Canadian YouTuber Christopher Hughes was not taken on a tour of various areas in Laventille and East Port of Spain on Saturday. This from the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS), which issues a release denying that the Canadian YouTuber was taken on a tour of areas in Laventille and East Port of Spain contrary to reports from several media outlets in the past few days. The TTPS has said that investigation into his videos featuring gang members continue, but the TTPS remains a responsible organisation and has a duty to ensure the safety of all persons in our custody.
The TTPS release also stated that Mr Hughes has not been moved since he was charged and it was unfortunate when such erroneous statements are publicly made, as they put at risk the lives of all involved. The TTPS added that while he has been charged, Mr Hughes is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Hughes, who remains under the care of the State, has been visited over the last few days by a team of attorneys led by Criston J Williams, who have provided legal advice as well as clothing and other necessary items while in custody. Williams is representing Hughes’ interests in this matter and is expected to be with him for Monday’s court appearance.
Hughes has been charged under the Sedition Act. However, police said that he is still being questioned in relation to other incidents. Police have deemed Hughes a flight risk, and he will therefore remain in police custody until his court appearance.
Hughes was formally charged on Wednesday by Sgt Lee of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) with publishing a statement with a seditious intention. An earlier release from the T&T Police Service, said that the investigation into Hughes “began after his social media activities under the pseudonym Chris Must List came to the attention of the TTPS. Hughes allegedly posted videos featuring individuals professing to be gang members, advocating criminal activities, and using threatening language.”
Director of Public Prosecutions, Roger Gaspard SC, was consulted and directives were given to charge the accused under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act after enough evidence was produced to lay charges for ‘a seditious publication to wit: an audio/visual video via YouTube the social media platform’.