-says judge’s orders weakened constitutional right to freedom of expression
Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has applied to the Guyana Court of Appeal for a stay of the judgment requiring him to pay geotechnical engineer Charles Ceres $15 million in damages and $2.15 million in costs for defamation.
In a summons dated July 9, Jagdeo is seeking to have the June 12 judgment and orders of Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln stayed until his appeal is heard and determined. He is also seeking costs and any other order the court considers just.
The court document does not state a hearing date for the application.
In an accompanying affidavit, Jagdeo argued that his appeal has good prospects of success and that the interests of justice favour a stay.
He said that if he paid the award and subsequently succeeded on appeal, he might be unable to recover the money from Ceres.
“I am not aware of any assets (other than the state leases in question) held by or the income of the Respondent which will enable him to repay any monies that may be paid to him pursuant to the judgment…in the event that the appeal is successful,” Jagdeo said in the affidavit.
He contended that Ceres would suffer no prejudice if the stay were granted and said there was no risk that the judgment could not be enforced should his appeal fail. Jagdeo stated that he owns property at Goedverwagting, East Coast Demerara, and is the Vice President.
The dispute arose from statements Jagdeo made at a June 27, 2019 press conference while he was Leader of the Opposition. His remarks concerned the allocation of state lands under the former APNU+AFC administration and were subsequently reported by the Guyana Times and Kaieteur News.
Ceres sued Jagdeo, the newspapers and their editors, contending that the statements suggested that he had obtained state lands through corrupt, illegal and otherwise improper means.
Justice Corbin-Lincoln found that Jagdeo’s statements were defamatory and capable of lowering Ceres in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
Kiskadee Watch had earlier reported that the judge found that Jagdeo had published or caused the statements to be published at the press conference and through the PPP/C’s Facebook account. She also found that Ceres had been identified by name.
The judge struck out Jagdeo’s defence of justification because it did not set out the defamatory meanings he sought to justify or provide the particulars required under the Civil Procedure Rules. She found that he would not have succeeded even if that defence had not been struck out.
Jagdeo led no evidence at the trial, according to the judgment, although Ceres was cross-examined by his attorneys.
The court dismissed the claims against the two newspapers. It found that the Guyana Times had established the statutory defence of qualified privilege because its article was a fair and accurate report of a public meeting and there was no evidence of malice.
Ceres was ordered to pay $1 million in costs to the Guyana Times defendants. The claim against Kaieteur News and its publisher was also dismissed, and they were awarded $500,000 in costs.
Broader issue
In his affidavit supporting the stay application, Jagdeo said his 2019 remarks formed part of a broader issue which he considered it his duty to address.
He alleged that an “institutional system” had resulted in the disposal of state lands to members, relatives and associates of the former government without public advertisements or competitive bidding. These claims remain Jagdeo’s allegations and were not findings made in his favour by the High Court.
Jagdeo said his remarks concerned “credible allegations of corruption within the Office of the President” and the allocation of valuable state lands to persons connected to the then administration.
His appeal challenges the judge’s treatment of the meaning and context of his remarks, along with her rejection of the defences of truth, fair comment and qualified privilege.
He also contends that the court placed too much weight on when the lands were allocated and did not sufficiently consider the manner in which the allocations were made.
“The words in question ought to have been understood and interpreted in the context of allegations by the Appellant that a number of valuable state lands were being allocated to hand-picked individuals with connections to the Office of the Presidency and in a manner which was irregular, non-transparent and detrimental to the people of Guyana,” the affidavit said.
Jagdeo further argues that the judge drew an artificial distinction between Ceres personally and a company in which he held shares when considering the allocation of land at Liliendaal.
On fair comment, Jagdeo argues that there was enough evidence before the court to establish the defence, even though the judge found deficiencies in how it had been pleaded.
He said the court was required to consider all the evidence elicited during the trial, including under Ceres’s cross-examination.
Jagdeo also maintains that his remarks were made on an occasion of qualified privilege because, as Opposition Leader, he had a duty to comment on the allocation of public property.
“The learned judge failed to strike a proper balance between the right of the Appellant, as a public figure, to make public comments about the allocation of public property and the individual right of the Respondent to the protection of his reputation,” his affidavit said.
He argued that the ruling had effectively restricted political leaders from publicly criticising the allocation of state property.
“The orders made by the learned judge have weakened the constitutional right to freedom of expression,” Jagdeo contended. “The judgment below has important implications for free speech.”
The appeal also challenges the $15 million damages award as unjustified and excessive and argues that the decision was against the weight of the evidence.
Jagdeo filed his notice of appeal on June 15, three days after the High Court delivered its judgment. He is represented by attorney C V Satram.
Discussion