A High Court judge has ordered the government controlled Department of Public Information (DPI) and the Attorney General, to pay GUY$10 million (One Guyana dollar=US$0,004 cents) to the chairman of the International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly-Guyana (IDPADA-G), Vincent Alexander, for statements made by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and published by the DPI in 2022.
‘Having weighed all the factors and had regard to the purpose of an award of damages I am satisfied that an award of GUY$10,000,000 represents fair and reasonable compensation to vindicate the claimant’s reputation and to compensate him for the injury suffered,’ Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln said in her judgement. In addition, Justice Lincoln also ordered DPI to remove the interview by the end of this year, and pay GUY$500,000 in costs to Alexander.
Alexander will have to pay Jagdeo costs of GUY$350,000 after the Court found him not liable, and that ‘the first defendant (Jagdeo) failed to establish that the defamatory words were true in substance or in fact or that they were fair comment’.
The judge said Alexander failed to prove malice.
Referring to Jagdeo’s comments, in addressing the issue of qualified privilege, the judge said the Vice-President, as a public official, had a duty to inform the public about the use and potential misuse of public funds.
‘The taxpaying public would have a corresponding right to know how public funds are being used. Having regard to all the circumstances including the subject matter and identity of the publisher and recipients I find that the publication was made by the 1st defendant (Mr Jagdeo) on a privileged occasion,’ she said.
Jagdeo at one of his numerous press conference, had accused Alexander of being part owner of the IDPADA-G organization that has benefited from millions of dollars in annual government subventions.
Jagdeo among other things, said Alexander was among a group of persons who are directly benefiting from the subventions and that the monies were not benefiting Afro- Guyanese groups. The interview was then posted by the Government controlled, DPI.
Alexander had taken offence with the statements and had approached the Courts seeking relief and for the interview to be taken down.
In her ruling, Justice Corbin-Lincoln said naming Alexander among a group of persons who benefit directly from the Government subvention to IDPADA-G is capable of being a defamatory as they convey that the he is dishonest, holds himself out as believing in the Afro Guyanese cause for his own pecuniary interest and, as one of the beneficial owner of IDPADA-G, he is part of a group that has used public funds given to the company for his personal benefit to the detriment of ordinary Afro-Guyanese.
She said among other things, the words uttered also convey the message that the claimant was unscrupulous and that he engages in unethical, immoral and illegal behaviour
‘Having considered the words complained of I find that they are capable of the meanings alleged in that the words mean that the claimant is dishonest, lacks integrity and has engaged in conduct which was unethical, unscrupulous and insincere and was doing so for his personal financial benefit to the detriment of others including using public funds for his personal benefit.
‘I find that the words complained of are capable of lowering the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society and are defamatory,’ the judge said in her ruling.
‘In determining the appropriate award, I have had regard to the awards made in other cases and taken into account all the relevant circumstances including the standing of the claimant, the seriousness of the allegation, the nature (online) and extent of the publication, the absence of any retraction or apology and the facts that the defamatory publication continues to be available on the 2nd defendant’s website,’ Justice Corbin-Lincoln also said.
She said DPI and the Attorney General led no evidence to prove any of the pleaded defences and that ‘the publication is still available on the 2nd defendant’s webpage and thus the injury is ongoing.
‘There is no evidence of the extent of the publication or viewership of the 2nd defendant (DPI) but the publication is accessible to the world at large,’ she added.