Former diplomat and board member of Guyana Power & Light (GPL), Kirk Hollingsworth, was recently awarded damages in the sum of $7.5 million by Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln who found that words spoken by Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, on the Freedom Radio to be defamatory.
In her September 23 ruling, a copy of which has been seen by this newspaper, she also found that cost would be awarded against the defendants with the condition that it would be assessed if the parties do not agree on a sum within 21 days.
“In considering the basis upon which costs should be awarded I have considered all the circumstances including the conduct of the defendants which included the filing of an application less than 7 days before the trial, the unreasonableness of pursuing the defences which were unsustainable as pleaded and without any evidence to support the defences at trial and that by pursuing these unmeritorious defences to trial and with evidence the costs have been increased,” the judge explained in her ruling.
She noted that in the event the parties do not agree on the costs, the claimant can file and serve an affidavit by November 4 to which shall be exhibited a bill of costs showing how the legal fees were calculated. The defendants then are at liberty to file and serve an affidavit in answer within 14 days to identify the areas of disagreement with the costs to be assessed as set out in the bill of costs.
The case surrounds defamatory statements made by Nadir on November 12, 2019, on Freedom Radio Inc and which was shared on the radio’s Facebook page concerning land that Hollingsworth acquired which imputed that he did so corruptly.
Hollingsworth was represented by Roysdale Forde. CD and CV Satram, Marcia Nadir-Sharma, and Javed Shadick represented the defendants.
According to an assessment done by the court of Nadir’s lengthy statement where he stated that Hollingsworth had acquired over 3,199.92 acres of land and that he did so by manipulating the system for self-enrichment. It was also imputed that the land was a reward for Hollingsworth’s support and vote at an emergency meeting of the board of directors of GPL to remove then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from office.
‘Fair comment’
While not denying that they published the alleged defamatory words, the defendants claimed that the words published were not defamatory, that “they constitute fair comment,” and that they “rely on the defence of justification.” They also relied on the Official Gazette as it relates to the 3,199.92 acres of land in South Ruimveldt from which the information was extracted as well as a daily newspaper enjoying national circulation within Guyana which carried the news item regarding the same issue.
In reaching the judgment the court considered whether the defendants published the words complained of: the meaning of the words used; whether the defendants have justified meaning; whether the words constitute fair comment on a matter of publish interest in all the circumstances; whether the words were published on an occasion of qualified privilege; and in the event that the defences fail, what relief should be granted the claimant.
Hollingsworth tendered a transcript of the publication alleged and neither Raymond Cummings, nor Nadir, the witnesses in the case denied the publication.
In his defence Nadir stated that he was certain that his statements made while presenting his “findings” were not defamatory, false or actuated by malice towards or in relations to the claimant.
Cummings testified that Nadir is a regular host of a programme called ‘Free Talk’ and that he was aware that such a programme was aired on November 12, 2019, and while he is aware of the statements being complained of, he was “certain that they were not defamatory false or actuated by malice towards or in relation to the claimant.”
However, in finding that the above defence failed. Justice Corbin-Lincoln stated that such a defence must set out the facts alleged to be true that the comments are based.
“The defence must identify the matters of public interest on which the comment is made,” the court said, adding that “unsurprisingly,” the evidence of Nadir and Cummings could not and did not take the defence of fair comment further.
Former diplomat
In his evidence, Hollingsworth indicated that he was a former diplomat having served in the British foreign service for over 25 years in the UK, the Middle East, the Caribbean and southern Africa. At the time he was a Director on the Board of GPL, a former executive director of the Georgetown Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and a member of the African Business Roundtable.
He presented that he provides consultancy services to international and domestic companies in a number of areas inclusive of the oil and gas sector, trade, and investments in Guyana.
Following the publication of defamatory statements, he said himself, wife, and family, were inundated with phone calls, texts, messages, Facebook messages, emails, and WhatsApp messages, concerning or related to the statements and the truthfulness and veracity of the claims made.
He also suffered and continue to suffer financial injury, constant grave distress, humiliation, embarrassment, indignity, pain and suffering. As proof of this he presented that on November 25, 2019, days after the publication, he received a letter from one of his clients, Kaydel Oil and Gas Limited, terminating his consultancy with them. Then the following day he received another letter this time from Elantra Global Capital LLP terminating his consultancy contract with them due to his “implied involvement with the Government of Guyana in a potentially corrupt land acquisition transaction amounting to over 3000 acres of prime commercial land.
Hollingsworth emphasised that his reputation is crucial to his career and as a consequence of the publication he has been seriously injured in his character, credit, reputation, and profession, and has been brought into “scandal odium and contempt”.
‘Serious’
Justice Corbin-Lincoln pointed out that the defamatory publication is serious since it imputes corruption. She noted that the claimant’s evidence is that he suffered loss and damage as a result of the publication including the termination of two consultancy contracts.
The court accepted that the publication complained of, contributed to the termination of the claimant’s contract with Kaydel Oil & Gas Ltd. However, he did not plead special damages in relation to any loss suffered as a result of the termination of the contract and therefore this was taken into consideration in the award of general damages. She pointed out too, that the claimant admitted that he remained a member of the Board of GPL after the publication and therefore it did not appear that the publication affected his board membership but it is accepted that the publication damaged his reputation and standing.
“The claimant gave evidence of the distress and embarrassment suffered by him as a result of the publication,” the court found. The court pointed out that Nadir testified that “I do not agree that what I said constituted a serious allegation against Mr. Hollingsworth because that is what I saw in the Official Gazette”.
And when asked whether he had read what he said on the programme in its entirety and he confirmed that he did and he “quite incredulously” stated that there was nothing in what he said that he considered serious.
“The defendants, particularly Mr Nadir, appeared to be labouring under the mistaken belief that since there was an error in the Official Gazette regarding the size of land involved in the Claimant’s transaction this somehow justified the defamatory statements without any recognition that the ‘real sting’ of the libel was not the size of the land but the imputations of corruption and improper behaviour by the Claimant. The defendants therefore even up to the trial did not appear to see any need for an apology or retraction,” the court noted.
