Nigel Hughes’ threat to sue this newspaper is on shaky ground

IN the Chronicle’s editorial of Saturday, February 15, 2014, documenting some of the plethora of illegal activities Opposition leaders have been alleged to have committed, was one of several paragraphs detailing instances of improper and/or illegal conduct allegedly committed by Attorney-at-Law, Nigel Hughes, for which he is threatening to take legal action against the management of the Chronicle.The excerpt at reference reads as follows: “Fast-track to the Linden unrest in 2012, when Opposition supporters were again instigated to riot by their leaders, including Nigel Hughes, with three of them shot by persons unknown.
“After demanding and obtaining a commission of inquiry that cost the nation millions and bringing in an ‘expert’ to prove the police culpable of the killings under the direction of Minister Rohee, all their claims and allegations were debunked, even by their own ‘expert’; but yet, inexplicably, the commission awarded people who were breaking the law and committing all kinds of atrocities, millions of taxpayers’ dollars.
“As Ramjattan did earlier, it is being surmised that their lawyer, Nigel Hughes, received a huge payout for his representation; so again people breaking the law were rewarded at taxpayers’ expense instead of being punished.”
Where is the libel here? To state that something is being ‘surmised’, based on certain occurrences? Chronicle did not state this as a fact; nor did it make any accusations to the effect that Hughes indeed received a payout for his services, unlike the outright accusations that he made against Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee that were proven to be blatant lies.
If a newspaper could be sued for reporting on the public ‘surmising’ about an event or an action, then all of the ‘perceived’ opposition media outlets, especially the ‘Kaieteur News’ and CNS 6, would have been incessantly sued. But that editorial also reported on incidents that are undisputed and in the public domain, which are far more damaging to Hughes’s personal and professional reputation, and which, in a US jurisdiction, and even by the laws of this land, should earn any lawyer prosecution and consequential disbarment.
These include public charges of land and property fraud; tax evasion; and tampering with evidence in a murder case. These are the charges that Hughes is claiming are libellous. However, all these charges are in the public domain, and have never before been refuted by Hughes; so he is merely trying to hoodwink the public.
Mr. Khurshid Sattaur has himself verified publicly that Hughes has evaded paying millions of dollars in tax. It is also a matter of public knowledge that Hughes removed a surveillance tape from a murder scene in Buxton; and, apart from an earlier allegation of property fraud, Ms. French, of Mae’s Schools, has recently accused him of a fraudulent act regarding a property sale. These are matters of public record, which Hughes cannot refute. It was these actions of his, as well as others, that have led the public to ‘surmise’ that he, like Ramjattan did when he claimed to have represented, pro bono, the teen who had been tortured by policemen, had also taken a percentage of the award issued to Lindeners through his representation. It was a natural conclusion, based on practice by members of the legal profession; and this newspaper has a duty to disseminate the information of that public perception.
Regarding his association with the Foreman of the Jury in the Lusignan murder trial, this is what Hughes had to say: “The Foreman of the Jury, who I represented in a civil action which was concluded in 2008, was a member of the People’s Progressive Party, and was represented by the current Attorney- General in 2011 in an action in which I appeared against him (the Foreman).
“The same foreman, as part of his party duties in 2012 participated in a public picketing exercise against me at the Supreme Court during the hearings of the Linden Commission of Inquiry. He was there along with senior members of the PPP. A copy of the photograph of the foreman on the PPP picket line is attached for your benefit.
“At the time of the Lusignan trial any relationship which existed between the foreman and myself could best be described as hostile. There was nothing to disclose.
“Is the PPP saying that I should have disclosed that the Foreman was a PPP member, that he had been represented by the Attorney General two years immediately prior to the trial when I appeared against him in the same case? Is this the non-disclosure they are speaking about?”
Hughes is being, at the very least, disingenuous, if not outright dishonest here, because this was indeed a matter of non-disclosure of prior association with the Foreman of the Jury, which should have at least resulted in a mistrial instead of an acquittal. And, as a lawyer, Hughes is fully aware that disclosing his association with the jury foreman was his duty; and that this non-disclosure of a prior association with the Foreman of the Jury should have earned him the direst of sanctions, if not jail time.
