Attorney Nigel Hughes yesterday moved to have US-based Guyanese professor Dr. David Hinds deemed an expert witness in political science for his client Freddie Kissoon, when the proceedings continued in the $10M libel case brought against him and the Kaieteur News by former president Bharrat Jagdeo.
Hinds is the latest witness to be called by Kissoon’s lawyers. Kissoon, who was the last witness on the stand, is yet to complete his evidence. A decision was made to take Hinds’ evidence, since he resides abroad.
Yesterday’s hearing before Justice Brassington Reynolds came after a lengthy delay.
Led in his evidence-in-chief by Hughes, Hinds said that he is an associate professor of Caribbean and African diaspora studies at the Arizona State University in the United States. Speaking about his academic qualifications, he added that he holds a Bachelor’s Degree in political science from the University of the District of Columbia, Washington DC and a Master’s Degree in political science as well as a PhD from the Howard University, Washington DC. He teaches courses on race and racism in the African diaspora and ethnicity and politics in the African diaspora.
He also told the court that he had published two books on race and ethnicity in Guyana; “Race and Political Discourse in Guyana,” and “Ethno Politics and Power Sharing in Guyana: History and discourse.” He also said that his articles have been published in academic journals in the Caribbean, USA and England.
Asked by Hughes what methodology he used in relation to his research on race, particularly in Guyana, Hinds explained that he used a historical methodology, which defines race “as a historical process.” He said that he had also used the comparative methodology, which looks at race in different countries, to ascertain sameness and difference.
Hinds stated that he had applied those methodologies in terms of Guyana before publishing his work, while adding that he had published work about the period of the Bharrat Jadgeo presidency in his second book. The book was tendered but not before Jagdeo’s lead attorney Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos said that he had no objections once it was being tendered as a book that Hinds wrote.
Hinds testified that he has given several public lectures in Guyana on race as well as in the United States and Trinidad. He added that he has also presented several papers at academic conferences in the Caribbean and the US which have addressed the question of race, ethnicity, politics and governance in Guyana, including an analysis of the Jagdeo presidency.
Hughes then asked Hinds if he had researched the social, political and economic reality of the Afro-Guyanese people.
At this point, De Santos raised an objection. “We are getting over the blurred line now. He (Hughes) is going into a more substantial matter”, he said.
Hughes, however, said that he was not asking for the results but only wanted to know if the witness had done any research. De Santos said that his objection still stood as his position is that the question must be relevant to the issues in the case.
However, Hughes argued that it was relevant because it’s about whether the witness did any research in this regard before indicating that Jagdeo brought up the issue of race in his statement of claim.
Justice Reynolds said that he disagreed with De Santos’ position before overruling the objection.
Hinds testified that he had conducted such research not only in relation to Afro-Guyanese but also with other ethnic groups in Guyana.
Hughes then asked for the witness to be deemed an expert in his field. However De Santos said that he doesn’t know whether or not to object since the court has not been told what Hinds is an expert in. “I am confined by the non-disclosure of what this witness is deemed to be an expert in,” De Santos said.
Hughes submitted that the case is about an accusation that the plaintiff was called an ideological racist and as such he “assumed that it (his expertise) was obvious.” He asked the court for the witness to be deemed an expert witness in political science and he explained that the whole issue of ideology is a political one. Racism itself, he said, can be placed in several disciplines, one being political. The court did not make a decision on the application.
Under cross-examination by De Santos, Hinds said that he did research on the 28 years prior to 1992 and those finding were also published. He said that that information is contained in the book that had been tendered.
Hinds later said that he is not in any political movement in Guyana.
Asked if he had any connections to any political movement, he said that he is a member of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA).
The case will face a lengthy delay as the judge proceeds on leave on Monday and will not return until mid-September. Hughes indicated to the court that since Hinds had to return to the US, he would suggest that his remaining evidence be taken via Skype. He said that the court has all the equipment and the law to facilitate this.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to September 19, when De Santos would inform the court about his view on the suggestion.
Jagdeo brought the libel suit following a June 28, 2010 article, titled ‘King Kong sent his goons to disrupt the conference,’ which he claims 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.
