Alliance For Change (AFC) Member of Parliament (MP) Cathy Hughes has lost her defamation case against Vice President and Secretary General of the PPP party, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, in which she accused him of calling her a “low life.” The case, filed in December 2023, was dismissed by the High Court for being “wholly misconstrued” and lacking merit.
Acting Chief Justice Roxane George handed down the ruling, determining that Hughes had failed to demonstrate that Jagdeo’s comments during a November 2023 press conference constituted discrimination against her under the Constitution of Guyana, particularly regarding equality for women.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, who represented the State, argued that the Vice President’s remarks about Hughes were not discriminatory. He explained that Jagdeo’s comments were solely directed at Hughes and did not indicate discrimination on the basis of gender or race.
“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.”
Nandlall further explained that a “true comparator” is needed to make a case for discrimination, meaning that similar circumstances involving only a difference in race or gender must exist for such a claim. There was no comparator in this instance, and Dr. Jagdeo’s remarks were directed solely at Hughes.
“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 also ruled that there was no evidence to support Hughes’ claim that Jagdeo’s remarks were an official government statement, nor was the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission considered a constitutional breach.
Additionally, the Court noted that Hughes had not explained why she had not approached the Women and Gender Equality Commission, which has the authority to investigate alleged violations of women’s rights.
“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.”
The Court also found it unusual that Cathy Hughes had included Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton as a respondent in the case. The Chief Justice dismissed the claim against Norton and questioned why Hughes would sue her parliamentary colleague.
“It is more than passing strange that the Applicant would sue her Parliamentary opposition colleague, the Leader of the Opposition,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Hughes was represented in court by her husband and Attorney-at-Law, Nigel Hughes, alongside Kiswana Jefford. The State was represented by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna Lall, and State Counsels Saabira Ali-Hydarali, Laurel Dundas, and Pierre Squires.
The case stemmed from comments Jagdeo made during a November 2023 press conference in which he condemned statements made by Hughes at a public meeting in Linden. During his presidency, Hughes claimed that Dr. Jagdeo offered Venezuela a “maritime channel” to resolve the border controversy between the two countries.
Earlier this month, Cathy Hughes admitted in the High Court that she had falsely accused Dr Jagdeo of offering the “channel” to Venezuela. She acknowledged that the channel issue had been raised before Jagdeo’s involvement in government and that Dr. Barton Scotland, not Dr Jagdeo, had initially discussed it.
Hughes also admitted that her claim was based solely on a TikTok video, which she could not produce as evidence in court. In 2015, while in opposition, Dr. Jagdeo clarified that discussions about a potential channel had taken place before the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) took office in 1992.