Justice Brassington Reynolds yesterday said that he is only prepared to admit hundreds of editions of the Kaieteur News into evidence in the Jagdeo libel case, if specific parts connected to the article that prompted the lawsuit are presented.
He made this ruling on an application by lead counsel for former president Bharrat Jagdeo, Bernard De Santos SC, who presented legal authorities to support his bid while the defence continued to object.
“I am going to rule against the acceptance of the newspapers en bloc for now. I am not going to allow it until I am given details and specifics to say what connects with what,” he said, after hearing almost an hour long argument between De Santos and lead defence attorney Nigel Hughes.
Jagdeo brought the libel suit against Kaieteur News and columnist Freddie Kissoon over a June 28, 2010 article, titled ‘King Kong sent his goons to disrupt the conference’, which allegedly portrayed him and the government as racist. Kaieteur News’ editor Adam Harris and owner of the newspaper Glenn Lall were also named in the suit.
De Santos, citing Gatley on Libel and Slander as well as Defamation: Law, Procedure and Practice, noted that they spoke on evidence of malice, defamation among other things. The senior counsel later submitted to the court that he could confidently say that the newspapers in question would show an almost daily attack on Jagdeo.
However, Hughes, in response, noted that the latest witness, Office of the President media monitor Raul Kissoon, sought to tender every edition of Kaieteur News from June 1, 2010 to present. He stressed that at no time was there any attempt to refer to a specific edition and a specific part of that edition.
He added that no evidence of the repetition of that slander was produced, which would be needed if the newspapers are to be tendered.
“This has not been demonstrated to the court because all the witness attempted to do was to tender all these newspapers without highlighting specific instances of repetition,” Hughes noted. He continued that aggravated damages were abolished and a claim could only be made to exemplary damages. There is no obligation on the part of the plaintiff, he submitted, to glean such.
Later De Santos, while agreeing that the witness should have identified the specific articles, argued that “there need not be a repeat of the libel or another libel. This evidence was going to show his [Freddie Kissoon’s] state of mind.”
He noted that while they did not specifically plead for exemplary damages in the statement of claim, the evidence, if submitted, would capture it.
But Justice Reynolds later said that he could not accept the proposed evidence as a whole. “I understand the need for a lot more particularity than that which is brought to me for me to accept en bloc,” he explained, adding that the dots of the case must be connected to some newspaper article.
Contradicting evidence
At yesterday’s hearing, De Santos continued his re-examination of the chief witness for Jagdeo, Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon.
Initially, Hughes objected on the grounds that there was an attempt to solicit fresh information. Justice Reynolds later overruled the objection after De Santos noted that Luncheon was unable to provide the evidence because of how the question was asked of him during Hughes’ cross-examination.
Luncheon testified about the importance of Linden as a stakeholder in the privatization process, while noting that the privatized bauxite industry provided employment as well the provision of social amenities, like education, health and utilities, to residents who were not direct employees.
He also said that over $1.7 billion was spent last year on the provision of electricity, and with rising fuel costs that amount was expected to exceed over $2 million this year.
He also reminded the court of the hundreds of millions of dollars shortfall from the pension scheme that had to be met by government as the privatization deal included the servants of all the employers in the industry. He said government replenished the pension scheme funding to allow several employees to receive their benefits which they were due.
Afterward, Hughes sought the court’s permission to present evidence that he said contradicted Luncheon’s testimony about the NIS and Linden bauxite workers’ pension scheme yesterday.
He also said he would offer new evidence relating to four recently named ambassadors of Afro-Guyanese descent. He will produce the evidence when the case continues next Monday.
