THERE is no lawyer in Guyana that should be tolerated if that lawyer tells his client if someone uses the following words about his client then it is challengeable in a court for libelous content – “people don’t know but me and Aubrey alright.” In this case, Todd’s client is Aubrey Norton.

Todd made public via Facebook, a letter he wrote to entrepreneur Ameir Ahmad about the threat of libel on behalf of Norton.

Todd quoted the part that Norton found libelous. That part has Ahmad as saying, “people don’t know but me and Norton alright.”

Even if the formidable genius of Jacques Derrida who founded the philosophy of deconstruction came back alive, he cannot deconstruct what that term in Guyana means.

In fact, it has no meaning and is open to millions of interpretations none of which is negative. No judge in Guyana, now and in the future will rule that “me and he alright” is a libelous statement.

What Norton and Todd are confusing that expression with is the exclamation: “He and I are good friends.”

Depending on who is saying that there could be a defamatory angle with the context of Jeffrey Epstein.

People will recoil if a convicted serial bank fraudster, convicted serial molester, convicted serial pedophile, convicted serial rapist says, John Muchomamba, who is the country’s leading pediatrician and him are good friends.

Muchomamba can claim libel because he can say society does not see him as an upright person because he shares a friendship with an irredeemable convict.

“He is my friend” and “he and me alright” have a billion differences. The key here is the definition of “alright.” But before we attempt to interpret “alright,” a word about Ameir Ahmad.

I live in Guyana and my work is to study its content. Ameir Ahmad whom I have never seen or met and only spoke to him by phone two days ago to invite him on the Freddie Kissoon Show is known in Guyana as a serious and dedicated entrepreneur.

He invests in hospitals, hotels and other projects.
There is nothing infamous about Mr. Ahmad and it is stupid for a politician not to connect with wealthy folks in society because that is the way of the world.

Which politician does not want to know wealthy folks so they can ask for donations? I wish I had known Mr. Ahmad because I would have asked for a substantial donation for something in Guyana that cries out for attention – animal protection.

The most sensible thing for Norton to have done and Todd should have advised him to do so was to issue a statement saying he doesn’t know Mr. Ahmad and he doesn’t know what Mr. Ahmad means because he does not know and want to know Mr. Ahmad.

But it is terribly stupid to threaten libel over a statement that is impossible to define.

In what ways Norton’s character has been damaged by Ahmad saying: “He and me alright?” Can Todd and Norton deconstruct that expression?

Even Derrida cannot do it because it is a statement that is jejune, banal, arid and meaningless. Let’s attempt some explanations.

1-I once encountered the person and he was pleasant

2-I had a chance meeting with the person and he understood my views and says that he shares similar opinions.

3-I chatted with the person and I find him not to be the arrogant kind people say he is.

4-I do not find person complex or self-opinioned. He said he understands that people could disagree but still appreciate each other.

5-I know the person and I think I can relate to him and he will reciprocate.
Here are five definitions of “he and me alright.” I have to strain my imagination to come up with more because the “alright” part of it is almost impossible to pin down and the more you study it the more you see it is harmless and not negative.

If Norton should sue Ahmad (Ahmad told me his is not apologizing and I suggest he should not), that court case is going to permanently damage which ever lawyer is representing Norton because the judge will be harsh on that lawyer for three reasons; Ahmad did not use the word “friendship”; Ahmad is not an infamous citizen that people shun all the time but is in fact one of Guyana’s leading entrepreneurs, and finally, the court will be brought into disrepute if the lawyer for Norton defines “alright” in a negative way because all of Guyana will laugh at that judge and Norton’s lawyer.

If I am in hospital and cannot move, I will still go to court to hear how Norton’s character has been damaged.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.