The High Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran against Vice-President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, ruling that the central substance of Dr Jagdeo’s statements was supported by the evidence presented during the proceedings.
Justice Peter Hugh found that although the statements complained of were defamatory in their ordinary meaning, Jagdeo successfully established the defence of justification, meaning that the essential matters conveyed in the statements were substantially true. The Court also ordered Goolsarran to pay Dr Jagdeo $250,000 in legal costs.
The dispute arose from remarks Dr Jagdeo made at a press conference at Freedom House on March 23, 2023, followed by comments at a public meeting in Port Mourant, Berbice, on March 26 of that year.
Goolsarran argued that the comments damaged his reputation and portrayed him as lacking integrity, failing to discharge his responsibilities properly, and engaging in politically selective public commentary.
A central part of the case concerned Goolsarran’s role within the Audit Office during an earlier period when Guyana’s public accounts were not audited.
During the proceedings, evidence established that Goolsarran held senior positions within the Audit Office during the relevant years. The court also considered that audited public accounts were not produced during that period, while Goolsarran remained in his position and continued to receive his salary.
Goolsarran provided explanations regarding the circumstances surrounding the absence of audited accounts and challenged aspects of Jagdeo’s account of his position at the time. Justice Hugh accepted that there were inaccuracies on the margins of Dr Jagdeo’s account but determined that they did not undermine the central substance of the allegations.
The judge also examined comments regarding Goolsarran’s political associations and his public criticism of political administrations.
Although Goolsarran denied being a formal member of the Alliance for Change (AFC), the court found that the evidence provided an adequate factual basis for Dr Jagdeo’s comments regarding his political associations and conduct.
Another issue the court considered involved audit contracts received by Goolsarran under the APNU+AFC administration. Evidence showed that he was engaged to conduct audits involving several state entities, including NICIL, the Marriott Hotel, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Guyana Forestry Commission.
The court heard that these contracts were not awarded through open public tendering and that Goolsarran was not the only person capable of carrying out the work. These circumstances were part of the factual background considered when assessing Dr Jagdeo’s statements.
Justice Hugh concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the substance of Jagdeo’s allegations. Consequently, the court found that the defence of justification had been established, preventing the defamation claim from succeeding.
The court also considered two alternative legal defences raised by Dr Jagdeo—fair comment and qualified privilege. Those defences failed because they had not been properly pleaded under the Civil Procedure Rules 2016. However, that did not affect the outcome, as the successful justification defence was sufficient to dispose of the case.
The judgment therefore concludes the three-year-old legal dispute, dismissing Goolsarran’s claim and ordering him to pay $250,000 in costs.
The ruling focused on whether the evidence before the court supported the substance of Dr Jagdeo’s statements. Justice Hugh ultimately found that the necessary factual basis had been established.