FORMER President David Granger hosted a victory party following the contentious March 2, 2020 elections, even though the official results had not yet been declared.
This information was disclosed on Thursday during the ongoing trial of the defamation lawsuit filed by Mrs. Catherine “Cathy” Hughes, an executive member of the Alliance for Change (AFC) and wife of the party’s leader, against Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo.
The case is being presided over by Justice Priscila Chandra-Hanif at the Demerara High Court.

In her statement of claim, Mrs Hughes is seeking over $50 million in damages from Jagdeo for remarks he made during a press conference on November 23, 2023, where he allegedly referred to her as a “low-life.”
During the trial, it was revealed that the 2020 general elections in Guyana marked one of the most controversial periods in the nation’s history. The country faced a protracted electoral process that saw allegations of vote rigging, delays in vote tabulation, and widespread scrutiny from international observers.

Then President Granger led the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition government. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), led by Jagdeo, was eventually declared the winner after five months of legal and procedural wrangling.
As the matter continued with Jagdeo presenting his defence, his witness, Robin Singh, testified, implying that Granger’s administration was confident of remaining in power.

He stated that, days after the polls closed, Granger hosted a celebratory gathering near the 704 Sports Bar, Club, and Sky Lounge on Lamaha Street in Georgetown, even though the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) had not yet declared the election results.
When questioned by Mr Nigel Hughes, Mrs Hughes’ husband and attorney, about whether he recalled Granger refusing to relinquish power between March 2 and 6, 2020, Singh responded, “Yes.”

“Between the second and the sixth, he [Granger] had a victory party opposite 704,” Singh recounted, adding: “So, yes, he refused to give up power. I remember him declaring victory.”
Regarding the no-confidence motion passed against the APNU+AFC government in December 2018, Mr Hughes questioned Singh on whether he was aware of the procedure the Speaker of the National Assembly must follow if such a motion is successfully passed.
He responded by stating that “people with integrity” would step down voluntarily after such a motion was carried.

In his testimony, Singh stated that Mrs. Hughes and her party attempted to rig the election in a particularly clumsy manner. He referenced the actions of Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo and pointed out that AFC agents did not raise objections when “incorrect numbers” were called by Mingo.

“There were no objections to wrong numbers,” the witness noted.
With both the claimant [Mrs Hughes] and defendant [Jagdeo] having presented their cases, the court has invited them to submit written closing arguments.
Jagdeo’s lawyer, Sanjeev Datadin, has been given until January 20, 2025, to file his submission, while Attorney Hughes is required to respond by February 20, 2025. They will return to court on March 6, 2025 at 09:00 hrs, for the judge to set a date for the judgment.
The presiding judge has already emphasised that the claimant’s public image and character will be thoroughly examined.

She previously outlined a structured two-stage approach to evaluating the evidence, including a detailed “forensic audit” of Mrs Hughes’ reputation as a “public political figure”.
The judge explained that she will first examine whether the term “low life,” allegedly used by Jagdeo to describe Mrs Hughes, qualifies as defamatory in the context. This analysis involves determining if the phrase, in its ordinary meaning or in the context it was used, could harm Mrs Hughes’ reputation by subjecting her to ridicule or contempt or diminishing her standing in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

If the court finds that it was indeed defamatory, Justice Chandra-Hanif questioned how it would quantify the damages associated. At this stage, she said the court will conduct a public forensic audit of the reputation of Mrs Hughes.
In assessing damages to the claimant’s reputation, she said the court will determine what the standard society held her at was when the words were spoken, and in that determination, the court will assess the veracity and accuracy of her reputation and the statements.
In assessing Mrs. Hughes’ reputation, Jagdeo’s attorney has asked the court to consider the APNU+AFC’s government’s refusal to step down after a successful no-confidence motion was passed against it in December 2018.
Hughes, as one of the coalition government’s ministers, supported this position, Datadin said. He argued that her actions aligned with the collective stance of the then government.

During cross-examination, Mrs. Hughes admitted to approving millions of dollars in contracts for her company, Videomega, while serving as minister but avoided commenting on whether it was inappropriate for a minister to award contracts to their own company.
She acknowledged that Jagdeo’s claims about the contracts were partially true but chose not to take legal action, as she was aware he had supporting documents that he made public. Mrs Hughes also conceded that her accusation about Jagdeo granting a “channel” to Venezuela to resolve the border controversy was false, and clarified that Jagdeo had no role in the 1989 border issue, which was initially raised under the Forbes Burnham presidency.

Regarding the 2020 elections, Datadin questioned Mrs Hughes about her party’s Statements of Poll (SoPs), with Mrs. Hughes stating that she had not seen all the SoPs and relied on GECOM’s official statements.
Datadin referred to APNU+AFC minister Dominic Gaskin’s decision to distance himself from the delayed election results.

Datadin then contrasted this with Mrs. Hughes’ choice not to distance herself, indicating that while she had the option to take similar actions, she chose not to. Once again, he argued that her actions were in line with the collective stance of the government at the time.
Lastly, Datadin raised a Facebook post by Mrs Hughes’ husband, which referred to her as a “lowlife.” Mrs Hughes confirmed the post likely referred to her but suggested Datadin ask her husband directly for clarification.