The High Court in Demerara has dismissed a $15 million defamation lawsuit brought by former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Executive Director Dr Vincent Adams against Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira.
The court ruled that although her statements carried a defamatory meaning, she was protected by qualified privilege.
In a judgment delivered on October 15, Justice Jacqueline Josiah-Graham found that Adams had failed to prove that Teixeira acted with malice.
The case concerned statements she made about his alleged connection to Guyana’s controversial 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) with ExxonMobil during a United Nations Human Rights Committee session in March 2024.
The judge found that Teixeira’s remarks suggested Adams had some unspecified involvement in or connection with the agreement while its terms remained undisclosed, beyond his later regulatory responsibilities at the EPA.
However, the court did not find that Teixeira had accused Adams of personally negotiating or concealing the agreement, depositing the signature bonus, or being corrupt or dishonest.
“The Court finds that this second aspect of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words is defamatory of the Claimant,” Justice Josiah-Graham stated, explaining that the suggestion of a public officer’s connection to an agreement whose terms were withheld from the public could imply a lack of transparency.
The judge also found that Teixeira had failed to establish the substantial truth of that implication.
The evidence showed that Adams had no role in negotiating, executing or publicising the PSA when it was signed in 2016 or when its terms became public approximately a year later.
He joined the EPA in October 2018.
Nevertheless, the court ruled that Teixeira was responding to a legitimate inquiry in her official capacity as a minister and head of Guyana’s delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
The occasion attracted qualified privilege because she had a duty to answer the committee’s questions and the body had a corresponding interest in receiving the information.
The judge said the burden therefore rested on Adams to prove malice, which includes showing that Teixeira lacked an honest belief in what she said, was recklessly indifferent to its truth or used the occasion for an improper purpose.
Although the court found that Teixeira’s wording was inaccurate and overbroad, it accepted her evidence that she was referring to Adams’ political association with the Alliance For Change (AFC) and his later regulatory role concerning environmental authorisations under the PSA.
The judge described the factual basis for the historical implication as weak but ruled that the evidence did not establish that Teixeira knew her explanation was false or consciously disregarded its truth.
The judgment stated, “The defence of qualified privilege therefore succeeds and the claim fails.”
Adams had sought $15 million in damages, along with a permanent injunction.
The court said that, had the claim succeeded, it would have awarded $4 million in general damages, but no damages or injunction were ordered because the claim was dismissed.
The court also ordered that each party bear its own costs.
The dispute arose from statements Teixeira made on March 19 and 20, 2024, during a review of Guyana’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Adams argued that the remarks falsely suggested he had been involved in the secret PSA and concealed information about its signature bonus.
Dr Vincent Adams was represented by Attorney-at-Law Khemraj Ramjattan, while Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira was represented by Attorneys-at-Law C.V. Satram and Ron Motilall in the defamation lawsuit.
