Freddie vs Jagdeo libel case…Dr Luncheon can’t equate ‘King Kong’ with Jagdeo
September 22, 2011 | By KNews | Filed Under News
Source - Kaieteur News
President Bharrat Jagdeo is an “ordinary” person and does not come with the coat of immunity the law confers on him in the libel case brought by the President against Kaieteur News columnist Freddie Kissoon, and the newspaper’s editor-in-chief and publishers.
This was the argument by attorney Nigel Hughes when the case continued yesterday before Justice Brassington Reynolds.
Dr Roger Luncheon, whom the President’s attorney told the court answers in “unique language” and is known for his “linguistic” expressions, was unable to identify President Jagdeo as the “King Kong” of Guyanese political folklore that Freddie Kissoon wrote about in the article that is at the centre of the libel suit.
Dr Luncheon – who is also Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Cabinet Secretary – is President Jagdeo’s chief witness in the case.
President Jagdeo is suing for $10 million, claiming that a column entitled “King Kong sent his goons to disrupt the conference” pointed to Jagdeo as “King Kong.” The President has claimed that the article suggests that he is a racist and that “by extension, the State and Government of Guyana, practise racism as an ideology, dogma, philosophy and policy.”
It was when the President’s lead attorney, Anil Nandlall, stood up on a point of objection and pleaded to the court that his client is “no ordinary” citizen” by virtue of him being the President and Commander-in-chief that the defense team protested.
Hughes, who is representing Kissoon, said that while the President enjoys immunity from prosecution, by virtue of him suing for libel, he has stepped out of that zone of protection that the law affords him and is therefore an “ordinary citizen” just like the defendants.
Justice Reynolds said that he would not pronounce on whether the President is barred from immunity in this case but would address it if the matter is brought before him at some point during the case.
Dr Luncheon faced questioning for an estimated three hours yesterday. Several of the questions directed at him were objected to by Nandlall who consistently agitated for relevance.
When it came to the specific article written by Freddie Kissoon, Dr Luncheon told the court that he could not identify President Jagdeo as the one who is referred to in the two mentions of “King Kong” in the article written by Kissoon.
The day’s proceedings began with attorney Hughes continuing to question Dr Luncheon on the “King Kong” character in Guyana’s political folklore, which he said on Tuesday, was used to identify President Forbes Burnham in the 1980s.
Dr Luncheon was asked if he knew one of the attributes of “King Kong” to be that he is an “unpleasant looking fella.”
“Not that I am aware of,” Dr Luncheon replied. He was then asked if he identified “King Kong” as being of the ilk of a “caveman.” Again, he replied that he was not aware of that.
The Cabinet Secretary was then asked if he knew of “King Kong” having “goons”. To this he said he was also not aware, but when questioned further identified “King Kong” as being a character known for violence.
He was then asked if he knew that in the folklore of King Kong if the creature is known to have characters in opposition to him.
This question brought Nandlall’s first agitated objection, saying he didn’t know much about folklore and didn’t know that Dr Luncheon had expansive knowledge of political folklore.
The Judge allowed the question and Dr Luncheon responded that he was not aware of this “adversarial” aspect of the King Kong character.
However, he later told the court that King Kong of the 1980s did have victims. Asked to name these, he said that the victims were political and civil organisations, and further detailed these to mean the People’s Progressive Party, the Working People’s Alliance, the Guyana Council of Churches, the Bar Association and others who received “King Kong type attention.”
Asked to say what this “King Kong type attention” was, Dr Luncheon defined this to mean aggression, public diatribe (which he later equated to being abused in public) and threats.
After this, Dr Luncheon was directed to Kissoon’s column and the two references to King Kong. Having being asked to read the article, Dr Luncheon concluded that Freddie Kissoon did not make any specific reference to any person in talking about “King Kong.”
“No specific individual is identified,” Dr Luncheon stated.
