Hughes, Jagdeo Defamation Trial Begins

The defamation case filed by former APNU+AFC government minister Catherine “Cathy” Hughes against Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo began on Friday, 6th September 2024, before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Haniff at the High Court in Georgetown.

The defamation suit stems from remarks made by Jagdeo during a press conference on November 23, 2023, where he referred to Mrs Hughes as a “lowlife.”

The proceedings saw Vice-President Jagdeo represented by prominent attorney Sanjeev Datadin, while Mrs Hughes was represented by her husband, attorney Nigel Hughes.

Mr Hughes is also the leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC).

The trial’s proceedings so far have centred around the testimony of the claimant, Mrs Hughes, who faced rigorous cross-examination from Datadin throughout the day.

She testified that Jagdeo’s characterisation of her as a “lowlife” was the primary reason she initiated the defamation suit, stating that the term was offensive and damaging to her reputation.

Initially, Mrs Hughes denied ever being referred to as a “lowlife” by anyone else, except occasionally in Parliament. However, during cross-examination, Datadin confronted her with a printed Facebook post from December 2023 in which her husband had publicly used the same term to describe her.

Mrs Hughes subsequently admitted that her husband had indeed called her a “lowlife.”

During her testimony, Mrs Hughes presented a 50-second clip from Jagdeo’s press conference, which she claimed contained the defamatory remark.

Datadin objected to the admission of the short clip, arguing that the full press conference lasted over an hour and a half, and the 50-second segment did not provide the full context of Jagdeo’s remarks.

Datadin contended that presenting only a brief excerpt was prejudicial and did not allow the court to assess the statement within its proper context.

Following the court’s suggestion that case law was clear on the need for full context, Mr Hughes submitted the entire press conference recording into evidence.

Under cross-examination, Mrs Hughes acknowledged that the full recording revealed Jagdeo’s remarks pertained to two issues: her incorrect accusation that Jagdeo had given a “channel” to Venezuela, and allegations that she, while serving as a minister, awarded her own company millions of dollars in government contracts.

She admitted she was aware that the “channel” issue with Venezuela predated Jagdeo’s involvement in the government, noting that it was Dr. Barton Scotland who had originally raised the matter in 1989, not Jagdeo.

She also conceded that her claim regarding the channel was based solely on a TikTok video she did not have nor submitted into evidence.

Further questioning revealed Mrs Hughes’ admission that while she was a minister, she had indeed signed checks and approved invoices for her company, leading to lucrative contracts with her ministry.

She acknowledged that these actions had drawn public criticism, which she had never legally contested, even when Jagdeo publicly stated the same.

Mrs Hughes indicated that she refrained from suing Jagdeo over the contract allegations because she knew he possessed documentation to substantiate his claims, which had been widely circulated in newspapers and on social media.

When pressed on whether it was inappropriate for a minister to award contracts to their own company, Mrs Hughes responded evasively, stating, “it depends.”

She also admitted that throughout Jagdeo’s press conference, he did not make any remarks about her appearance, gender, or ethnicity.

The trial will continue on September 26, 2024, when Mrs Hughes is expected to return for further cross-examination by Datadin.

Another hearing has been set for October 14, 2024.