2020 General & Regional Elections: Way cleared for Justice Singh to preside over Granger’s defamation suit trial

…but different Judge to conduct PTR

Although the Full Court has now cleared the way for Justice Navindra Singh to preside over the trial in the $1B defamation lawsuit brought by former President David Granger against three daily newspapers and a Public Relations Consultant, it has referred the matter to the acting Chief Justice for her to assign another Judge to conduct the Pre-Trial Review (PTR).
Granger’s lawyer, Roysdale Forde, SC, had gone to the Demerara Full Court to overturn Justice Singh’s decision to hear the libel suit without the consent of the parties, in particular that of the claimant Granger. The lawyer had sent an email to Justice Singh indicating that his client did not consent to him being both the PTR and case management conference (CMC) Judge.

Part 38 of the Civil Rule Procedure Rule (CPR) 2016 stipulates that the Judge who conducts the PTR must not, where practicable, be the CMC Judge, or preside at the trial, unless the parties agree and file a consent to the same effect. It also states that the Court may, at any time, on its own initiative or upon application, direct that a PTR be waived, or another PTR be held.
Pending its ruling, the Full Court, comprising Justices Damone Younge and Gino Persaud, had in February of this year stayed Justice Singh’s decision. In a judgement delivered on Thursday, the Full Court found that the hearing conducted by Justice Singh on April 28, 2022 was a continuation of the CMC, and not a PTR.

“This Court also finds that whilst [Justice Singh] has the power to waive a PTR at any time, in the circumstances of this case, and in view of the fact that there was no consent by [Granger] as required by R. 38.01(5) of the CPR, the exercise of his discretion to waive the PTR was wrongfully exercised,” Justices Persaud and Younge held.
In the face of the objection raised by the former Head of State, and the withholding of his consent, the Full Court opined that it was not open to Justice Singh to counter that by waiving the PTR. At that point, the Justices noted that Granger’s objections should have been noted, and the matter referred to Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, SC, for assignment to a different judge to conduct the PTR, after which the matter would return to the CMC Judge for trial.
In light of its finding, the Full Court allowed Granger’s appeal. In so doing, it ordered that the lawsuit be referred to the Chief Justice for a Judge to be assigned to conduct the PTR. At the conclusion of the PTR, the matter shall be remitted to Justice Singh for trial, the Full Court ruled, and made no order as to costs.

Statement of Claim
Claiming that his reputation has been tarnished, former President David Granger, in a 134-page Statement of Claim (SoC), has accused Public Relations Consultant Christopher Nascimento of launching and sustaining a series of defamatory attacks against him, from March 2020 to August 2020, through opinions published in <<Guyana Times,>> Stabroek News and Kaieteur News.
Moreover, he said the pieces penned by the PR specialist inferred that he was not innocent of any attempt to force fraud on the country, and that he lied to the people of Guyana and the APNU/AFC, and that he wanted to remain in Government regardless of the will of the people expressed at 2020 General and Regional Elections.
According to Granger’s counsel, the attacks were “relentless, and displayed a complete disregard for the truth”.
Granger has argued that the publications suggested he was of unsound mind, was a liar, was involved in criminal and illegal activities and practices, and was unfit to be the President.
The former President has denied accusations that he encouraged and/or supported efforts to move to the Courts, inclusive of the Court of Appeal of Guyana and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), to strip the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairperson, Justice (retd) Claudette Singh, of her authority to produce the election results.
He has also denied that he is dishonest, deceitful, habitually hypocritical, is of dubious credibility, and wanted to remain in office as President, to rule without any regard or care, regardless of the consequences to Guyana.
He has also denied that he used invented irregularities to claim a victory for the APNU/AFC and for himself as President at the national elections, and that he refused to accept the election results.
He is denying that he permitted then Attorney General Basil Williams to argue that the Recount Order was illegal, and that he and his lawyers attempted to throw out the recount he agreed to abide by.
Additionally, he has rejected accusations that he permitted Williams to argue that the GECOM Chairman was obligated to accept the declaration made by former Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield.
According to Forde, during the election period, his client made several public broadcasts to the nation, in which he communicated to the nation, the diplomatic community, and civil society that: “As President of Guyana and Leader of the Government, it is my policy that any declaration coming from the Chairman of GECOM will be accepted by the Government of Guyana.”
The Senior Counsel submitted that, following the declaration of another candidate as the winner of the elections, Granger accepted the said declaration “as he always stated that he would accept any declaration coming from the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission.”
Granger has claimed that, as a result of the publications, he and his family have suffered and continue to suffer financial injury, constant grave distress, humiliation, embarrassment, indignity, pain, and suffering.
He has also claimed that besides damaging his character and reputation, the “statements have no basis in fact, are malicious, grossly inaccurate, and are intended to deceive the public”.
“The effect of the publications was intended to, and calculated to, damage the reputation of [Granger] and expose him to unwarranted hatred, ridicule, vilification, and contempt…
The effect of the publications was intended to, and calculated to, also disparage the record of [Granger] as the President of Guyana and as an honest person,” Forde has contended.
“As a result of the said headlines and articles and their dissemination online and offline, [Granger’s] personal and professional reputation and standing has been irreparably and severely damaged, lowered in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, and [Granger] has suffered and continues to suffer financial injury, constant distress, humiliation, embarrassment, indignity, pain, and suffering.”
Apart from damages, former President Granger is also seeking substantial costs.
Nascimento is being represented by Attorney-at-Law Kashir Khan, Guyana Times is being represented by Attorney-at-Law A. Dev, and Stabroek News is being represented by Senior Counsel Timothy Jonas.
Nascimento, in a comment invited by this newspaper, had said he was standing by his remarks about the former Head of State. “I am astonished at Mr Granger’s lawsuit. He certainly places an extraordinarily high price on what he believes to be his reputation. I am satisfied that anything I have written or said about Mr Granger was in defence of democracy and the freedom of Guyana.”
Forde was appointed Senior Counsel by Granger.