Dear Editor,
RENOWNED international Guyanese engineer, Charles Ceres, has brought a suit against Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo for libel. Anyone au fait with the details of this matter will fully agree that it had been an attempt by Jagdeo to defame and slander the person of a citizen, an African Guyanese, who by dint of academic achievement, hard work and industry, has, with the passage of time, built a mighty reputation for quality work and reliability internationally. As a result of such, he has today become the self-made person that he is. Added to this, he has been aiding in the making of many young Guyanese by sending them to University to qualify in the vital field of engineering skills, for contributing to national development.

And this is without any of the contracts, although he would have given his patriotic assistance during the great flood of 2005. The irony is that this great Guyanese, according to his account, was never awarded/given any contract, particularly by the PPP/C regime, despite his undoubtedly far superior technical expertise being recognised internationally. Surely, the Bible cannot be wrong when it says that a “Prophet is never honoured in his own country”.

Without a doubt, Ceres has been able to successfully and truthfully defend himself, publicly, which he had a right to, against Jagdeo’s slander, rebutting every one of the wicked and vile lies hurled against him. It was a clinical display, done with all the facts presented, tearing to shreds Jagdeo’s outrageous claims accusing Ceres of being part of a “land grabbing scheme” since the Coalition lost the December 21, NCM.

What is interesting has been Jagdeo’s given reasons as defence, filed by his attorney, against this suit brought by Ceres. Of course, both Jagdeo and his attorney are aware that immunity cannot, in this instance, be a protection against prosecution, because of the offence being committed after Jagdeo’s two terms in office. So, with the usual PPP/C penchant for deception, Jagdeo’s counsel said the following “The Opposition Leader will be relying on the defence of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.

In his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, the PPP/C General secretary and Member of Parliament, Mr. Jagdeo has certain responsibility to speak publicly on certain things.” Further, he said: …”We are relying on these technical legal matters as a defence.”

Of course, Jagdeo has a constitutional responsibility to speak on matters of public import. However, his tenure as opposition leader has been an altogether new interpretation as to the traditional duties and functions of such an office: Emitting deceptions in the form of misleading and disinformation of national situations; inciting racism with a view of subverting the national peace; constantly disrespecting the person of the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana; and most famously of all – constantly attempting to attribute the criminal actions that have been undeniably associated with his government, to the office and functions of the current government, while leading a social movement, comprising of political mercenaries, criminal vested interest types, and a plethora of anti- nationals, seeking to overthrow the duly elected government of the Republic. This has been his

If such is the justified “qualified privilege” and “certain responsibility” of the opposition leader to “speak publicly” as proferred by Jagdeo’s counsel, then Nandlall must be informed that his client Jagdeo has grossly misused his office for both public and dangerously mischievous ends, which threatens the public peace.

In this regard, one must add this fact: That no political leader has the right to use his parliamentary or constitutional privilege to character-assassinate the person of any citizen; or seek to ascribe actions to his/her person that will bring their personal integrity and character into disrepute.

And this is what Jagdeo would have done in the case of his accusations against Mr. Charles Ceres; a misuse of his public office for ends not in keeping with the national interest. Or to be specific, using his constitutional office as cover or excuse for vilifying upstanding citizens.

Thus, Nandlall’s statement of defence is not only unreasonable, but false in its making, and untruthful in what it does intend to convey. How can this ever be “fair comment?” For it has been an opposition leader, who has made such falsifications/ outrage a political staple of his constitutional office.
Regards,
Earl Hamilton