High Court orders DPI, AG to pay Alexander GY$10M for defamation, Alexander to pay cost to Jagdeo because remark was privileged

Last Updated on Tuesday, 13 January 2026, 22:45 by Writer

The High Court on Monday ordered the government’s media outlet the Department of Public Information (DPI) and Attorney General Anil Nandlall to pay GY$10 million to Vincent Alexander for defamation stemming from remarks made by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo.

“Having weighed all the factors and had regard to the purpose of an award of damages I am satisfied that an award of $10,000,000 represents fair and reasonable compensation to vindicate the claimant’s reputation and to compensate him for the injury suffered,” Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln said in her judgement.

Concerning costs, the High Court said the DPI and the Attorney General must pay Mr Alexander costs of GY$500,000 which the judge found “would be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.”

While the judge found that Mr Jagdeo failed to establish that the defamatory words were true in substance or in fact or that they were fair comment, she upheld with his defence of qualified privilege since Mr Alexander has failed to properly plead and prove malice.

As such Justice Corbin-Lincoln ordered Mr Alexander to pay Mr Jagdeo costs in the sum of GY$350,000. “The 1st defendant (Mr Jagdeo) failed to establish that the defamatory words were true in substance or in fact or that they were fair comment,” the judge said.

Referring to Mr Jagdeo’s comments, in addressing the issue of qualified privilege, the judge said Mr Jagdeo, as a public official, had a duty to inform the public about the use and potential misuse of public funds.

“The taxpaying public would have a corresponding right to know how public funds are being used. Having regard to all the circumstances including the subject matter and identity of the publisher and recipients I find that the publication was made by the 1st defendant (Mr Jagdeo) on a privileged occasion,” she said.

In the absence of the required pleadings and evidence the 1st defendant’s defence of qualified privilege succeeds.

The DPI and the Attorney General were also ordered to remove the interview with Mr Jagdeo dated 19th August 2022 published on the DPI’s website https://dpi.gov.gy/idpada-g-cuffy-250-committee-officials-using-the-cause-of-afro-guyanese-to-enrich-themselves/. They have until 16 January 2026.

“In determining the appropriate award, I have had regard to the awards made in other cases and taken into account all the relevant circumstances including the standing of the claimant, the seriousness of the allegation, the nature (online) and extent of the publication, the absence of any retraction or apology and the facts that the defamatory publication continues to be available on the 2nd defendant’s website,” Justice Corbin-Lincoln also said.

She said the DPI and the Attorney General led no evidence to prove any of the pleaded defences.

The judge says the defamatory statements were of a serious nature as they conveyed that the claimant was dishonest, lacked integrity and engaged in conduct which was unethical, unscrupulous and insincere and was doing so for his personal financial benefit to the detriment of others including using public funds for his personal benefit.

She says the words are reasonably capable of being defamatory as they convey that the claimant is dishonest, holds himself out as believing in the Afro Guyanese cause for his own pecuniary interest and as one of the beneficial owners of International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly-Guyana (IDPADA-G).

The evidence of the claimant is that the words were published by the 2nd defendant electronically on its website with the heading “IDPADA-G, Cuffy 250 Committee officials using the cause of Afro Guyana to enrich themselves”.

“The publication is still available on the 2nd defendant’s webpage and thus the injury is ongoing. There is no evidence of the extent of the publication or viewership of the 2nd defendant (DPI) but the publication is accessible to the world at large,” she adds.

Referring to the DPI, she says she finds that the information contained in the publication is likely to command a high degree of respect given the source of the information and the fact that it concerned matters of public interest in relation to the use of public funds.