A private telephone conversation between Star Sabga, a 70-year-old cheesemaker, and her niece Genevieve Hadeed, was intercepted by the State. The call, conducted from the privacy of their homes, was used to support allegations of an assassination plot. However, the recording, while containing political anger and offensive language, did not provide evidence of any agreement, identified attacker, weapon, or plan.
The Court of Appeal identified a significant evidential gap, emphasizing that vehement or reprehensible words alone do not constitute a conspiracy. Genevieve Hadeed consistently spoke of innocence, asserting that their community was wrongfully accused without involvement in any crime. She expressed distress over visa revocations affecting her livelihood and questioned the legality of the State’s actions.
The conversation included Star Sabga’s criticisms of political figures and her concerns over racial issues. She accused Donald Trump of racism and criticized Kamla Persad-Bissessar for neglecting Black citizens, asserting that Syrian-Lebanese businesses, like hers, employed many Black individuals. Her predictions of political violence, while alarming, identified no specific plan or attacker.
The State’s interception and use of this conversation raised questions about constitutional protections, including privacy and freedom of expression. The call supplied grounds for investigation but failed to establish any assassination conspiracy. The Court found no disclosed material indicating that a plan was underway or posed a real risk.
This case highlights the need for transparency and safeguards in handling private communications, especially when used as a basis for serious allegations and detentions under emergency powers. The public deserves clarity on who authorized the interception and under what legal framework.