Dr Luncheon was asked if he accepted that Kissoon was an academic who does research, and that by norm, academics do research and make their own conclusions. Dr Luncheon agreed.
He further agreed that in the article in question, Kissoon wrote about his research finding, which in comparing the presidencies of Desmond Hoyte, Dr Cheddi Jagan, Janet Jagan and Bharrat Jagdeo, identified Jagdeo’s exercise of power as being driven by ideological racism. Dr Luncheon agreed that this is what he understood.
Dr Luncheon was then asked that of the presidencies that Kissoon compared, if it would be correct to say that it was only Jagdeo’s presidency that the head of every arm of the government – the legislature, judiciary and the executive – are headed by Indians.
Dr Luncheon said he did not have that information in his possession. Attorney Hughes then sought to point out the heads of various arms of the government during the presidents under consideration, but in most cases Dr Luncheon could not answer authoritatively.
“The chronology escapes me,” he said.
Another point that saw extensive questioning was the construction of the Berbice River Bridge.
Dr Luncheon was first asked if he agreed that there would be an economic impact on the communities where the bridge was situated. To this he agreed.
However, when he was later asked if the cessation of the ferry service with the advent of the bridge, meant that the economic well being of New Amsterdam was affected, Dr Luncheon said he was not aware of the relationship between the existence of the ferry service and the prosperity of the township of New Amsterdam.
This response came after Dr Luncheon agreed that the Cabinet, chaired by the President, had not accepted the recommendation of a feasibility study which suggested that the least cost option for the bridge would be upstream from Everton.
Dr Luncheon said he was not aware of that suggestion of least cost options as contained in the feasibility study under question.
Just prior to that question, Dr Luncheon was quizzed on the racial composition of villages from Everton to New Amsterdam.
Asked if he agreed that those villages are predominantly inhabited by people of African ancestry, Dr Luncheon said he was not familiar with the racial composition of those villages.
He later agreed that the village at which the bridge now terminates on the eastern side is Palymyra, which he admitted is composed mainly of Indians.
September 22, 2011 | By KNews | Filed Under News
Source - Kaieteur News
President Bharrat Jagdeo is an “ordinary” person and does not come with the coat of immunity the law confers on him in the libel case brought by the President against Kaieteur News columnist Freddie Kissoon, and the newspaper’s editor-in-chief and publishers.
This was the argument by attorney Nigel Hughes when the case continued yesterday before Justice Brassington Reynolds.
Dr Roger Luncheon, whom the President’s attorney told the court answers in “unique language” and is known for his “linguistic” expressions, was unable to identify President Jagdeo as the “King Kong” of Guyanese political folklore that Freddie Kissoon wrote about in the article that is at the centre of the libel suit.
Dr Luncheon – who is also Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Cabinet Secretary – is President Jagdeo’s chief witness in the case.
President Jagdeo is suing for $10 million, claiming that a column entitled “King Kong sent his goons to disrupt the conference” pointed to Jagdeo as “King Kong.” The President has claimed that the article suggests that he is a racist and that “by extension, the State and Government of Guyana, practise racism as an ideology, dogma, philosophy and policy.”
It was when the President’s lead attorney, Anil Nandlall, stood up on a point of objection and pleaded to the court that his client is “no ordinary” citizen” by virtue of him being the President and Commander-in-chief that the defense team protested.
Hughes, who is representing Kissoon, said that while the President enjoys immunity from prosecution, by virtue of him suing for libel, he has stepped out of that zone of protection that the law affords him and is therefore an “ordinary citizen” just like the defendants.
Justice Reynolds said that he would not pronounce on whether the President is barred from immunity in this case but would address it if the matter is brought before him at some point during the case.
Dr Luncheon faced questioning for an estimated three hours yesterday. Several of the questions directed at him were objected to by Nandlall who consistently agitated for relevance.
When it came to the specific article written by Freddie Kissoon, Dr Luncheon told the court that he could not identify President Jagdeo as the one who is referred to in the two mentions of “King Kong” in the article written by Kissoon.