Whether it is true or not that the jury foreman is a PPP supporter, and no-one knows that this allegation by Hughes is a fact, is not the issue; but the fact that the person had been his client and known to him for a number of years is what is relevant, because of the suspicion that the foreman influenced the ‘not guilty’ verdict.
Anyone who believes that Hughes did not remember, and had no relations with someone with whom he had consultations, from whom he most likely received hefty fees, and whom he represented in his professional capacity has to be an outright fool, or is willing to be fooled. But nowhere in his letter did Hughes admit to this association, which, again, is a matter of public record. All he tried to do was link the jury foreman with the PPP. Where is the honesty in this?
Most likely hoping to appease the voting public and probably political backers, Hughes claims: “In these releases, they have made particular appeal to the victims of the Lusignan Massacre, contending that I have been responsible for the release and discharge of those persons who were responsible for the mass murders.
“The people of Lusignan and Guyana appear not to have been made aware that the person who admitted and confessed to being with ‘Fineman’ and participating in the Lusignan, Bartica and Lindo Creek massacres, Mr. Dwane Wiliams, was not, and will not be, prosecuted by the State for any of these 33 murders he participated in. He has been granted a free pass, by the State, for killing not only the people of Lusignan, but those in Bartica and Lindo Creek.
“These are his chilling words, made under oath, during his testimony in the Lusignan trial: “ME AND ‘FINE-MAN’ WERE TIGHT. I WAS WITH HIM IN LUSIGNAN, BARTICA AND LINDO CREEK. LUSIGNAN, 11 PEOPLE WERE KILLED; BARTICA, 12 PEOPLE WERE KILLED; AND LINDO CREEK, 10 PEOPLE WERE KILLED. 33 PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHEN I WAS WITH ‘FINE- MAN’, AND I AM NOT FACING A SINGLE CHARGE.’
“These words were recorded by the trial Judge, Mr. Justice Navindra Singh, and are contained in the appeal record, a public document at pages 256 to 257. Copies of this extract from his testimony are attached.
“He was the State’s sole eyewitness, who was jointly charged for the Lusignan murders. A mere week before the commencement of the Lusignan trial, Mr. Williams had the charges of murder against him mysteriously dropped by the State and he was released.
“Perhaps the people of Lusignan may wish to inquire of the Attorney-General and the DPP why the State, which is responsible for protecting and serving them, would let a self-confessed murderer of 33 citizens go free without a single charge. No other person in the history of this country has enjoyed such a pardon.”
This is what, in Guyanese parlance, is called “taking his doo-doo and rubbing it on someone else”. The State had no case against either of the two suspects, and therefore no option but to cut a deal with one of the two self-confessed murderers in order that at least one could be successfully prosecuted.
In the USA, prosecutors do this all the time; they look at the worst case scenario of no grounds for prosecution of either accused murderer as against letting one go on a plea deal, so as to get a witness to enable prosecution of the other. One of the conditions is that the accused who takes the deal, reveals his guilt in court during the trial; hence, his deposition, as per Hughes’s letter.
Hughes took no money to fight the case, and his efforts did indeed free the Lusignan murder accused. Hughes took away the effort and the advantage provided that could easily have brought in a ‘guilty’ verdict, and at least get some justice for the victims of the Lusignan Massacre by fighting for free to release the accused murderer.
So, why did he not, knowing the dire legal implications, reveal that he had a long-enduring association with the jury foreman if there was no collusion? The public is not buying Hughes’s defence and explanation, because, judging from his record, they declare his perceived lack of credibility on social media sites in long-running, heated debates and in letters to the media.
Supporters of the political Opposition, in and out of Guyana, are claiming that they paid all the expenses Hughes is claiming to have paid; and one is left to wonder why someone who did not even pay his taxes, and risk prosecution would want to expend so much money, merely for a political cause.
Incidentally, the Opposition made a lot of accusations that the people murdered at Lindo Creek were killed by members of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF). It is just a matter of self-interest that Hughes is revealing the truth that exonerates the GDF, as related by one of the self-confessed murderers, that the ‘Fine-Man’ gang was responsible for the Lindo Creek killings. So, why is the vociferous Opposition media silent on this revelation?
At best, Hughes’s threats to sue this newspaper is on shaky ground, and he stands a real chance of further defamation of his character if he pursues this vengeful course.