Chief Justice says Jagdeo’s “low life” remark unacceptable; rebukes leaders for setting bad example to Guyanese

Last Updated on Tuesday, 1 October 2024, 21:35 by Writer

Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire has deemed Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s description of opposition politician Catherine Hughes as a “low life” unacceptable and chided political and other leaders in Guyana for behaviour that could lead to violent crime.

Though the Chief Justice dismissed Ms Hughes’ lawsuit against Mr Jagdeo for racial and gender discrimination, she said the Vice President’s characterisation, which government minister Gail Teixeira sought to explain, was offensive. “This court considers that the language used was unacceptable,” Ms George-Wiltshire said.

In her legal reasoning on arriving at her decision, the Chief Justice said there was no evidence to support the contention that the statement made by the Vice President was an official statement of the government. “The applicant’s opinion that it is so does not mean that it is a fact,” she said. She added that the evidence does not establish that it is a breach of the applicant’s constitutional right related to equality for women. The Chief Justice said no case was made out for damages as Ms Hughes’ applicant was “hinged on personal claims of violations of the applicant’s rights which do not support the orders sought. “As such, I’m of the view that the application is wholly misconceived,” she said.

The Chief Justice said Ms Teixeira’s explanation was that the remark was part of a political spat between two rival politicians that stemmed from inflammatory remarks by Ms Hughes that Mr Jagdeo was a “dangerous, evil man”. The High Court found that the government minister’s expressions about what was said amounted to opinions or hearsay “and cannot be accepted by this court.”

Those aspects were not mentioned in the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall’s statement on the court’s decision. They included the Chief Justice’s view that unbecoming behaviour by leaders in Guyana was setting a bad example to youths and could contribute to the escalation of violence. “I want to say that the Court is concerned that increasingly political and community leaders address each other in inflammatory and/or derogatory language, setting no example on how to settle differences in a respectful manner.

Undiscerning persons, for example, youths, may conclude that this is the way to settle grievances or address concerns and unfortunately, as we know, as members of our society, many such utterances lead to violence and sadly deadly outcomes,” she said.

The Chief Justice also remarked that many of those utterances are the subject of existing proceedings before an already overburden court. She disagreed with Ms Teixeira, recounting the advice by Mr Nandlall and his junior counsel, that Mr Jagdeo had a right to respond in a similar manner to Ms Hughes’ verbal attack. “Exercise the right to respond, he may, but how he did or does so should not be in like kind. The same goes for leadership in all spheres of society. The right to respond is not and cannot be precluded but the actual response may be frowned upon as most inappropriate,” she said.

The High Court dismissed Mrs Hughes’ case on the basis that it had no merit and that she should have filed a complaint to the Women and Gender Equality Commission. The court said the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal, “while a violation of the Constitution” does not amount to a violation of Mrs Hughes constitutional rights to protection of law, protection from discrimination, equality for all or equality for women. The Judge states that the evidence does not support the claim that there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights to those rights.

The Guyana Constitution, according to the judge, states the rights that should be addressed pursuant to the Human Rights Conventions and so there could be no reliance on the fundamental rights provisions to ground a claim or complaint before the Human Rights Commission or a Human Rights Tribunal. Also, she said there was no evidence that Ms Hughes had a legitimate expectation that the Human Rights Commission would have been established within two years of the amendment of the constitution in 2002.

“The non-establishment of the HRC (Human Rights Commission) does not ipso facto amount to a violation of Article 154(a) regarding protection from psychological harm as may be provided for in the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and these were what were referred to by the applicant,” she said.

Mr Jagdeo made the remark at a news conference in November 2023.