden establishing that the courts’ process has been abused or that he is likely to succeed on this ground should leave to appeal be granted.”

Nelson is yet to pay the $2.25 million fine imposed on him.

Naveen Maraj and Varun Debideen also represented Nelson. Tekiyah Jorsling and Tonya Rowley appeared for the DPP.

Man in court for Petit Valley murder

A 21-year-old Port of Spain man has appeared before a Master of the High Court, charged with the murder of Michael Mervyn Johnson, which occurred on June 7.

A TTPS press release on June 27 said that Ismiel Al-Jihad James of One Woodbrook Place, was also charged with possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition, when he appeared before Master Simone Hosein, in the Port of Spain Criminal High Court North, on June 26.

The Sufficiency Hearing date was set for December 11.

Johnson, 40, of Petit Valley, was found dead in a vehicle at Cameron Hill, Petit Valley on June 7, with injuries to his head.

One male suspect was arrested by officers of the Tobago Division’s Gang and Intelligence Unit on June 20.

Investigations were supervised by Ag ASP Ramjag, Ag Insp Seecharan, Ag Insp Ramsumair, all of the Homicide Bureau of Investigations (HBI), Region I, with the assistance of various agencies.

James was charged with the offences by WPC Wright also of HBI Region I, following advice received from Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, on June 25.

Woman freed of 2014 murder after dad dies in prison awaiting trial

CRIMINAL proceedings against a Cumuto man and his daughter accused of murdering his common-law partner have formally ended.

Sewak Jagroo, 58, was charged in August 2023 alongside his daughter Shastri Jagroo, 25, with the 2014 murder of Esther Williams, who was initially believed to have died by suicide.

During a hearing before Master Shabiki Cazabon on June 18, attorneys representing the State and the accused confirmed that a notice of discontinuance would be filed by that day. The court also ordered that Shastri be released upon the filing and service of the notice on prison authorities.

Sewak died in prison on January 1.

The notices were filed by Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, on June 18, for the Jagroos.

Williams, 54, was found dead at her home in Cumuto on April 18, 2014. At the time, police said both Jagroos allegedly reported to police that they discovered her body hanging and suggested she had taken her own life.

However, a post-mortem later revealed that Williams had died from ligature strangulation and had sustained blunt traumatic injuries inconsistent with suicide. The case remained unsolved for years until the Cold Case Unit, led by acting ASP Sean Dhillpaul, reopened the investigation.

With the help of Sgt Sean Williams and Cpl Shawn Gordon, charges were eventually laid in 2023 following legal advice from the DPP, a release from the police service said. The Jagroos were arrested on August 29, 2023, at McBean, Couva.

At the time, it was said the case was the eleventh murder case solved by the Cold Case Unit since it was established in 2017.

Shuzvon Ramdass of the public defender’s department represented Sewak while Criston J Williams and Aaron Lewis represented Shastri, who was in university when she was charged.