VP Jagdeo’s statements on Anand Goolsarran grounded in facts – court rules

Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo has successfully defended a defamation lawsuit brought by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran, after the High Court found that the defence of justification had been established in relation to the statements at the centre of the case.

Justice Peter Hugh dismissed Goolsarran’s claim and ordered him to pay $250,000 in costs to VP Jagdeo.

The ruling brings to an end the defamation proceedings arising from comments made by Jagdeo at a press conference at Freedom House on March 23, 2023, and at a public meeting in Port Mourant, Berbice, on March 26, 2023.

Goolsarran had taken issue with statements concerning his tenure in the Audit Office and his public commentary, contending that the remarks were defamatory and had damaged his reputation.

Jagdeo, through his legal team, defended the statements and maintained that they were grounded in facts concerning Goolsarran’s record and public conduct.

The central issue became whether Jagdeo could establish the truth, or substantial truth, of the matters conveyed in the publications.

The court found that he had.

Truth defence

A key aspect of the judgement was the defence of justification.

In a defamation claim, justification turns on whether the substance of the allegedly defamatory publication can be shown to be true. In this case, Justice Hugh found that the evidence supported the substance of the statements made by Jagdeo.

The finding meant that the defamation claim could not succeed, despite the claimant’s challenge to the statements.

The court examined Goolsarran’s role in the Audit Office during the period under discussion, including his tenure as Deputy Auditor General and subsequently as Auditor General.

The evidence considered by the court included the absence of audits of the public accounts during a period when Goolsarran served in a senior position within the Audit Office.

Jagdeo’s legal team had previously relied on this history in responding to Goolsarran’s complaint, arguing that the former Auditor General had been part of the senior management of the Audit Office during years when the public accounts were not audited.

The legal response also pointed to the constitutional responsibility of the Auditor General to audit the public accounts and prepare reports for presentation to the National Assembly.

Those issues became significant to the court’s consideration of whether Jagdeo’s statements had a factual basis.

The court ultimately found that the explanations advanced by Goolsarran did not negate the substantial truth of the matters relied upon by Jagdeo.

As a result, the defence of justification succeeded.

Political conduct

The court also considered another aspect of Jagdeo’s statements concerning Goolsarran’s political associations and public conduct.

Goolsarran denied formal membership of the Alliance For Change (AFC), but the court considered the evidence surrounding his political associations and public commentary.

Justice Hugh found that Jagdeo had established a sufficient factual basis for the opinion expressed about Goolsarran’s political associations and conduct.

The court also examined the suggestion that Goolsarran had been selective in his criticism of Governments and political actors.

The judgement found that the factual foundation necessary to support the allegation had been established.

That finding was important to the overall outcome because it meant that Jagdeo was not required to rely solely on the alternative defences raised during the proceedings.

Justification decisive

The court also considered the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege.

Those defences did not succeed on procedural grounds because they had not been properly pleaded in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 2016.

However, that did not alter the result.

The successful defence of justification was sufficient to dispose of the proceedings.

The court therefore dismissed Goolsarran’s claim against Jagdeo.

The ruling also carries a costs consequence for the former Auditor General, with the court ordering him to pay $250,000 to Jagdeo.

The outcome means that the court accepted the substance of the factual matters underpinning the statements challenged by Goolsarran.

Public accountability

The case arose against the backdrop of Goolsarran’s longstanding public commentary on issues of accountability, transparency and Government expenditure.

Jagdeo’s lawyers had argued before the litigation that Goolsarran, as a former senior public official and regular public commentator, had placed his own conduct and the conduct of successive Governments in the public domain and should therefore expect scrutiny and criticism.

In their pre-action response to Goolsarran’s complaint, Jagdeo’s lawyers maintained that his comments were made in the context of matters of public interest. They also argued that Goolsarran had himself engaged in sustained public criticism of Jagdeo, the Government and the PPP.

The lawyers specifically relied on the history of the Audit Office between 1982 and 1989, when, according to their response, the public accounts were not audited and reports were not prepared for presentation to the National Assembly. They argued that Goolsarran had served as Deputy Auditor General during part of that period.

The Court’s decision ultimately turned not on whether Jagdeo’s comments were politically contentious, but on whether the substance of the statements could be justified by the evidence.

Justice Hugh found that they could. The Court accordingly dismissed the claim and awarded $250,000 in costs against Goolsarran.