Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers has filed a $150,000,000 suit against attorney and Member of Parliament (MP) Sanjeev Datadin and the News Room for what she said were libelous statements made against her more than a year ago.
Myers is claiming damages in excess of $50,000,000 against Datadin whom she said made certain statements which defamed her, during an interview with the on-line news agency on March 6th of last year.
She is also seeking $50,000,000 in damages for News Room’s electronic transmission of the interview through its Facebook account; and another $50,000,000 for the news entity’s retention of the story on its website.
Myers wants the court to grant a permanent injunction restraining Datadin and News Room (the Defendants), whether by their servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published by any means whatsoever the specific words complained of in the interview in question.
Myers (the Claimant), also wants the court to order the Defendants to apologize to her and retract the statements via News Room’s website; and for a mandatory injunction compelling the latter to permanently remove the interview from its website.
She is also seeking exemplary and aggravated damages, costs and any further order the court deems just to grant.
Outlining the grounds of her claim, Myers said that following the General and Regional Elections of March 2nd, 2020, Datadin allegedly made certain slanderous and defamatory statements against her which were false, malicious and calculated to impugn her character.
In court documents seen by this newspaper, Myers deposes that the statements complained of conveyed that she had “acted illegally, corruptly” and beyond her powers as deputy CEO (DCEO) following the elections.
According to Myers, the “willful malice” of the allegation made against her by the defendants is to be found in their failure to contact her prior to publication with an opportunity to exonerate herself.
Specifically, she said that News Room never put the allegation to her or invited her to counter the utterances made by Datadin.
The DCEO says that in the publication, neither defendant expressed any knowledge or training on the steps, processes and procedures which the Guyana Elections Com-mission (GECOM) implemented for the ballot recount from those elections.
Myers argues through her attorneys Nigel Hughes and Eusi Anderson that it was reckless of the defendants to publish what she described as “slanderous statements in the context of such advertised ignorance.”
She contends that if the defendants meant no malice by the publication, they would have afforded her some manner of due process to confront the allegations, or at the very minimum, Datadin would have educated himself regarding any role she may have played on the day he spoke with the News Room.
Myers said that contrary to advancements made by the defendants, she never subverted the service of injunctive proceedings, or acted ultra vires her capacity as DCEO in relation to last year’s polls; nor obstructed or otherwise impeded Marshals of the High Court in the discharge of their duties.
She said that she also never unlawfully restricted or otherwise denied access to anyone lawfully entitled to be present at the Com-mand Centre where the votes were being tallied.
Myers said that the allegations levelled against her have substantially hurt and diminished her image both locally and in the international community—with the aim of conveying that she was among other things—dishonest, perverse and of questionable character; devoid of integrity and unfit for the office she holds.
Either expressly or by innuendo, she said that the allegations sought to convey that she commandeered the police or otherwise had the power to commandeer the police force to act untowardly regarding security of at the Command Centre.
Myers said that because of the publication, her reputation has been “seriously injured” and so has her credit, and that she has been subjected to ridicule; even as her reputation has been lowered in the estimation of right-thinking persons.
By circulating and publishing the defamatory interview, the Claimant said that the defendants have further eroded her character, credit and reputation; which she said will continue unless the content is removed from the website.
