Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang yesterday ruled that a gag order on Johnny Welshman, who has accus-ed House Speaker Raphael Trotman of sexual abuse, will remain in place until the determination of a libel suit brought against him.
The decision did not go down well as a furious Welshman stormed out of Justice Chang’s chambers while the hearing was in progress and vowed that no one could silence him, particularly from speaking out on his Facebook page.
“They will have to lock me up today… he [Justice Chang] wants me to give an undertaking barring me from saying anything on my social media but let me tell you they will have to charge contempt proceedings,” an angry Welshman told reporters.
His walkout came about 30 minutes into the in-chambers hearing.
As Welshman hurled insults and vowed to disregard the order of the judge, uniformed ranks had to repeatedly ask him to lower his voice as he was disturbing a nearby court. His loud outburst continued for about ten minutes. He erupted again when the lawyers emerged from the judge’s chambers.
Welshman charged that the case has been overtaken by politics and he said that he has a recording which is evidence of what he is saying. This, he said, will be released to the media.
Trotman’s attorney Nigel Hughes told reporters that the Chief Justice ruled that the injunction continues until the hearing and determination of the matter. He stated the matter is likely to come up for hearing in another year or two.
During the latter half of September, Welshman, who lives in Trinidad, came forward with the allegations against Trotman. He also implicated two other men, one of whom is a close relative.
The file on the rape allegation, which was investigated by the police, is now in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Trotman, who denied the allegations, secured an injunction which barred Welshman from publishing any material related to the allegations in the print or electronic media. He also sued Welshman for $50M.
Addressing the lawsuit yesterday, Hughes explained that the $50M represents an estimate of the damage to his client’s reputation as a result of the “false” statements that Welshman has made. He explained that at the trial Trotman has to establish that his reputation had suffered injury as a result of those statements. He said that an example of an injury to Trotman’s reputation would be when his name is googled, the allegations made against him by Welshman would pop up in the results.
Told that Welshman had earlier pointed out that there are no cyber laws in Guyana and was very angry at the way things had turned out during the hearing, Hughes said, “Mr. Welshman’s behaviour was rather unfortunate. He was disregarding the instructions even from his own counsel to the extent that he walked out of the court. I don’t think that it does anybody any good going into details about how he behaved, except to say that it was most unfortunate.”
According to Hughes, the matter before the court is not about cyber laws but rather libel. He said regardless of whether or not the country has cyber laws, “the fact is that Mr. Welshman published statements which were hostile and adverse and injured Mr Trotman’s reputation. Whether they were in cyberspace, whether they were in print or whether he spoke those words, they were published and in those circumstances once Mr. Trotman establishes that they were published where ever they were published and once he establishes that there was no basis for it, he is entitled to damages.”
Welshman’s attorney, Peter Hugh, at first declined to speak with the press but subsequently said that the interim injunction was granted and the “other side [him and his client] gave a particular undertaking.”
Asked what occurred in chambers with respect to his client, he responded, “Well, what can I say? I rather not talk about that.” Asked if he was still representing Welshman, he said that he is on record as his attorney. “I am on record… I have to speak to Mr. Welshman,” he added.
