High Court dismisses libel case against Jagdeo, orders $4M costs; Hughes to appeal 

The High Court today dismissed a libel suit filed by Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Cathy Hughes against Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, ruling that his reference to Hughes as a “low life” during a 2023 press conference was not defamatory within the bounds of political discourse.

Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif found that the statement, made in November 2023, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation and was protected as political speech. She further ordered Hughes to pay $4,099,999 in legal costs to Jagdeo.

Hughes, a former Minister of Public Telecommunications and then-chairperson of the Alliance For Change (AFC), had argued that the term “low life” was racially charged, defamatory, and meant to humiliate her. She claimed the remark implied criminality and immoral conduct, and sought exemplary damages, asserting that it was made with malice.

However, the court rejected those claims, concluding the language used fell within the acceptable limits of political debate. Attorney for the Vice President, Sanjeev Datadin, said the court emphasised context and the nature of political rivalry.

During the proceedings, Hughes admitted to awarding government contracts to her own company, VideoMega, while serving as a minister. Although not central to the case, the court acknowledged this background as relevant to the political context of Jagdeo’s response.

Justice Chandra-Hanif ruled that Jagdeo’s comments were a rebuttal to Hughes’ own remarks at a political meeting in Linden, where she had called him “a dangerous, evil man” and accused him of conspiring with Venezuela in the ongoing border dispute.

Jagdeo maintained that his statement was necessary to defend his reputation and the national interest amid heightened tensions with Venezuela.

The court ultimately accepted that the Vice President’s remarks were part of a heated political exchange on matters of public interest and therefore protected by fair comment and qualified privilege.

Hughes has since signalled her intention to appeal the ruling.