Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers has filed a $150,000,000 suit against Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and the News Room for what she said were libelous statements he made against her more than a year ago, through that news entity.
She is seeking damages in the sum of $100,000,000 against Jagdeo whom she said defamed her during a news interview published by the News Room on March 5th, 2020, when he was then Leader of the Opposition.
Meanwhile, she is suing the media outfit for $50,000,000 for publishing the interview on its website.
The statements complained of by Myers were contained in what she said is a 15-minute interview of Jagdeo by the News Room, regarding the contentious release of results for the March 2nd, 2020 General and Regional Elections.
Among other things, Myers (the Claimant), is asking the court to grant her a permanent injunction restraining Jagdeo 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 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 Company 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 March 2nd elections, Jagdeo 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.
She said that the Defendants have expressly accused her of attempting to arrogate unto herself, jurisdiction to influence the outcome of the declaration of results for Electoral District 4/ Region Four; and of detaining Chairperson of the Commission, retired Justice Claudette Singh; and also of controlling Marshals of the High Court.
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 Jagdeo.
The DCEO says that in the publication, neither defendant expressed any knowledge nor training on the steps, processes and procedures which the Guy-ana Elections Commission (GECOM) implemented to discharge its functions on Election Day.
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 pro-cess to confront the allegations, or at the very minimum, Jagdeo would have educated himself regarding any role she may have played on the day he spoke with the News Room.
Myers said that what Jagdeo had said about her is untrue and she also denies his imputations that she acted in collusion with the now APNU+AFC coalition Opposition or Chief Election Officer of GECOM, Keith Lowenfield, and Returning Officer for District Four, Clairmont Mingo.
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.
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.
