High Court dismisses Cathy Hughes’ libel case against VP Jagdeo; awards over $4M in costs

The High Court on Thursday dismissed a libel case filed by opposition parliamentarian Cathy Hughes against Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, ruling that the words uttered by the VP—specifically referring to Hughes as a “low life”—were not defamatory in the context of political discourse.

In delivering her ruling, Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif found that the language used by the Vice President at a press conference in November 2023 did not rise to the level of actionable defamation under the law. She further ordered Hughes to pay $4,099,999 in costs to Jagdeo.

The case stemmed from comments made by Jagdeo during a press conference on November 23, 2023, where he described Hughes as a “low life.” Hughes, who is a former Minister of Public Telecommunications and the then-chairperson of the Alliance For Change (AFC), argued in court that the term was racially charged, defamatory, and intended to damage her reputation.

In her claim, Hughes asserted that the comment imputed criminality, dishonour, and immoral conduct to her and was meant to humiliate her as a woman of African descent. She sought exemplary damages, asserting that “low life” was a term of racist origin and deployed with malicious intent.

However, the court found otherwise.

Attorney for the Vice President, Sanjeev Datadin, told News Room that the court considered the broader context of the press conference and found that Jagdeo’s comment fell within the bounds of fair political criticism.

“The court found that the words used by the Vice President, in the context in which they were said, were not defamatory,” Datadin explained.

Datadin also pointed out that Hughes, during the proceedings, admitted to awarding government contracts to her own company—VideoMega—while serving as a minister, though this issue was not central to the case.

“The court noted that she acknowledged giving contracts to her own company while she was a minister. That was not the issue before the court, but it helped to paint the context,” he added.

The court’s ruling leaned heavily on the principle of freedom of political expression and the accepted rough-and-tumble nature of political debate, especially between political rivals. Justice Chandra-Hanif noted that both Hughes and Jagdeo are seasoned politicians, and mutual criticism in such a political climate is not uncommon.

Jagdeo, in his defense, argued that his comment was a rebuttal to Hughes’ earlier public accusation at a political meeting in Linden. At that event, Hughes labeled him “a dangerous, evil man” and accused him of conspiring to give Venezuela a “channel,” referencing Guyana’s longstanding border controversy with the neighbouring country.

Jagdeo contended that his response was necessary to defend his reputation and the national interest, especially as tensions with Venezuela had reached a critical point in late 2023. He said Hughes’ accusations were reckless and could undermine national unity and security.

The High Court accepted Jagdeo’s position that his remarks were made in the context of a heated political exchange on matters of public interest and, therefore, protected by the doctrine of fair comment and qualified privilege.