–describes it as ‘wholly misconceived, without merit’

IN a significant ruling on Monday, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire SC, dismissed legal proceedings filed by Opposition parliamentarian Catherine ‘Cathy’ Hughes, who sought declarations regarding the establishment of the Human Rights Commission and alleged discrimination stemming from remarks made by Vice-President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo.

This is according to a statement from the Attorney-General’s Chambers. Hughes, a member of the Alliance for Change (AFC), argued that her constitutional rights were violated by the State’s failure to operationalise the Human Rights Commission, and by the Vice-President’s alleged derogatory comments during a press conference on November 23, 2023.

At that event, Dr. Jagdeo referred to Hughes as a “low-life”, which Hughes claimed constituted discrimination against her as a female African politician. She sought declarations that the Vice-President’s statements violated her entitlement to equality before the law under Article 149D of the Constitution, and her right to equality for women under Article 149F.

In her submissions, Hughes contended that the absence of the Human Rights Commission not only breached Article 154A of the Constitution, but also her legitimate expectation for its establishment.
However, the Attorney-General, Anil Nandlall, SC, firmly rejected Hughes’ claims. He argued that she failed to establish a case for discrimination under Articles 149, 149D, and 149F of the Constitution. Nandlall emphasised that Article 154A (2) explicitly states that the rights referenced in Article 154A do not include any fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Therefore, he maintained that Hughes could not invoke Article 154A concerning rights already protected under the fundamental rights framework.
The Attorney-General further asserted that there was no evidence to support claims of discrimination stemming from the Vice- President’s statement.

He submitted that the context of the remark was solely about Hughes, and did not imply broader discrimination based on gender or race. According to Nandlall, for a claim of discrimination to be substantiated, there must be a true comparator; an individual in similar circumstances differing only by race or gender. In this case, there was none.

The Chief Justice, in her ruling, concurred with the Attorney-General’s assessment, stating that Hughes had not sufficiently established a case of discrimination under the Constitution. The court determined that Dr. Jagdeo’s comments, without more, did not constitute a violation of Hughes’ fundamental rights, nor did the lack of establishment of the Human Rights Commission breach the Constitution.
Moreover, Justice George pointed out that Hughes failed to provide any evidence to justify why she did not approach the Women and Gender Equality Commission, an existing constitutional body responsible for investigating alleged violations of women’s rights and ensuring compliance with international standards.

The Chief Justice dismissed the case as “wholly misconceived and without merit”, indicating that the claims lacked substantive legal grounding. The court also noted that a comprehensive written judgment would be provided later.
Interestingly, the court dismissed the portion of Hughes’ claims against the Leader of the Opposition Aubrey Norton, labelling it “more than passing strange” that she would include a fellow parliamentary colleague in her lawsuit.
The State was represented by a legal team, including Nandlall, Deputy Solicitor-General Shoshanna Lall, and State Counsel Saabira Ali-Hydarali, Laurel Dundas, and Pierre Squires.
On the other side, Hughes was represented by her husband and leader of the AFC, Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes and Attorney-at-Law Kiswana Jefford.