Lawyers for former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran have lodged an appeal against a decision by Justice Peter Hugh where he ruled in favour of Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo in a defamation case.
Goolsarran had approached the High Court accusing Jagdeo of defaming him.
The case arose from statements made by Jagdeo at a People’s Progressive Party press conference at Freedom House on March 23, 2023, and at a political rally at Port Mourant on March 26, 2023.
Goolsarran had claimed that the statements damaged his reputation by suggesting that he lacked integrity in the performance of his duties as Auditor General and that he was politically partisan and selective in his criticism of government conduct.
On September 17, Justice Hugh found that the statements by Jagdeo were indeed capable of carrying a defamatory meaning and that an ordinary, reasonable and intelligent Guyanese would understand them as lowering Goolsarran in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. However, the judge found that this did not mean Jagdeo was liable for defamation.
Among other things, lawyers for Goolsarran are arguing in the appeal that the judge erred in law in his approach to the defence of justification:
(a) In failing to require the Respondent (Jagdeo) to justify the defamatory meanings found at paragraphs [46] to [50] of the Judgment, and in substituting a
narrower sting at paragraph [72].
(b) In holding at paragraphs [74] and [81] that proof of the underlying facts
established the truth of the imputation that the Appellant (Goolsarran) lacked integrity, and in giving no reasons for so holding.
(c) In treating the statements as value judgments at paragraph [79] and applying
the test for fair comment, a defence he had struck out at paragraphs [89] to
[91].
(d) In holding at paragraph [76] that the Appellant’s explanation did not affect
the truth of the words, thereby reversing the burden of proof.
(e) In relying at paragraph [79] upon the levels of meaning in Chase v News
Group Newspapers Ltd to treat imputations of fact as value judgments.
The relief sought from the Court of Appeal is the setting aside of the decision of
the judge, judgment for the Appellant on the claim; damages, including aggravated damages, to be assessed by the Court of Appeal or, alternatively, by the High Court; an injunction restraining the Respondent from further publishing the words complained of or similar words; and the costs of this Appeal and of the proceedings below.
The appeal was filed by attorneys Khemraj Ramjattan and Christopher Ram.
Discussion