Former government minister Annette Ferguson has won a libel suit she had brought against Minister of Labour Joseph Hamilton; and was awarded $6,000,000 in damages for certain statements he had made about her during a televised programme.
This is according to a press release from the office of Ferguson’s attorney, Lyndon Amsterdam, which said that Hamilton has also been ordered to pay Ferguson costs in the sum of $350,000.
In April of 2021, Ferguson filed a $50 million lawsuit against Hamilton, whom she alleged made libellous statements about her during a televised programme.
She said that the statements, which were broadcast during an interview on the National Communica-tions Network (NCN) on March 12th, 2021 and also livestreamed on Facebook, were untrue and intended to tarnish and lower her reputation.
Ferguson, who is a Member of Parliament (MP) for the main opposition APNU+AFC coalition, had said in her statement of claim that Hamilton at different periods would appear as a guest on programmes hosted by the state-owned NCN and which she said is livestreamed on the governing People’s Progres-sive Party’s Facebook page.
On the date complained of, Ferguson said that Hamilton appeared on NCN and spoke on a range of topics, including political issues.
She said that he referred to various persons who held office under the APNU+AFC and are under investigation or have had criminal charges levelled against them in connection with the sale or transfer of lands.
Ferguson said that it was during this discourse that Hamilton libelled her.
On account of what she related was said on the programme, Ferguson said that Hamilton, without justification, suggested that when she served as minister, she acquired more than one parcel of land.
She said that he sought to imply that she wrongfully used her office and power as a minister to acquire more than one house lot, which she said is untrue.
She had contended, further, that the statement made by the defendant was intended to convey that she corruptly or unlawfully took four house lots when she was minister.
According to the release High Court Judge Simone-Morris Ramlall yesterday ruled that the words complained of by Ferguson were in fact found to have been uttered by Hamilton, were false and caused injury to reputation.
Amsterdam in the release, said the Judge also underscored her observation that Hamilton did not withdraw the words nor offer an apology to Ferguson “even though she showed evidence” that she had only one house lot at Eccles, East Bank Demerara.
The release said that in the circumstances, the Judge awarded Ferguson $6,000,000 and a further $350,000 in costs; all of which have to be borne by Hamilton.
According to the release, Hamilton relied on the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege; but that during the trial, he gave no evidence in his defence as his attorneys failed to file his witness statement within the time stipulated at the case management conference (CMC).
The release said that at the conclusion of the trial, Hamilton’s attorneys; Sanjeev Datadin and Donavon Rangiah made no-case submissions contending that Ferguson had not proven the libel against their client.
The trial judge, however, rejected their submissions the release said, and went on to rule in Ferguson’s favour.
Background
Ferguson had said in her statement of claim that, on March 8th, 2014, she applied to the Central Housing and Planning Authority for a piece of land and after her interview, she was told of her eligibility for a middle-income house lot.
She said that sometime in 2016, she was eventually allocated a parcel at Eccles, East Bank Deme-rara during the period she held the position as Junior Minister within the Minis-try of Public Infrastructure.
She deposed in her claim that she had paid $900,000 after being awarded the plot.
“Other than the aforesaid house lot, the Clai-mant has not received nor does she hold a Title or Transport for any other land allotted to her by the Central Housing and Planning Authority,” her affidavit said.
Her contention was that the statement made by the defendant was a deliberate and intentional falsehood intended to tarnish her reputation as a former government minister and MP, so as to cause persons to think that she is a corrupt and dishonest person.
Ferguson had said that after viewing the television programme, she became “distressed, alarmed and ashamed” of herself and was contacted by several persons who heard the interview and claimed to believe the statements uttered by Hamilton.
According to her, there were also persons who suggested that she should relinquish and return the extra house lots “to save her reputation.”
Ferguson said that Hamilton had provided no evidence to support his statement.
She had made reference in her claim to similar statements which she said were uttered by now Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo, which she underscored had been published by the Guyana Times Newspaper.
In May of 2021, a judge ordered Jagdeo to pay Ferguson $20 million in default of him not having filed a defence on time.
Jagdeo is currently seeking to have a court set aside that order.
The action brought against the Guyana Times is, however, still pending.
