Alliance For Change (AFC) executive Catherine ‘Cathy’ Hughes has suffered a major legal defeat after the Demerara High Court dismissed her defamation lawsuit against Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo and ordered her to pay over $4 million in costs.
The decision was handed down by Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif, who ruled that Jagdeo’s controversial reference to Hughes as “a low-life” during a November 2023 press conference did not amount to defamation under the laws of Guyana.
Jagdeo’s attorney, Sanjeev Datadin, welcomed the recent ruling, noting that it clearly affirms that “the Vice President did nothing wrong as far as the law is concerned.”
Datadin clarified that during the press conference, Jagdeo had played a recording of Hughes accusing him of proposing to grant Venezuela a maritime channel as part of efforts to resolve the ongoing border controversy.
However, Datadin pointed out that this claim was baseless, noting that the concept of a channel dated back to 1989 and was never Jagdeo’s proposal.
Instead, he said it was suggested by then-diplomat Dr. Barton Scotland well before Jagdeo held public office.
He emphasised that Jagdeo referenced this historical context to counter Hughes’ false narrative and highlighted that the court found it misleading and unfair for Hughes to brand Jagdeo as unpatriotic, especially at a time of heightened tensions between Guyana and Venezuela.
Moreover, Datadin explained that the ruling concluded Jagdeo’s statements were grounded in matters of public interest and political accountability.
This, he noted, was particularly relevant to Hughes’ conduct while serving as a government minister in the previous A Partnership for National Unity (APNU+AFC) administration.
Datadin explained that the court found the term “low-life,” in the context used, referred to behaviour considered disreputable – specifically Hughes’ awarding of government contracts to her private media company, Videomega, while she was a minister.
“The court ruled that public officers must demonstrate unselfish, undivided loyalty to the people they serve,” Datadin said.
According to Datadin, the court found that the conduct in question, where a public officer awards contracts to their own company, could potentially constitute malfeasance in public office.
He explained that when such actions are exposed by a political opponent, they do not amount to defamation but are instead considered fair comments under the law.
Datadin also highlighted that the court made it clear Jagdeo’s remarks were not motivated by Hughes’ race, gender, or social status, as she had alleged, but were directed solely at her actions during her tenure as a public official.
He stressed that the court made it clear the law does not shield public officials from criticism when their conduct falls below acceptable standards. As such, the judge ruled that the Vice President was entitled to defend himself against Hughes’ remarks.
Ultimately, the judge dismissed Hughes’ lawsuit and ordered her to pay costs amounting to $4,099,999. Hughes had filed the lawsuit seeking over $50 million in damages, claiming that Jagdeo’s remarks humiliated her, tarnished her reputation, and caused her psychological trauma.
Her case was built around two central claims made by Jagdeo: that she had given her company government contracts while serving in public office and that she falsely accused him of providing a channel of Guyana’s Atlantic waters to Venezuela in the context of the ongoing border controversy.
However, during an earlier hearing, Hughes admitted that her allegation regarding the channel was inaccurate. She acknowledged that the suggestion had been raised as far back as 1989, well before Jagdeo’s time in office, and that it was, in fact, Dr. Barton Scotland, then serving in the foreign service, who had broached the idea.
On the issue of contracts, Hughes conceded that Jagdeo’s statements were “true to some extent,” admitting that Videomega did receive millions in government contracts while she was a minister.
She also revealed that she chose not to sue Jagdeo over that claim because he possessed documents to support his assertion. Hughes was represented in the matter by her husband, attorney, and AFC leader Nigel Hughes.
Reacting to the ruling, Hughes described the court’s decision as “the highest costs award ever granted against a claimant in the High Court.” He noted that Justice Chandra-Hanif found the description of his wife as a “low-life” to be fair and reasonable within the context of the case.
According to Hughes, the judgment appears to set a precedent regarding the boundaries of public discourse, particularly in the lead-up to the upcoming General and Regional Elections. He confirmed that the full decision will be appealed.
