High Court throws out Cathy Hughes’ “low life” case against Jagdeo

Last Updated on Monday, 30 September 2024, 21:31 by Writer

Chief Justice, Roxane George-Wiltshire on Monday dismissed the legal proceedings filed by Mrs. Catherine Hughes regarding the State’s failure to operationalise the Human Rights Commission breached her constitutional rights and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s “low life” description of her constitutional entitlement to equality before the law and equality of women, according to the Attorney General’s Chambers.

“The Honourable Chief Justice (ag), in dismissing the case brought by Catherine Hughes, held that Mrs. Hughes had not sufficiently established a case of discrimination under the provisions of the Constitution, or at all, and that her claim of discrimination on the basis of sex and race, in this context, cannot succeed.

“The Court further determined that the utterance by the Vice President, without more, could neither amount to a breach of any of Mrs. Hughes’ fundamental rights, nor could the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission, by that fact itself, amount to a breach of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court found no evidence that the Vice President’s statement was an official statement of the Government, as Mrs. Hughes alleged,” the Attorney General said in a statement issued on Monday.

In her submissions to the Court, Mrs. Hughes argued, among other things, that Mr Jagdeo’s reference to her as a “low life” at a news conference on 23rd November, 2023 amounted to discrimination against her as a female African member of the National Assembly.

Mrs. Hughes also argued that the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission violated her constitutional rights under Article 154A of the Constitution and breached her legitimate expectation that the Commission would be established.

According to the Attorney General’s Chambers, Attorney General, Anil Nandlall rejected Mrs. Hughes’ arguments, submitting that she failed to make out a case for discrimination under Articles 149, 149D and 149F of the Constitution, and that in any event, Article 154A of the Constitution which provides access to certain international treaties enshrined in the Constitution, could not be invoked.

In support of this submission, the Attorney General relied on Article 154A(2) of the Constitution which expressly provides that:
“154A(2). The rights referred to in paragraph (1) do not include any fundamental right under the Constitution.”

The Attorney General argued that once a right is protected under the fundamental rights regime such as the rights Mrs. Hughes claims in discrimination under Articles 149, 149D and 149F), she is not entitled to seek additional refuge in Article 154A of the Constitution in relation to the same rights.

The Attorney General further 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, 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, the statement said.

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 misconceived and without merit. The Court indicated that a full written judgement would later be made available.

The Attorney General and the Leader of the Opposition were named Respondents in the proceedings by Mrs. Hughes. The Chief Justice dismissed the part of the claim against the Leader of the Opposition and commented that it is “more than passing strange” that the Applicant would sue her Parliamentary opposition colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

The State was represented by the Attorney General; Shoshanna V. Lall, Deputy Solicitor General; Mrs. Saabira Ali-Hydarali, Ms. Laurel Dundas and Mr. Pierre Squires, State Counsel, while Mrs. Hughes was represented by Mr. Nigel Hughes and Ms. Kiswana Jefford.