–says he will not apologise

GENERAL Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo has defended statements he made about former Auditor-General Anand Goolsarran at a press conference, and at a public rally in March.

Law firm Sataram and Sataram, in a letter to Goolsarran’s attorney, Khemraj Ramjattan made it clear that Jagdeo will not apologise for his comments, and that any legal proceedings that are filed will be strenuously defended.

In the four-page letter, which was seen by this publication, Goolsarran’s time in office was scrutinised, and his constant commentary about Jagdeo was highlighted.

“Your client is a former Deputy Auditor- General, a former Auditor-General of Guyana, and is a public commentator writing weekly columns in a national newspaper. The main focus of your client’s public commentaries is transparency and accountability in public life and in public office. In the main, your client has dedicated most of his commentaries to publicly criticising our client, the government which he headed as President and of which he is now Vice-President, and the political party of which he is the General Secretary. This has been ongoing for over two (2) decades and continues weekly.

“Our client specifically denies that the statements about which you complain are defamatory of your client and/or malicious. We contend that they constitute fair comment on a matter of public interest. Moreover, they were statements which our client had a duty to disseminate to his party supporters and the general public, of and concerning your client, who, on a weekly basis, lectures to the public on issues of accountability and transparency,” the letter stated.

It was explained that under the Constitution of Guyana, the principal function of the Office of the Auditor-General is to audit the public accounts of Guyana, and to prepare a report in respect of that audit, which said report is required to be laid in the National Assembly for scrutiny and examination.

“Constitutionally, this mechanism is perhaps the singular most efficacious vehicle through which parliamentarians are afforded an opportunity to interrogate and oversee the expenditure of public funds, in order to ensure accountability and transparency.

The uncontroverted fact is that from 1982 to 1989, the Auditor-General’s Office did not audit the public accounts of Guyana, and did not prepare a report in respect thereof for onward transmission to the National Assembly, thereby denying the public the right, through their elected representatives, to interrogate and oversee the expenditure of public funds for nearly a decade.

For several years, during this darkest period of public accountability and transparency in Guyana, your client functioned as Deputy Auditor-General, the second-highest post within the Office. His duties and powers were wide and extensive. They included: (i) Ensuring that the functions of the Auditor- General, under the different pieces of legislation and the Constitution, were carried out;

(ii) being responsible for the general administration of the Audit Office; (iii) giving directions to the Assistant Auditor- General and other staff of the Audit Office;

(iv) the preparation of draft final audit reports for the Auditor-General; and (v) preparing the Auditor-General’s briefs for the Public Accounts Committee,” the letter added.

According to Jagdeo’s legal team, Goolsarran was, in fact and substance, the functional head of the Auditor-General’s Office for many years when no public accounts were being audited, but continued his employment therein, without any known objections.

PROMOTED

“In fact, presumably, for his ‘good performance’, he was eventually promoted to Auditor-General in the year 1990. Further, your client is on public record as citing a letter from the then Minister of Finance, directing that no audit be done of the public accounts of Guyana during this period; a direction to which your client took no apparent umbrage, although the Constitution mandates that the Auditor- General, and, by extension, his Office shall not be subject to the direction, control or influence of any person or authority. The undisputed fact is that in this toxic, non-accountable and non-transparent period, your client functioned as Deputy Auditor-General. It is against this backdrop that our client made the statements in respect of which you are complaining, including suggesting that your client should have resigned if he had integrity. In the circumstances, this must constitute fair comment on a matter of public importance, in respect of which our client enjoys qualified privilege. Consistent with your client’s self-portrayal as an accountability tsar in his weekly commentaries, you claim that your client ‘almost single-handedly restored public accountability in Guyana after ten years of deficit accountability…,’

but you omit to mention, as we have pointed out above, that your client was the Deputy Auditor-General for several of those very years. You full well know that the restoration of public accountability in Guyana, for which your client ungraciously takes single-handed credit, was brought about by a change in Government in 1992, with the assumption of office of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic.”

It was further pointed out that Goolsarran published articles, including persistent public vilification of Jagdeo, his political party and his government.

“Comparatively, however, your client’s articles are virtually silent on the APNU+AFC coalition, and the many allegations of corruption and financial scandals which erupted during their five-year tenure in government. This leads to the reasonable inference that your client is a supporter of the APNU+AFC,” the letter said.

Satram and Satram maintains that, in the circumstances, their client is justified in the comments that he’s made and, again, was commenting on a matter of public interest and disclosing to the public, information to which they are entitled regarding a public commentator.

RELENTLESS ATTACKS

Ramjattan was reminded that as a public commentator, moreover, one who is outspoken in his public commentary, Goolsarran would be measured and adjudged differently by the law of libel.

“For example, your client has been relentless in his public attacks on Dr. Ashni Singh, the Minister of Finance. Apart from his weekly vicious outpourings in the Stabroek News, your client has written multiple articles in the Kaieteur News newspaper, including one published on 2016/5/18 under the caption, ‘Ashni Singh shielded NICIL books from external auditors’; and one published on 16/5/01 bearing the caption, ‘Ashni Singh should be sanctioned for crass investment agreement with Bai Shan Lin’. In these two articles, your client launched a most unwarranted, scathing public onslaught on Dr. Singh. These articles were simply randomly selected to make the point,” the letter said.

It was made clear that the law will not turn a blind eye to Goolsarran’s presumably exercising his freedom of expression and attacking others, but will punish those who reciprocate and respond to him.

“The principle was recently affirmed by the Privy Council in Ramadhar v. Ramadhar and Ors. [2020] UKPC 7, in which it was stated that those who are engaged in public life and court the media cannot expect to be free from scrutiny or criticism in public; anything otherwise would have a chilling effect on democratic debate,” Jagdeo’s legal team said before noting that the request for an apology is “rejected”.