HIGH Court Judge, Navindra Singh has granted an application filed by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, to have the $50M defamation lawsuit against her by Senior Magistrate Alex Moore struck out.

The ruling was delivered on December 2, via electronic mail. The application was filed by Senior Counsel Robin Stoby, Jamela Ali and Kim Kyte-Thomas.
On August 18, 2020, Ali-Hack applied to the Court to strike out the $50M lawsuit on the ground that the pleadings disclose no reasonable basis for instituting the claim, or alternatively, that the claim is an abuse of the process of the court, or that it is frivolous and/or vexatious, since the DPP is protected in the execution of her office under the provisions of the laws of Guyana.
The claim is based on the contents of a letter written by the Ali-Hack, in her capacity as the DPP, addressed to the Chancellor of the Judiciary of Guyana and copied to the Chief Justice of Guyana.

The DPP contends in the application that the claim is an abuse of the process of the court, since it seeks to ignore or by-pass the provisions of the Justice Protection Act, CAP 5:07 of the Laws of Guyana, which protection she is entitled to, which contention will be addressed instantly.

Justice Singh, in his ruling, stated that the claim shows that the letter is irrefutably ‘absolutely privileged’.
In the circumstances, based on all of the foregoing, the application filed by the DPP was granted, together with costs in the sum of $200,000.00 to be paid on or before December 24, 2020.
In July, Moore, through his lawyer, Arudranauth Gossai, filed a lawsuit against Ali-Hack for the sum of $50M as damages for defamation for a letter which she wrote on December 5, 2019, which he claimed is malicious and false.

The letter was sent by Ali-Hack to the acting Chancellor of Guyana, Yonette Cummings Edwards, who is also Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, and the acting Chief Justice, Roxane George, with the reference “Conduct of Magistrate Alex Moore in the charge of the Police vs Marcus Bisram for the Offence of Murder, contrary to Common Law.

The letter is allegedly claiming that Moore had a personal interest in the matter against Bisram, and requested that he be removed from presiding over the case.
The report constitutes, among other complaints, an allegation of conduct against Magistrate Moore’s professional responsibility or office as a Magistrate and not his personal capacity, and was capable of being investigated by the Chancellor for the purposes of invoking the disciplinary procedures set out in the Judicial Service Commission’s Rules.