Ubraj Narine, the former Mayor of Georgetown, has achieved a decisive victory in a defamation lawsuit against the Guyana National Newspaper Limited (GNNL), publishers of the Chronicle. Justice Nicola Pierre delivered the judgement on October 22, 2024, awarding Narine a substantial total of $700,000 in damages and an additional $200,000 in legal costs. This ruling may be perceived to underscore the critical importance of ethical journalism in our nation.
The case arose from an article published on August 29, 2023, that reported comments allegedly made by former Councillor Patricia Chase-Green. These remarks accused Narine of incompetence and misconduct in his capacity as mayor, suggesting that he misled the council and encouraged breaches of contracts. Narine argued that such statements were not only damaging to his reputation but also implied corruption, causing him significant emotional distress and undermining his ability to serve in public office.
Narine’s legal team, comprising Ms. Sasha King and Mr. Roysdale Forde S.C., contended that the article’s implications were not just harmful but fundamentally false. They emphasised that the accusations of untrustworthiness and misconduct had serious repercussions, particularly for someone in Narine’s position, which required a high degree of public trust.
The defence, represented by Attorney-at-Law Mr. Siand Durjon, admitted to publishing the article but claimed that the statements were not defamatory. They argued for protection under the principle of absolute privilege, asserting that the comments were part of a report on a public meeting made without malice. However, the judge found this argument unconvincing, particularly since the statements attributed to Narine were probably directed at Walter Narine, the Director of Solid Waste, and not Ubraj Narine.
In her judgement, Justice Pierre highlighted that the statements were capable of being interpreted as defamatory, damaging Ubraj Narine’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable readers. The allegations of incompetence and dishonesty were deemed serious enough to tarnish his public image, especially given the trust required in his dual roles as a politician and a community leader.
A critical aspect of the case involved the failure of the Chronicle to verify the accuracy of the statements prior to publication. Narine’s attorneys pointed out that responsible journalism necessitates due diligence, particularly when reporting serious allegations that could jeopardise an individual’s career. Testimony revealed that the reporters relied on previous articles rather than seeking confirmation from Narine or allowing him to respond, which the judge deemed a significant oversight.
The court also evaluated the effectiveness of the retraction and apology issued by the Chronicle shortly after the article’s publication. While the defence argued that this action mitigated damages, Justice Pierre found that the retraction was inadequately presented, appearing buried among other articles and likely unseen by many readers. This lack of visibility diminished the potential impact of the apology and did not suffice to offset the damage caused by the original publication.
In determining the damages, the court referenced principles from previous defamation cases that stipulate compensation for reputational harm, emotional distress, and the need for vindication. Although Narine did not provide direct evidence of financial losses, he articulated the profound impact of the defamatory remarks on his mental health and public reputation.
Justice Pierre took into account several factors in calculating the damages award. The severity of the allegations, the extent of publication, and the ongoing emotional distress suffered by Narine were all considered. The judge noted that the article’s wide circulation — both in print and online — significantly amplified its potential impact. Moreover, the allegations were described as particularly egregious, justifying the substantial award of $700,000.
The court also highlighted that damages in defamation cases can vary widely based on individual circumstances. Previous cases indicated substantial awards for accusations of dishonesty or criminality, while Narine’s situation, though serious, did not involve such extreme allegations. Nonetheless, the awarded sum reflects the lasting damage to Narine’s reputation and the emotional toll of the false accusations.
In addition to the damages, Narine was awarded $200,000 in legal costs, recognising the effectiveness and efficiency of his representation during the trial. The court ordered the second named defendant to pay the awarded sums by November 30, 2024, marking a significant win for Narine and reinforcing the importance of accountability in journalism.
This case is viewed by one analyst as a reminder of the need for accuracy and responsibility in reporting, highlighting the impact of defamation on individuals’ lives. Narine’s victory, said the analyst, not only vindicates his reputation but also stands as a testament to the importance of upholding journalistic standards in our country.
