High Court strikes down criminal defamatory libel as violation of constitutional right to freedom of expression

Last Updated on Friday, 20 June 2025, 19:32 by Writer

– says Guyana court cannot serve criminal summons overseas

In a landmark decision, Guyana’s Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire on Friday declared that the criminal defamatory libel is unconstitutional as it violates the enshrined right to freedom of expression.

In quashing the case of criminal defamatory libel against New York-based Guyanese political activist and President of the Caribbean Guyana Institute of Democracy (CGID), Rickford Burke, the Chief Justice said Section 113 of the Criminal Law Offences Act including conspiracy to commit such an offence is “unconstitutional as being in violation of Article 146 which guarantees freedom of expression.”

“It is declared that the resort to criminal defamatory libel to protect individual reputation is unnecessary, disproportionately excessive and not justified and or required to protect reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons and are unconstitutional as being in violation of Article 146 which is the freedom of expression provision in our constitution,” she said.

Mr Burke was represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde.

The Chief Justice said she was bound to consider human rights conventions and learning in accordance with Article 39 much of which have criticized criminal defamation. She also noted that several regional territories including Grenada, Jamaica, Antigua, Barbuda and Trinidad and Tobago have abolished criminal defamatory libel after lobbying, especially by journalists.

The Guyana Press Association, in collaboration with the Inter-American Press Institute, had more than ten years ago lobbied for the repeal of criminal defamation from the country’s lawbooks.

In handing down her decision, the Chief Justice questioned how Mr Burke, who has been living in the United States for the past 27 years, could have committed the offence in Lusignan, East Coast Demerara. She said it was evident that the prosecution did not tell Magistrate Fabayo Azore that Mr Burke was not in Guyana and could not have been at Lusignan as stated in the charge. “If this was disclosed to the magistrate, then she most likely would have declined to have issued the summonses issued under her hand,” Ms George-Wiltshire said.

According to Assistant Superintendent of Police Rodwell Sarabo, who was tasked with locating Mr Burke, he went to Lot 1 Fellowship, West Coast Demerara – the last known address of the accused – but did not locate him. The court was informed that on December 13, the police officer travelled to the United States with the originals of the summonses and met with a U.S. Process Server on the following day. On December 16, 2023, they went to an address in Brooklyn, New York where they met Mr Burke who refused to accept the documents and the Process Server left them on the accused’s doorstep while informing him that he had been be served.

The Chief Justice said Mr Burke’s residing in the U.S. for the past 27 years has not been refuted by the State by such means as immigration records. In quashing the Guyana Police Force’s (GPF) effort to serve Mr Burke with a summons in the U.S., the judge pointed out that a summons shall “have full force and effect and may be served anywhere within Guyana”. “Therefore, the summons only has efficacy within the geographical boundaries of Guyana. Service of a summons outside the jurisdiction of Guyana means that such service would be unlawful and therefore invalid,” she said.

The Chief Justice said the Magistrate admitted to Mr Burke’s contention that the summons is only effective within the jurisdiction of Guyana. The judge said it does appear that what was done was more akin to service of civil proceedings and even then whether such service is acceptable depends on the rules of court.

The charge of criminal defamatory libel dated back to 2021 when, according to Mr Burke in court papers, in response to dozens of complaints by consumers, CGID and the Applicant, via social media platforms, exposed alleged predatory financial practices and fraud by a car dealership in Guyana. Consequently, he said the GPF falsely announced that the applicant allegedly conspired with persons he does not know, never met, or saw, and never spoken with, to engage in defamatory libel in order to commit extortion in breach of Guyana’s cybercrime and extortion laws, and unjustly. He said in court papers that the alleged extortion claimed by the GPF is the Applicant’s advocacy for the management of the car dealership to repay moneys the company allegedly defrauded customers and vendors.