–orders her to pay over $4M in costs

IN a significant ruling, Alliance For Change (AFC) executive member Catherine ‘Cathy’ Hughes suffered a major legal setback—one that has cost her millions of dollars.

The Demerara High Court recently dismissed her defamation lawsuit against Vice President, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, who also serves as the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

The court also ordered the opposition parliamentarian to pay more than $4M in costs.

Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif ruled that Jagdeo’s description of Hughes as “a low-life” during a November 2023 party press conference did not amount to defamation under Guyanese law.

Jagdeo’s attorney, Sanjeev Datadin, welcomed the ruling on Thursday, emphasising that it confirmed the Vice-President’s conduct was legally appropriate. “The Vice-President did nothing wrong as far as the law is concerned,” he emphasised.

He stated that during the press conference, Jagdeo played an audio clip in which Hughes accused him of proposing to give Venezuela a maritime channel in the Atlantic Ocean amid the ongoing border controversy—an allegation Hughes later admitted in court was untrue.

Datadin clarified that the idea of a maritime channel dated back to 1989 and was never Jagdeo’s proposal but rather, it originated from then-diplomat Dr Barton Scotland—long before Jagdeo’s time in office.

He emphasised that Jagdeo invoked this historical context to challenge Hughes’ false narrative. The attorney added that the court found it misleading and unfair for Hughes to label Jagdeo as unpatriotic, particularly during a period of heightened tensions between Guyana and Venezuela.

The ruling also concluded that Jagdeo’s comments related to issues of public interest and political accountability, focusing on Hughes’ conduct during her tenure as a government minister in the previous A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) administration.

Datadin explained that the court interpreted the term “low-life” as referring to disreputable behaviour, specifically citing Hughes’ awarding of government contracts to her own media company, Videomega, while she held public office.

According to the court, public officers must show unselfish and undivided loyalty to the public they serve.

The conduct of awarding contracts to one’s own company, the ruling noted, could potentially amount to malfeasance in public office.

Datadin explained that when such actions are exposed by a political opponent, it qualifies as fair comment rather than defamation.

He stressed that the court made it clear the law does not shield public officials from criticism when their conduct falls below acceptable standards.

Therefore, the VP had the right to defend himself against Hughes’ remarks.

The court further clarified that Jagdeo’s comments were not based on Hughes’ race, gender, or social status, as she had claimed, but were focused solely on her official conduct.

Ultimately, Justice Chandra-Hanif dismissed Hughes’ Statement of Claim and ordered her to pay $4,099,999 in costs to Jagdeo.

“Vice-President Jagdeo has been vindicated 100 per cent. He acted, which the court considered reasonably. He has been awarded costs in accordance with the High Court rules. There was no wrongdoing on the part of the Vice President. The Vice President was entitled to defend himself,” Datadin pointed out.

Hughes had initially sought over $50 million in damages, alleging that Jagdeo’s remarks damaged her reputation and caused psychological trauma.

During earlier proceedings, Hughes had admitted that her claim about the maritime “channel” was inaccurate, acknowledging that it was first suggested in 1989 by Dr Scotland.

She also admitted that Jagdeo’s claims about her company receiving government contracts were “true to some extent” and acknowledged that she did not pursue legal action to challenge those statements, as he had supporting documents to back them up.

Hughes was represented by her husband, attorney and AFC leader Nigel Hughes.

Commenting on the ruling, Nigel said this was the highest cost award ever granted against a claimant in the High Court.

He explained that Justice Chandra-Hanif found the description of his wife as a “low-life” to be fair and reasonable.

Nigel pointed out that the judgment seems to set a precedent for public discourse ahead of the upcoming national elections.

He also noted that the full decision will be appealed.