Alliance For Change (AFC) parliamentarian Cathy Hughes has announced her intention to appeal the dismissal by Chief Justice Roxanne George of her recent application in the court, which, among other things, alleged that Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo defamed her by calling her a “low life”.
“Ms Hughes has been advised that the decision of the Honourable Chief Justice ought to benefit from a review of a Court of Appellate jurisdiction and has consequently instructed her Attorneys to appeal the decision. Details of the Appeal filed will be shared with the media,” the AFC said in a statement today.
On Monday, the Chief Justice had dismissed the case for being “wholly misconstrued” and lacking merit.
During the proceedings, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC., had argued among other things that when the Vice President made reference to Hughes’ and “low life” behaviour during a press conference on November 23, 2023, there was no evidence of discrimination in his utterance.
“The Attorney General argued that there is absolutely no evidence of discrimination in the Vice President’s utterance, as he was speaking only of Mrs. Hughes, and that where discrimination is alleged, on the prescribed ground of race or gender, an inference of discrimination cannot be drawn.”
“Unless there is a true comparator, that is, where the circumstances are equal and the only difference is that of race or gender. In this case, not only was there no comparator” – there was no “true comparator”. The comment was in reference to the Applicant and the Applicant alone,” a statement from the Ministry of Legal Affairs said.
The High Court further ruled that there was no evidence Jagdeo’s reference to Hughes was by way of an official statement of the government, as was alleged in the case. Nor was the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission deemed a constitutional breach.
“The Court further stated that Mrs. Hughes provided no evidence explaining why she failed to approach the Women and Gender Equality Commission, which is an operational constitutional body whose functions, include, initiating investigations into alleged violations of women’s rights and monitoring compliance with international instruments. The Court therefore held that Mrs. Hughes’ claim was wholly misconstrued and without merit. The Court indicated that a full written judgment would later be made available.”
Additionally, the fact that Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton was included as a respondent in the case by Hughes was commented on by the High Court. According to the Chief Justice, who also dismissed the claim against the Opposition Leader, “it is more than passing strange that the Applicant would sue her Parliamentary opposition colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.”
The State was represented by Nandlall, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna Lall and State Counsels Saabira Ali-Hydarali, Laurel Dundas and Pierre Squires, while Hughes was represented by her husband and Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes and Kiswana Jefford.
The case has its genesis in statements made by Jagdeo during a November 2023 press conference, when he had condemned comments made by Hughes at a public meeting in Linden, where she claimed that as President, Jagdeo had offered Venezuela a “maritime channel” to Venezuela.
Earlier this month, it had been reported that Cathy Hughes, was forced to admit in the High Court that she falsely claimed Jagdeo, as President, had offered a “channel” to Venezuela to settle the border controversy.
She had acknowledged that the channel issue with Venezuela had been brought up before Jagdeo’s government involvement. She had also admitted in court that Jagdeo had no role in government in 1989 and that Dr. Barton Scotland, not Jagdeo, initially raised the “channel” issue.
Hughes had also admitted that her only basis for the claim was a TikTok video, which she did not have and could not submit to the Court as evidence. As a matter of fact, Jagdeo in October 2015 had as Opposition Leader, while responding to questions from the media on the border controversy, had explained that in the past, before the PPP/C took office in 1992, several options were discussed as part of reaching a negotiated settlement with Venezuela to resolve the border controversy.
