Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case…Lawyers split over additional evidence justifying defendant’s claim
By Zena Henry, January 29, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under News, Source
Lawyers in the Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case are torn over the admissibility of additional evidence to be presented on behalf of the defence in its obligation to prove that former President Bharrat Jagdeo practiced ideological racism during his term in office.
Former President Bharrat Jagdeo
The defence, which is being led by Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes, yesterday applied to presiding Judge, Brassington Reynolds, for leave to amend its case by including particulars (of fact or opinion) to justify the claims that landed Kaieteur News columnist Frederick Kissoon in court; when he claimed in a 2010 article, that Jagdeo engaged in ideologically racist practices while sitting at the helm of the country. Kaieteur News’ publisher Glenn Lall and Editor-in-Chief, Adam Harris, were also sued for over $10M when Jagdeo claimed libel.
Yesterday’s divide came when trade unionist, Lincoln Lewis, commenced evidence at the High Court. Lewis’s testimony was bordering on the former president suppressing certain trade unions and the Critchlow Labour College; when Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos, lawyer for the plaintiff, objected to the witness’ evidence.
De Santos addressed the issue that no particulars of allegations are before the court. He told the court that there are no particulars of general assertions which provided the defence with the open right to lead specific evidence. He charged that the defence needed to back the claims made against the former president if they are going to make them, and in the absence of this, the evidence of the witness should be inadmissible. The senior, on advice of his junior, Attorney Sase Gunraj, even informed the court that legal authorities would be presented to support his argument against Lewis’ evidence.
Hughes answered that the defence’s case is a plea of justification, and in doing so, witnesses are being called to speak on the areas of public/social services where “ideological racism” was practiced. Hughes added that the defence and their witnesses deny that the assertions of Mr. Kissoon were libelous, based on research (report) and other writings, including that of a US report.
De Santos answered that pleading justification does not give the defence the right to produce any witness they choose, but facts to prove these justifications must rely on particulars and, “not vague and wild” assertions. He opined that in a libelous matter, facts must be present.
Hughes later provided legal backing to support his claim, but De Santos again replied, until he (Hughes) opted to provide particulars of justification. The lawyer applied for leave to provide the information so, according to him, there would be no future arguments toward the issue of particulars of fact or opinion and that of prejudice. As such, De Santos had to provide evidence to the inadmissibility of Lewis’ evidence because of the absence of particulars, while Hughes had to provide the particulars to support the claims.
KN columnist Frederick Kissoon
De Santos was however on his feet again, at odds with Hughes’s application, arguing, that it was premature, since the court had not yet ruled on his (De Santos’s) objection. He suggested that the application should be made at the right stage of the proceeding before opposing the request in its entirety.
De Santos agreed that the law provides for such an application to be made at any stage of the proceeding, but suggested an unfair advantage over the plaintiff if that was done. He stated that the defence never mentioned intent to provide particulars of the allegations, and now they (defence) want to include it at an advanced stage of the case. He argued that the plaintiff had already closed his case and there was no mention of providing particulars, “…now the defence wants to spring this surprise on the plaintiff.”
De Santos argued further that it was not the task of the plaintiff to ask for particulars, but the defence should have known to provide it. He charged that this is an attempt to, “inject life into a dead defence.”
Hughes however replied that there is no surprise on the plaintiff, since the plaintiff’s principal witness, Dr. Roger Luncheon, was questioned on all the areas that the amendment will represent. He said among other areas, Luncheon was questioned on the allocation of land, civil servant jobs, trade unions etc. He reiterated that the defence is capable of providing evidence of particulars to support claims that Jagdeo practiced ideological racism while in office, so as to dismiss arguments of prejudice where claims are made without particulars.
The court has scheduled that next hearing for arguments and a possible ruling on the matter before Lewis continues his evidence. Lewis, before his testimony was cut short, told the court that he is the General Secretary of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), appointed since 1998. Before that he was General Secretary of the Guyana Bauxite and General Workers’ Union.
He explained his attachment to the Critchlow Labour College, its function, and its attachment to the GTUC. He did not get around to testifying as to the government’s negative impact on those institutions while Jagdeo was president.
