Former AFC parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud who back in 2018 helped to topple the APNU+AFC government after he voted in favour of the then Opposition PPP/C’s no-confidence motion, has won $7M in damages against then Minister of National Security Khemraj Ramjatta who he had said defamed him.
Finding that Ramjattan did in fact defame Persaud in one of three media publications, High Court Judge Jo-Ann Barlow in addition to the award of damages, has ordered Ramjattan to “refrain from making statements that suggest that Persaud was in any way compensated financially for his vote in the No-Confidence Motion.”
Persaud had sued Ramjattan for in excess of $30 million for what he contended were libelous statements made against him in the aftermath of the December 21st, 2018 No-Confidence Motion (NCM) vote in the National Assembly.
Persaud’s statement of claim (SoC) was based on statements made by Ramjattan that were published in the local media and on social media after Persaud voted against the APNU+AFC government.
The motion was declared carried by a vote of 33 to 32, with Persaud’s vote tipping the scale in its favour.
In particular, the action cited statements attributed to Ramjattan in stories published in the Guyana Chronicle (‘Cops closing in on Charrandas,’ published on December 31st, 2018), Stabroek News (‘Ramjattan: Charrandas Persaud is villain, not hero,’ published on January 1st, 2019) and statements made on a talk show, Globe Span 24X7, streamed on Facebook and YouTube on February 23rd, 2019.
According to court documents seen by this newspaper, Ramjattan (the Defendant) was adamant that he had nothing to do with the publications in the two dailies, but submitted that the words complained of in the other via video-recording publication were not defamatory.
He relied on the defences of fair comment and justification; and had further argued that they were all of a “political nature and made in a political context.”
Citing Persaud’s choice of not calling any witness who could attest to Ramjattan being the author of the newspaper articles, however, and there being no material in the evidence capable of proving that the defendant had anything to do with those publications, Justice Barlow said that Persaud failed to establish a causal link between Ramjattan and those particular publications.
Regarding the words complained of in the video-recording, however, Justice Barlow said that the Court accepted Persaud’s evidence regarding the number of times the programme was shared and the number of comments and reactions it attracted.
In her analysis of whether the statement complained of on the Globe Span programme were about Persaud, and whether they were defamatory, the Judge pointed to evidence presented before her in which the Claimant was specifically named.
The Judge in her ruling delivered on Monday also pointed out that Ramjattan never denied that it was Persaud to whom he had referred.
Regarding the Court’s determination of whether the statement complained of was defamatory, Justice Barlow noted her reliance on a plethora of case law authorities.
She then underscored the complaint of the statement being taken to mean that Persaud was a “traitor, dishonest and had accepted monetary or other inducements or benefits to vote on the no-confidence motion against the government;” and that the publication had caused him public ridicule and did serious damage to his integrity.
In her examination of whether the words in question were capable of causing damage to the Claimant’s reputation as alleged, Justice Barlow said that in examination of the sequence of events as set out by Ramjattan in his defence, “one may at first blush equate the actions of the Claimant with the Biblical Judas who sat with Christ and the other disciples and supped with them and on the same night by a kiss identified Christ to the Roman soldiers who had arrived to arrest him.”
Justice Barlow said, however, that while the similarities of supping with the other members of the government side and on the same night casting a vote contrary to their interests may provide some similarity, that is not the end of the matter.
Noting the defendant’s explanation that when he referred to “pieces of silver,” he was simply referring to the act of betrayal, Justice Barlow said the Court does not on an objective reading of the statement find that its meaning was limited to mere disloyalty.
“When the act of voting against the stated direction of the Government side is coupled with pieces of silver,” then the name Judas takes on a different complexion,” the Judge said in her ruling.
Justice Barlow reasoned that the Biblical story of Judas records him as carrying out the act of betrayal for thirty pieces of silver which he had negotiated as payment for delivering Jesus to the Roman soldiers.
She said that ordinary men hearing about “circumstantial bits” that led the Defendant to say “thirty pieces of silver” would form the view that the Defendant had circumstantial evidence that the Claimant had accepted monetary compensation for his vote.
The Judge said that while the Defendant testified that he never said that the Claimant accepted thirty pieces of silver, the Court found that he did not have to use the word “accepted” to convey the impression that he had circumstantial proof that the Claimant was compensated for his “yes” vote.
Citing legal authorities, Justice Barlow said that what Ramjattan intended the words to mean is unimportant; noting that it is the inference that the ordinary reasonable person would draw from what was said, that is material.
“Liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer, but on the fact of defamation,” Justice Barlow noted.
Finding the statements to have been defamatory, the Judge said she further found that they lowered Persaud in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and also exposed him to “hatred, contempt or ridicule and caused other persons to shun or avoid him.”
“The words went further than accusing the Claimant of being disloyal. Those words viewed objectively spoke of dishonesty most foul,” Justice Barlow asserted.
In her assessment of damages to be awarded, Justice Barlow said that in determining what measure of damages is appropriate in the circumstances of the case, in such matters, there is no need to establish any actual loss, noting that damages are awarded as compensation for damage done to the Claimant’s reputation based on the circumstances of the particular case.
She said that in the circumstances of the case, the publication had assumed some permanence given that it was first on Facebook and was shared several hundred times; subsequently making its way to YouTube.
The Judge then went on to say that apart from the volume of circulation of the publication and its permanence, the Court accepted Persaud’s evidence that Ramjattan, during the programme, indicated that he was not going to withdraw his statements.
Citing legal precedent, Justice Barlow said she found an award of $7, 000,000 to be appropriate in the circumstances Persaud’s case.
Further, she ordered Ramjattan to refrain from making statements that suggest that Persaud was in any way compensated financially for his vote in the No-Confidence Motion.
He also has to pay Persaud court costs in the sum of $150,000 no later than August 25th, 2022.
Persaud had argued in his SoC that “The statements and articles consist of false statements and innuendoes tailored and intended to harm the Claimant’s reputation and character.”
“By way of innuendo the statements complained of meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant was a traitor, dishonest and had accepted monetary or other inducements or benefits for his vote on a motion of no-confidence against the Government to which the Defendant is allied,” the claim added.
According to Persaud he was humiliated by verbal abuse on his Facebook page via comments on his posts and messages to his inbox and due to threats being made to his life he was also fearful of returning to Guyana after fleeing to Canada the very night following the vote.
He said that he has suffered psychological effects, while his family has been taunted, insulted and has suffered anxiety, which has caused him additional hurt and anxiety.
Persaud returned to Guyana in October of 2022. He is now Guyana’s High Commissioner to India.
Persaud was represented by attorney Christopher Ram while Ramjattan was represented by Roysdale Forde SC.
