ASSISTANT Commissioner of Police and Head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Fazil Karimbaksh, has filed a multi-million-dollar defamation lawsuit against journalist Leroy Smith, seeking damages in excess of $600 million.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday in the High Court of Georgetown, accused Smith of publishing a series of defamatory statements across multiple online platforms, aimed at tarnishing Karimbaksh’s reputation.
The lawsuit claimed that between September and October 2024, Smith, who operates the widely-followed online news platform “Big Smith News Watch” and the associated Facebook page, made several allegations against Karimbaksh, questioning his leadership of SOCU and alleging unethical conduct within the unit.

The statements in question, according to the legal filing by attorney Ron Motilall, were intended to lower the esteem of Karimbaksh in the eyes of the public and his peers within the Guyana Police Force (GPF).
Karimbaksh is seeking damages of $100 million for each of six separate publications made between September 11 and October 23, 2024. In addition to the financial compensation, the Assistant Commissioner is requesting an injunction to prevent further defamatory statements and a court order compelling Smith to remove the offending content from his platforms.

In the lawsuit, Karimbaksh pointed to specific articles and posts made by Smith on the “Big Smith News Watch” website and Facebook page. According to the document, the first alleged defamatory statement was published on September 11, 2024, under the title “SOCU Operatives’ Violation of Their Sworn Oath is Criminal.” Furthermore, Smith questioned whether Karimbaksh, if promoted, would be able to manage national security matters.
The October 13, 2024, post, titled “No Listed Qualifications for SOCU Head to Support Promotion to DC,” further fuelled the controversy. (DC stands for Deputy Commissioner).

Smith alleged that Karimbaksh, despite being on the promotion list for Deputy Commissioner of Police, lacked the necessary academic qualifications for the role.
The lawsuit said that additional publications continued to implicate Karimbaksh in controversial dealings. On October 16, 2024, Smith published an article titled “SOCU Confirms Its Case Against Brutus is Weak and on Life Support,” stating that SOCU had failed to secure enough evidence to charge Assistant Commissioner Calvin Brutus with financial crimes.

The article suggested that Karimbaksh’s leadership was ineffectual, and his unit was unable to carry out its mandate.
On October 17, 2024, another article alleged that SOCU had engaged in witness tampering and manipulation of evidence during the investigation into Brutus. The article was titled “SOCU Manipulated Evidence, Intimidated/Threatened Witnesses”.

The final publication, made on October 23, 2024, accused Karimbaksh of contributing to Brutus’ purchase of a property in West Demerara. That article was titled “SOCU Head Contributes 25% to Brutus $20 Million Schoonord Property Purchase”.

Karimbaksh asserted that the words were false, malicious, and calculated to embarrass him, injure his standing, and undermine his authority within the police force.
According to his statement of claim, the defamatory publications have led to “considerable hurt, distress, and embarrassment,” exposing him to reputational harm both publicly and within his professional community. The lawsuit argued that the publications have caused the public and his subordinates to question his competence, character, and integrity.

At the time of filing, Smith had not publicly commented on the lawsuit. According to the legal procedures, he has 42 days to file a defence in response to the claim. If Smith fails to respond within the specified timeframe, the court may rule in Karimbaksh’s favour in his absence.

Karimbaksh, through his attorney, had demanded a retraction and apology from Smith following the publication of the alleged defamatory article by “Big Smith News Watch”.
The letter emphasised the professional and personal harm caused to the senior policeman and called for an apology and retraction, threatening legal action if these demands were not met.