Catherine Hughes is to appeal a decision by Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George SC who on Monday dismissed legal proceedings seeking a number of declarations regarding the establishment of the Human Rights Commission and in connection with Hughes being described as a “low-life”
A statement yesterday from her attorney Nigel Hughes said: “Ms Hughes has been advised that the decision of the Honourable Chief Justice ought to benefit from a review of a Court of Appellate jurisdiction and has consequently instructed her Attorneys to appeal the decision”.
Among the fifteen declarations sought by Ms. Hughes was “ A declaration that it is and has at all material times been a binding obligation on the State to establish and operationalize the Human Rights Commission”.
She also sought a declaration that the failure of the first named defendant (Attorney General) to establish and operationalize the Human Rights Commission is a breach of the Applicant’s right to protection and enforcement of the Human Rights established under Article 154 A of the Constitution.
Nigel Hughes said that in dismissing the application the Chief Justice in her oral decision said “The non establishment of the Human Rights Commission and tribunal while a violation of the constitution does not amount to a violation of the Applicant’s right as claimed”.
He said that the Chief Justice also observed that “The actual response (the Vice President’s statement referring to Ms. Hughes as a low-life) may be frowned upon as being most inappropriate.”
He added that the Chief Justice further opined “In the circumstances, the court in recognition of its displeasure at the source of the controversy, the words of the Vice President, awards no costs.”
Attorney General Anil Nandlall in a statement on Monday said that Hughes was seeking a declaration that the State’s alleged failure to operationalise the Human Rights Commission breached her rights under Article 154A of the Constitution, and a declaration that a certain statement made by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo was in breach of her entitlement to equality before the law (Article 149D) and 149F of the Constitution (equality for women).
In her submissions to the Court, Nandlall said that Hughes argued, among other things, that the said statement made by Jagdeo at a press conference held on the 23rd November 2023, at which he referred to Hughes as a “low-life”, amounted to discrimination against her as a female African member of the National Assembly.
Nandlall said Hughes also argued that the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission violated her constitutional rights under Article 154A of the Constitution and breached her legitimate expectation that the Commission would be established.
Nandlall said that the Chief Justice in dismissing the case brought by Hughes, held that she had not sufficiently established a case of discrimination under the provisions of the Constitution, or at all, and that her claim of discrimination on the basis of sex and race, in this context, cannot succeed.
According to Nandlall, the Court further said that the utterance by the Vice President, without more, could neither amount to a breach of any of Hughes’ fundamental rights, nor could the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission, by that fact itself, amount to a breach of the Constitution. Additionally, he said that the Court found no evidence that the Vice President’s statement was an official statement of the Government, as Hughes alleged.
Nandlall said that the Court further stated that Hughes provided no evidence explaining why she failed to approach the Women and Gender Equality Commission, which is a functioning constitutional body whose mandate includes initiating investigations into alleged violations of women’s rights and monitoring compliance with international instruments.
The Court therefore held that Mrs. Hughes’ claim was wholly misconceived and without merit, he said.
