Joshua Samaroo’s father released on $100,000 bail

Trinidad and Tobago: Christopher Samaroo, father of police-involved shooting victim Joshua Samaroo, has been released on $100,000 bail after spending more than a week in police custody under the charges of the Regulation 11(a) Emergency Powers Regulations for the comments he allegedly made during an interview on the Eye on Dependency radio programme.

The charge under Regulation 11(a) of the Emergency Powers Regulations, which makes it an offence to attempt, verbally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in a way that could prejudice public safety.

A Justice of the Peace granted Samaroo bail on Tuesday June 30th as he left the Belmont Police Station around 8:30 p.m.

The case has been raising serious questions and criticism about free expression, emergency powers and the treatment of people who publicly criticise the justice system of the police.

Samaroo’s attorney, Aaron Lewis, seriously maintains that the comments were taken out of context and were misunderstood as Samaroo didn’t mean it like that.

According to Lewis, Samaroo voluntarily went to the Central Police Station with his attorney to address the concerns about the remarks as the Samaroo’s comments on the radio show were widely surfacing over the internet. They were reportedly told that officers there had no information concerning him and regarding the matter until then.

After visiting the police stations, Samaroo was eventually detained at St Clair and later charged on June 22 after the police launched an investigation into comments he made.

According to the reports, Samaroo also spent several days at the Port of Spain General Hospital after he sustained a mild heart attack while in custody and had been receiving medical treatment at the hospital and was only discharged on the day he got the bail.

As per further reports, no court has yet determined whether his words crossed the legal line. The charge remains as an allegation only. The case has triggered public outrage as the supporters of the charge are arguing that emergency conditions require stronger safeguards against statements capable of provoking disorder while the critics are raising concerns regarding whether a grieving father’s words should result in prolonged detention before the allegation is tested in court.