High Court dismisses lawsuit against VP Jagdeo filed by Cathy Hughes over “low life” comment

…orders her to pay over $4M in court costs

The Court High in Georgetown has dismissed a libel suit filed by Opposition Member of Parliament, Cathy Hughes, against Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, ruling that his reference to Hughes as a “low life” was not defamatory but well within the bounds of political discourse.
The ruling was handed down by High Court judge, Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif, on Thursday. She found that the statement made by Jagdeo on November 23, 2023 at a press conference did not meet the legal threshold for defamation and was protected as political speech.

Hughes, a former minister under the previous Coalition Administration and an Executive Member of the Alliance For Change (AFC) opposition party, had filed the lawsuit against Jagdeo, claiming various categories of damages over his alleged slander when he used the words, “…from someone, a low life like Cathy Hughes.”
Further, in her claim for exemplary damages, Hughes stated that the term “low life” refers to criminals and is also of racist origin, deployed in the context of derogatory racial discourse and it was intended to convey a meaning that she was woman of loose moral and indulges in unacceptable sexual behaviour. She claims that the obvious use of the term was intended to humiliate, ridicule, degrade and damage her reputation without justification. She was seeking in excess of $50M in damages.
However, Jagdeo, through his lawyer – Attorney Sanjeev Datadin, admitted to using the words to describe Hughes but argued that they were not defamatory as being alleged but used in circumstances that can be justified as fair comment. He said his remarks were part of longer statement of his full press conference, and was in response to allegations Hughes made against him two days prior at a public meeting in Linden.
According to Jagdeo, Hughes made false statements about the ongoing Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy and his response was done to protect the national and territorial interest of Guyana so as to avoid possible dire consequences as it relates to national security. Hence, he considered the words constituted fair comment and were made in good faith without malice on matters of public importance.
Based on the court documents, Hughes had accused Jagdeo, a former President of Guyana, of giving away a channel here to Venezuela – a claim that he has repeatedly rejected.
In response, Jagdeo said at his weekly press conference that, “Cathy Hughes went to the people in Linden. She was upset because she had a public meeting, and three persons turned up. So, that is her saying that I promised them again. This is the rumour-mongering among people who are willing, because they hate the PPP or maybe me so much, that they are prepared to compromise even our border. And from someone, a lowlife like Cathy Hughes who used to award contracts to herself, to her own company in her own ministry, when she was minister. And she would never sue me for that because we have all the evidence of this.”
The Vice President contended that his response was meant to criticise Hughes for being selfish and making irresponsible and dangerous statements that put Guyana at risk just to scoring political points especially since her remarks were made at a time when tensions had heightened with Venezuela towards the end of 2023.
Jagdeo further maintained that Hughes clearly and falsely accused him of betraying Guyana, and at no time did he mention her race or her gender or social proclivities and as such, the imputation of race, gender and sexual morals are baseless and manipulated to inject meaning into the words about her that he did not mean.
In her decision, Justice Chandra-Hanif asserted that the in light of the social and political theatrics in Guyana and the qualification of the context of the words uttered by Jagdeo, she found that the words complained about are not capable of conveying the meaning alleged by Hughes.
The High Court judge posited that the proper interpretation of the entire sentence uttered by Jagdeo could only reasonably relate to an imputation of dishonourable or criminal behaviour but cannot to the right-thinking members of society be viewed to have any racial imputation nor convey a meaning that she was a woman of loose morals who indulged in unacceptable sexual behaviour as she claims it does.
“The court finds… that the statement does not bear any defamatory meaning as contended by the Claimant (Hughes). It is not one which would tender to lower the Claimant in the estimation of the right-thinking people of Guyana, based on an objective standard since it is the Defendant’s criticism of an Opposition political party in the context of his right of expression of political views on matters that are in the public domain and on matters of public interest and as such, it was not specifically defamatory of the Claimant,” the judge ruled.
Addressing Hughes contention that Jagdeo’s words sought to discredit her in the public eyes, Justice Chandra-Hanif noted that uncontradicted evidence shows that it was already in the public domain that Hughes had awarded contracts to her company while she a was a Minister of Government under the Coalition regime.
“The Court has concluded that the comment made by the Defendant was fair and reasonable in the circumstances where the Defendant sought to convey that the Claimant committed misconduct when she awarded a contract to herself while in public office and when she reneged on her cease fire promise in the best interest of the Guyanese,” the judge ruled.
Hughes had admitted in court that as Chairman of the AFC at the time, she had signed onto a Parliamentary Motion in the National Assembly to put aside political differences and stand in one voice against Venezuela’s attempt to claim Guyana’s territory.
In dismissing the libel suit against the Vice President, Justice Chandra-Hanif ordered Hughes to pay $4,099,999 in legal costs to Jagdeo.
However, the Opposition MP’s lawyer, Nigel Hughes, who is also her husband, has since indicated that they would be appealing the High Court’s decision.