Advertise with Aurax News — Reach a Global Audience Today.
By Aurax Radio | July 17, 2026 | 2 min read
The release of Trinidad and Tobago business owners Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed was delayed after the State moved to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling ordering their release under strict house arrest. An emergency court hearing was convened as the government sought to halt the implementation of the appellate court's decision.
An emergency court hearing was convened after the State challenged the Court of Appeal's order directing the Hadeeds' release under house arrest.
The release of business owners Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed from the Golden Grove Prison in Arouca was delayed Thursday evening after the State launched an emergency legal challenge to a Court of Appeal ruling that had ordered the couple's release under strict house arrest conditions. The Hadeeds had been expected to leave the prison following the appellate court's decision, but they remained in custody as the State sought further judicial intervention before the order could be carried out. The latest development came hours after the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court decision and directed that the couple be released subject to electronic monitoring and other restrictions while legal proceedings continue.
Attorney Faris Al-Rawi, a member of the Hadeeds' legal team, was present at the prison during the anticipated release and told reporters that the State intended to challenge the appellate court's decision. He said he was there to facilitate the release of his clients if the court's order proceeded as directed. Al-Rawi later left the prison without making additional public statements. According to reports, the State requested an emergency hearing before a High Court judge to seek relief from the Court of Appeal's ruling, with the matter scheduled to be heard later that evening.
Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed have been detained under Preventive Detention Orders issued during Trinidad and Tobago's ongoing State of Emergency, a measure introduced by the government as part of its response to serious violent crime. Their attorneys have challenged the legality of the detention, arguing that it infringes constitutional rights, while the State has defended the use of the emergency powers. The emergency hearing represents the latest stage in a closely watched legal dispute that could shape how preventive detention orders are applied and reviewed under the country's emergency legislation.