–Vice-President’s lawyer responds to Alexander’s attorney

VICE-President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo is contending that he exercised his right to fair comments in remarks he made about Chairman of the International Decade for People of African Descent-Guyana, Vincent Alexander, during a press conference that was held in August.

Responding to allegations of defamation by Alexander, Dr Jagdeo, through his lawyer, C. V. Satram, in a letter defended the comments made by the Vice-President where he questioned the management of the IDPADA-G, and called on the members of the organisation to explain how Afro-Guyanese have benefitted from the $468.438 million that it has received from the Government. Satram’s letter was sent to Attorney for Alexander, Eusi Anderson.

According to reports, Alexander, through a letter dispatched by Anderson, contended that Dr. Jagdeo defamed Alexander by falsely and erroneously claiming that he ran IDPADA-G for personal gain, advancement and benefit.

However, Satram, in his letter, explained that Dr. Jagdeo, in his capacity as Vice President, General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC), a Member of Parliament and a member of the Cabinet has an integral duty in ensuring that allocated public funds are expended in a fair, transparent manner.

“My client is not only duty bound, but the public expects him to expose, highlight and denounce wrongdoings of every type, including but not limited to wastage, misuse and abuse of public funds, and its expenditures in a manner that is neither accountable nor transparent. My client does so by various methods, including in his speeches in the National Assembly, in interviews with the press, and at press conferences,” Satram stated.

Created in 2018, the IDPADA-G, in the national budget, through the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, received $68.438 million in 2018 and $100 million in each successive year, including the 2020, 2021 and 2022 budgets under the PPP/C Government.

IDAPA-G was created as the local coordinating mechanism for activities under the United Nations resolution dedicating a decade (2015 – 2024) to addressing the challenges confronting people of African Descent globally. The organisation is registered as a private limited liability company, of which Alexander is among eight individuals listed as the “beneficial owners”.

During the press conference in August, Dr. Jagdeo had revealed that IDPADA-G has never submitted a work plan to the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, while the last financial statement submitted by the organisation for 2020 shows a significant portion of the budgeted funds going to overhead expenses, with less than $500,000 going to direct disbursements to Guyanese.

FAIR COMMENT
“My client, in his aforesaid capacities, was exercising his right to fair comment on a matter of public importance when he made the aforesaid disclosures, proffered the comments which he did and posed the questions which he asked,” Satram posited.

He further explained that: “Those publications of my client are therefore fair comment on a matter of public interest, which comments are grounded in facts and substance, and do not constitute any libel as alleged or at all.”
Fair comment is a legal term whereby a comment or criticism is made without malicious intent and based on accurate information or observation.

During the press conference, while reading from IDPADA-G’s 2020 financial statement, Dr. Jagdeo had revealed that of the $100 M allocated to the Assembly for that year, records show that IDPADA-G spent $42M on  salaries and allowances, $4.5M on conference expenses, $2.8M on travelling and transportation, $2M on advertisement, $9M on office material and expenses, $5M on building rental and utilities, while a mere $343,000 was expended in disbursement of grant funding to Afro Guyanese.

It was based on this questionable disbursement, Satram noted, that Jagdeo posed the rhetorical question: “Doesn’t this country see that these parasites are using Afro-Guyanese for their own personal benefits?”
“In the circumstances and context in which my client spoke, he did not libel your client as you have alleged or at all. IDPADA-G is in fact and in substance, a private limited liability company of which your client is a beneficial owner,” Satram explained.

“I specifically deny that the use of the term “parasites” by my client in the context in which it was used relates to your client, personally, as you have insinuated, but was used in the context of half billion dollars being spent by a representative organisation and its leadership with corresponding little reaching the real beneficiaries in whose interest and for whose use and benefit the monies were disbursed, whereby the bulk of the monies were expended by the organisation itself to pay salaries and operational expenses.”

In ending, Satram noted that any legal proceedings instituted would be vigorously defended.
“The threat of litigation will not deter my client from exposing and condemning misuse of public funds whenever it surfaces,” Satram said.