Attorney Anil Nandlall yesterday argued that Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo is protected by the defences of fair comment, justification and qualified privilege regarding statements he has made about Minister within the Ministry of Communities Annette Ferguson, who has sued him for libel.
Ferguson’s attorney Lyndon Amsterdam, however, refuted Nandlall’s claims, while saying that there is no evidence to support Jagdeo’s defences while damage has been done to the minister’s reputation.
The two lawyers were engaged in a heated exchange yesterday morning before High Court judge Gino Persaud, who Nandlall is urging not to grant the injunctive relief being sought by Amsterdam on behalf of the minister. Amsterdam wants the judge to grant his client an interim interlocutory injunction, prohibiting Jagdeo and the Guyana Times newspaper from respectively making statements and publishing information which she describes as untrue.
Ferguson (the claimant), has filed a $60 million lawsuit against Jagdeo and the Guyana Times, over what she said are libellous statements made by the two to damage her character and reputation.
She is asking for the injunctive relief to prohibit the newspaper from disseminating words similar to those which were published in the Wednesday, December 11th, 2019 edition of the Guyana Times newspaper.
Additionally, she is seeking an injunction against Jagdeo making what she says are untrue statements regarding her acquisition of land.
During the almost two-hour hearing, Amsterdam argued that his client had submitted overwhelming documentary evidence substantiating not only her claim, but which he says dispels the position held by Jagdeo and the Times (the respondents).
Noting that the law does not favour the granting of interim injunctions and that they are rarely granted in defamation cases owing to implications which they may have on the constitutional right to freedom of speech, Justice Persaud had asked Amsterdam to satisfy/convince him as to why the injunction should be granted.
The judge said that the law in that area was quite restrictive and leans heavily against the granting of such injunctions.
But Amsterdam argued that not only were the utterances made by the respondents untrue, but that his client can, as a matter of fact, substantiate her position.
Against this background, he said that the minister had submitted the title to the only plot of land she owns on which her house is still being constructed. Additionally, he said that contrary to what Jagdeo has said, his client does not own as large a plot of land and a surveyor’s map supported her case.
Counsel said that the statements made have been injurious to his client’s reputation, particularly since she is a minister of government within the housing ministry.
He said, too, that the minister’s statement of income and terms of her mortgage, which she is repaying through a loan she secured to construct her house and which she has laid over to the court, all dispel Jagdeo’s insinuations that she suddenly came into wealth after becoming minister in 2015.
According to Amsterdam, the injunction his client seeks is not to fetter free speech, but rather to prohibit the respondents from making statements which are not grounded in truth, especially when the respondents have not advanced an iota of evidence to substantiate their claims.
He said that the making of the statements cannot be allowed to continue until the matter is fully ventilated, while adding that the seriousness of the issues to be tried, the balance of convenience and the fact that damages would not be a sufficient remedy all warrant the granting of the injunction. He is of the view that his client’s case is one of the rare ones in which the relief should be granted, while contending that though the respondents have advanced fair comment, justification and qualified privilege as defences, they have offered no evidence to so substantiate.
He argues that at the very minimum, the respondents are duty-bound to have put forward some evidence substantiating their claims and not be allowed to wait until the trial commences and the matter is fully determined.
In his address to the court, however, Nandlall said that there are sufficient grounds advanced in his client’s affidavit for why the injunction should not be granted. He contends that as opposition leader, Jagdeo can speak on the issues which involve the minister since they are matters of public/national interest.
According to him, through freedom of speech, Jagdeo as opposition leader must be allowed to highlight corruption, nepotism and the like.
Reiterating his client’s reliance on the defences of fair comment, justification and qualified privilege, Nandlall said that indeed courts are very reluctant to grant interim injunctions as it can fetter freedom of speech, particularly when justification is being relied on.
Noting that this freedom must continue to be cherished, Nandlall cited a number of cases to support what he said was the general universally accepted position of the court against the granting of an interim injunction.
The matter has been adjourned until February 25th, when Justice Persaud will rule on whether or not the injunction would be granted.
In her suit against Jagdeo, Ferguson is seeking damages in excess of $50,000,000 for libel she said he committed on two separate occasions—December 5th and 12th of last year, for which she is asking for more than $25M in damages for each occasion.
Meanwhile, as regards the libellous statements she alleged were published by the Guyana Times, the minister is seeking damages in excess of $10 million.
