Ed Ahmad demands GY$30 million from Travis Chase for defamation

Last Updated on Tuesday, 5 August 2025, 18:54 by Writer

New York-based Guyanese-American businessman, Ed Ahmad, has asked the High Court to punish news reporter, Travis Chase, with GY$30 million in damages stemming from an undefended case against him or several defamatory posts on his Facebook profile.

According to a submission to the High Court dated July 31, 2025, by Mr Ahmad’s lawyers, Darshan Ramdhani and Rajendra Jaigobin, Mr Ahmad is asking the High Court to award him GY$30 million because his reputation has been affected not only in Guyana, but also in the United States, where he also carries on business.

Initially, the claim was for GY$100 million.

Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln issued the default judgement on June 10, 2025 after Mr Chase did not file a defence or make an appearance. Court papers state that efforts by Court Marshals to serve him the lawsuit at HGPTV, Beterverwagting, East Coast Demerara were unsuccessful. The lawyers said, at Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde’s request, the lawsuit was served through him.

“The Defendant has failed to defend these proceedings; in defamation proceedings, the words complained of are presumed to be false and untrue and the burden is normally upon the Defendant to prove that the words complained of are true in fact and in substance, if he relies upon the defence of justification. Likewise, it is upon the Defendant to lead evidence of the Claimant’s previous conviction,” the lawyers say in their latest submission.

Justice Corbin-Lincoln had given Mr Ahmad until July 1, 2025 to file any additional submissions. Those were filed last monthend.

Mr Ahmad said Mr Chase’s publication has caused persons to shun and avoid him and have hurt his feelings and exposed him to humiliation and embarrassment.

The lawyers said there was compelling inference that the publications are being published, shared and read by third parties, reaching more and more viewers around the world. They added that those posts were now permanently on the world wide web for posterity.

They said any order which the court makes for the Mr Chase to take down those publications would not be enforceable against third parties who have shared and published the offending statements.

Further, Mr Ahmad’s lawyers asked the court to take note that there has been no retraction or apology offered by Mr Chase to mitigate damages.

The lawyers had previously told the court that contrary to the Facebook posts on 29th January, 2025, 30th January, 2025, 31st January, 2025, 1st February, 2025, 9th February, 2025, 13th February, 2025, and 14th February, 2025, Mr Ahmad was never arrested or questioned by the police in relation to money laundering and gold smuggling nor is he part of any criminal gang as contended by Mr Chase.