Advertise with Aurax News — Reach a Global Audience Today.
By Aurax Radio | July 28, 2026 | 2 min read
The High Court has ordered the release of businesswoman Star Sabga from detention and placed her under house arrest while legal proceedings continue. The ruling follows a challenge to her Preventive Detention Order, with the State seeking a stay of the decision as the legal battle continues.
Justice Vigel Paul delivered the ruling to release Star Sabga on house arrest.
The High Court of Trinidad and Tobago has ordered the release of 69-year-old businesswoman Star Sabga from prison and directed that she be placed under house arrest, following a legal challenge to her continued detention under a Preventive Detention Order (PDO). Justice Vigel Paul granted the application brought by Sabga's attorneys, who argued that her continued detention was not justified after similar orders involving Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed were lifted and they received conditional release. Sabga had been detained at the Women's Prison in Arouca in connection with allegations of involvement in a wider conspiracy to harm government officials, claims that have not resulted in criminal charges being filed against her.
In his ruling, Justice Paul questioned whether Sabga's continued detention was necessary, noting that other individuals linked to the same alleged investigation had been released. The judge found that there was no evidence presented showing Sabga had taken further steps beyond statements made during an intercepted telephone conversation with Genevieve Hadeed. The recording, which became central to the case, was referenced in court documents filed by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander and later circulated publicly, leading to broader debate over the use of intelligence material and preventive detention powers.
Following the ruling, attorneys representing the State requested a stay of the release order, similar to previous legal action taken after conditional release decisions involving Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed. The State argued that national security considerations required continued reliance on the assessments made by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, while Sabga's legal team maintained that her detention violated her constitutional rights. The case remains part of a wider legal challenge involving the government's use of emergency powers and Preventive Detention Orders during an ongoing investigation.