High Court dismisses Vincent Adams’ defamation claim against Gail Teixeira

The High Court has dismissed a defamation claim brought by former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Executive Director Dr Vincent Adams against Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Minister Gail Teixeira over statements she made during Guyana’s review before the United Nations Human Rights Committee in March 2024.

In her judgement, Justice Jacqueline Josiah-Graham found that while Teixeira’s statements carried a limited defamatory meaning, they were protected by qualified privilege. The Court ruled that Adams had failed to prove malice.

Adams had sued Teixeira over comments concerning his connection to the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) between Guyana and ExxonMobil, which was the subject of scrutiny during the UN Human Rights Committee review.

The court found that the statements could convey that Adams had some connection to the PSA in its secret character, suggesting insider participation or knowledge beyond his political affiliation and subsequent role in regulating the agreement.

However, the Judge rejected the broader interpretation that Teixeira had accused Adams of personally concealing the agreement, depositing the signature bonus, engaging in corruption or dishonesty, or lacking professional independence.

The judgement established that Adams was not involved in negotiating, executing or publicly disclosing the PSA in 2016 and 2017. He began working at the EPA in October 2018, after the agreement’s terms, including the signature bonus, had become publicly known.

The Court noted that Adams had been an executive member of the Alliance for Change (AFC), while the Minister who signed the agreement was an AFC leader. During his tenure as EPA director, Adams exercised statutory functions concerning environmental authorisations under Article 28 of the PSA.

The Judge found that these circumstances provided some factual basis for Teixeira’s belief, but there was no specific evidence that Adams knew the PSA’s terms before they became public or participated in keeping them secret. The Court also found that the statements were not shown to be substantially true.

In examining the defence of qualified privilege, the Court found that Teixeira had an official duty to answer questions from the UN Human Rights Committee and that the committee had a legitimate interest in information about changes in EPA leadership. The fact that the proceedings were broadcast publicly did not defeat the privilege.

The Judge acknowledged that Teixeira could have been more precise and should have clarified that Adams was not employed by the EPA when the PSA was signed. She could also have made clear that she was not accusing him of negotiating or concealing the agreement or engaging in corruption.

However, the Court found that the failure to clarify the statements did not establish malice. Adams had not proved that Teixeira knew the statements were false, was recklessly indifferent to their truth or falsity, or used the occasion for an improper dominant purpose.
The Court also considered the political context surrounding the statements but found that political disagreement alone was insufficient to establish malice.

Teixeira’s defence of fair comment was rejected because the statements were assertions of fact rather than opinion. Nevertheless, the qualified privilege defence succeeded, resulting in the dismissal of the claim.

The Judge stated that, had Adams succeeded, the court would have awarded him $4 million in general damages. Adams had sought $15 million. The Court found no basis for aggravated or exemplary damages, noting that no financial loss or lost professional opportunity had been demonstrated.

The Court also declined to grant an injunction because the claim had failed. The final order dismissed Adams’ claim and directed that each party bear their own costs.