–fails to justify necessity of house-to-house registration after grilled on statements regarding electoral matters during ‘lowlife’ case

CATHERINE ‘Cathy’ Hughes has failed to defend the longstanding A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) + Alliance For Change (AFC) coalition’s claim that it has Statements of Poll (SoPs) from the 2020 General and Regional Elections that show that it had won.

This issue and other elections-related matters were raised when she faced a series of questions aimed at testing her credibility during the defamation proceedings she initiated against Vice-President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, following his remarks at his November 23, 2023 press conference in which he referred to her as “a lowlife”.

On Friday, the defamation trial continued before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif at the Demerara High Court.

Mrs. Hughes had admitted that Jagdeo’s “lowlife” description of her was related to two issues: Her accusation that he had granted a “channel” in the Atlantic Ocean to Venezuela to resolve the border controversy, and allegations that her company, Videomega, had received millions of dollars in contracts while she served as a minister under the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) government.

At a previous hearing, she acknowledged that her accusation related to the channel was inaccurate, and admitted she was aware that the channel issue with Venezuela had been raised before Jagdeo’s involvement in government.

She also conceded that Jagdeo had no role in government in 1989, and that it was former Speaker of the National Assembly Dr. Barton Scotland who’d initially raised the issue of the “channel” during Forbes Burnham’s presidency, and not Jagdeo.

During Friday’s session, Mrs. Hughes again faced a series of questions.

She was questioned by Jagdeo’s attorney, Sanjeev Datadin about the accuracy of statements she’d made during a press conference regarding electoral processes in Guyana.

She was quizzed about the necessity of house-to-house registration, the existence of a legal provision mandating it, and the claims of dead people voting at the March 2020 elections.

Datadin questioned her about the necessity of house-to-house registration because of what she described as a bloated voters’ list, referencing a press conference where it was mentioned by her.

She replied that house-to-house registration was required according to the law, but said she was unsure about the specifics.

Datadin, however, challenged this claim, stating there is no provision in any law that mandates house-to-house registration.

He asked: “Mrs. Hughes, what provision, as far as you are aware, in any law in this country requires house-to-house registration every 10 years?”

Mrs. Hughes responded, “I can’t give the specific aspect of the law,” acknowledging that it was something she had been told, and that she had not personally seen any law on the matter.

Jagdeo’s lawyer then put to her that Guyana has a system of continuous registration, and therefore house-to house-registration is not required by any law.

“I don’t know,” she retorted. He then reminded her that, as a government minister at the time, it was her responsibility to disseminate and share accurate information with the public.

“I shared accurate and relevant information with the public,” Mrs. Hughes insisted.

To which Datadin replied: “Mrs. Hughes, no house-to-house registration is required. Then, you would have shared inaccurate information with the public. You agree with that?”

While Mrs. Hughes objected to the foregoing line of questioning, she couldn’t dodge further questions about a statement she’d made during a press conference in which she claimed that deceased individuals had been voting.

She clarified that while she had death certificates for the specific cases she’d mentioned, she did not have for all the deceased individuals.

Further, when asked if she had seen any Statements of Poll (SoPs) showing that her party had won the 2020 elections, Hughes responded, “I saw statements of recount.”

At this, Datadin interjected, emphasising that his question was specifically about whether the SoPs indicated that her party had won the polls.

“To answer that accurately,” Hughes replied, “I would have had to see all the statements of poll. I have not seen all the statements of poll, and would not be in a position, definitively from my own knowledge, to say what the results were. I go with what GECOM (Guyana Elections Commission) would have stated.”

She, however, admitted that she was aware that the PPP had posted all of its Statements of Poll on a website.

This prompted Datadin to ask, “Are you aware that the PPP claimed, from their published Statements of Poll, that they had won?”

Hughes’ response was: “I am aware that there was a controversy regarding the elections; I was not in a position personally to have any rile with the results, one way or another. I am not an employee of GECOM.”

She then went on to say that the PPP had alleged that it had won the elections.

When asked to explain what she meant by “controversy”, Mrs. Hughes replied, “At the end of the election process, unfortunately, there were concerns about the integrity of the process. I am aware that, internationally, there was agreement to hold a recount.  I am aware of a few specific information and inaccuracies that emerged out of that recount process. I am aware that both the government and the opposition at that time went to the courts for guidance, as the laws allowed them to do. I am aware that we were in a protracted process until a declaration was made… in favour of the PPP.”

During re-examination by her lawyer, who also happens to be her husband, Nigel Hughes, Mrs. Hughes was asked if she was aware that Dr. Scotland had proposed that a channel be given to Venezuela prior to filing her lawsuit in December 2023. She responded by stating that she’d become aware of it approximately two to three weeks before the Vice-President’s press conference.

Mrs. Hughes called her friend, Jennifer Rockcliffe to testify on her behalf. Rockcliffe, the sole witness for the claimant, admitted that she had not watched Jagdeo’s entire press conference, which lasted over an hour; instead, she only viewed a clip of him referring to Mrs. Hughes as a “lowlife.”

At this point, Datadin took the opportunity to explain the context in which his client had made that comment. When Datadin questioned Rockcliffe about whether she viewed the term “lowlife” as synonymous with criminal behaviour, she responded, “possibly”.

When asked whether it would be appropriate for a sitting minister to contract her company for work within her ministry for payment, the witness stated that she could not provide a definitive answer because she is not involved in government work.

Now that the claimant has closed her case, Jagdeo will begin presenting his defence on November 28, 2024.