The day’s proceedings began with attorney Hughes continuing to question Dr Luncheon on the “King Kong” character in Guyana’s political folklore, which he said on Tuesday, was used to identify President Forbes Burnham in the 1980s.
Dr Luncheon was asked if he knew one of the attributes of “King Kong” to be that he is an “unpleasant looking fella.”
“Not that I am aware of,” Dr Luncheon replied. He was then asked if he identified “King Kong” as being of the ilk of a “caveman.” Again, he replied that he was not aware of that.
The Cabinet Secretary was then asked if he knew of “King Kong” having “goons”. To this he said he was also not aware, but when questioned further identified “King Kong” as being a character known for violence.
He was then asked if he knew that in the folklore of King Kong if the creature is known to have characters in opposition to him.
This question brought Nandlall’s first agitated objection, saying he didn’t know much about folklore and didn’t know that Dr Luncheon had expansive knowledge of political folklore.
The Judge allowed the question and Dr Luncheon responded that he was not aware of this “adversarial” aspect of the King Kong character.
However, he later told the court that King Kong of the 1980s did have victims. Asked to name these, he said that the victims were political and civil organisations, and further detailed these to mean the People’s Progressive Party, the Working People’s Alliance, the Guyana Council of Churches, the Bar Association and others who received “King Kong type attention.”
Asked to say what this “King Kong type attention” was, Dr Luncheon defined this to mean aggression, public diatribe (which he later equated to being abused in public) and threats.
After this, Dr Luncheon was directed to Kissoon’s column and the two references to King Kong. Having being asked to read the article, Dr Luncheon concluded that Freddie Kissoon did not make any specific reference to any person in talking about “King Kong.”
“No specific individual is identified,” Dr Luncheon stated.
Dr Luncheon was asked if he accepted that Kissoon was an academic who does research, and that by norm, academics do research and make their own conclusions. Dr Luncheon agreed.
He further agreed that in the article in question, Kissoon wrote about his research finding, which in comparing the presidencies of Desmond Hoyte, Dr Cheddi Jagan, Janet Jagan and Bharrat Jagdeo, identified Jagdeo’s exercise of power as being driven by ideological racism. Dr Luncheon agreed that this is what he understood.
Dr Luncheon was then asked that of the presidencies that Kissoon compared, if it would be correct to say that it was only Jagdeo’s presidency that the head of every arm of the government – the legislature, judiciary and the executive – are headed by Indians.
Dr Luncheon said he did not have that information in his possession. Attorney Hughes then sought to point out the heads of various arms of the government during the presidents under consideration, but in most cases Dr Luncheon could not answer authoritatively.
“The chronology escapes me,” he said.
Another point that saw extensive questioning was the construction of the Berbice River Bridge.
Dr Luncheon was first asked if he agreed that there would be an economic impact on the communities where the bridge was situated. To this he agreed.
However, when he was later asked if the cessation of the ferry service with the advent of the bridge, meant that the economic well being of New Amsterdam was affected, Dr Luncheon said he was not aware of the relationship between the existence of the ferry service and the prosperity of the township of New Amsterdam.
This response came after Dr Luncheon agreed that the Cabinet, chaired by the President, had not accepted the recommendation of a feasibility study which suggested that the least cost option for the bridge would be upstream from Everton.
Dr Luncheon said he was not aware of that suggestion of least cost options as contained in the feasibility study under question.
Just prior to that question, Dr Luncheon was quizzed on the racial composition of villages from Everton to New Amsterdam.
Asked if he agreed that those villages are predominantly inhabited by people of African ancestry, Dr Luncheon said he was not familiar with the racial composition of those villages.
He later agreed that the village at which the bridge now terminates on the eastern side is Palymyra, which he admitted is composed mainly of Indians.
The scene at adjournment of yesterday’s session in the High Court. (Sonnel Nelson photo)
