Granger appeals Full Court ruling for Justice Singh to preside over defamation case

Former President David Granger is adamant that he does not want Justice Navindra Singh presiding over the trial of the $2.6 billion defamation lawsuit he has filed against three daily newspapers and Public Relations Consultant, Christopher Nascimento.
In light of this, the former Head of State is now appealing an April 28 Full Court ruling in which it was ordered that Justice Singh will be the trial Judge and that the matter will be referred to the Chief Justice for her to assign another Judge to conduct the Pre-Trial Review (PTR).
Granger’s attorney, Roysdale Forde, SC, had gone to the Demerara Full Court to overturn Justice Singh’s decision to hear the claim without the consent of the parties, in particular, that of the claimant, his client. 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 because he had already set trial dates.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, April 28, 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 be 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, instructing that the claim 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.
In a Notice of Appeal filed at the Court of Appeal, Forde, however, argued that the Full Court “erred in law when they concluded that the matter was ostensibly fixed for Pre-Trial Review on the 13th day of June 2022, when in fact it was so fixed for Pre-Trial Review.”
“That the Learned Judges of the Full Court’s decision that after a Pre-Trial Review is held in the instant case, that the matter must be remitted to Justice Navindra Singh for trial is bad in law as Justice Navindra Singh exercised powers of a Pre-Trial Review Judge under Part 38 of the Civil Procedure Rules of 2016,” another one of the grounds of appeal stated.
The Full Court’s decision that the matter must be referred to the Chief Justice for a Judge to be assigned to conduct a PTR is of itself a concession that Justice Singh at first instance conducted and or exercised the powers of a Pre-Trial Judge, Forde submitted. Forde says his client has a meritorious appeal and a likelihood of success.

Statement of Claim
Claiming that his reputation has been tarnished, the former President, in a 134-page Statement of Claim (SoC) filed in May 2021, 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 has claimed that the pieces penned by the PR specialist inferred that he was not innocent of any attempt to force fraud on the country, 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” and suggested that his client was of unsound mind, was a liar, was involved in criminal and illegal activities and practices, and was unfit to be the President.
In his pleadings, Granger 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, of dubious credibility, wanted to remain in office as President, to rule without any regard or care, regardless of the consequences to Guyana, 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 has also rubbished accusations that he permitted then Attorney General Basil Williams, SC, 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 allegations that he permitted Williams to argue that GECOM’s 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 2020 elections, “Granger accepted the said declaration.”
Moreover, 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.
Besides damaging his character and reputation, he submitted that the “statements have no basis in fact, are malicious, grossly inaccurate, and are intended to deceive the public”. Apart from damages, former President Granger is also seeking substantial costs.
Nascimento is being represented by Attorney Kashir Khan, Guyana Times is being represented by Attorney A Dev, and Stabroek News is being represented by Senior Counsel Timothy Jonas.