In a landmark ruling that is already igniting controversy, the High Court on Thursday, May 29, 2025, dismissed a libel claim brought by opposition parliamentarian Catherine (Cathy) Hughes against Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, and handed down what is believed to be the highest-ever costs award against a plaintiff in Guyana’s judicial history.
Justice Priscilla Chandra Haniff ruled that Jagdeo’s description of Hughes as a “low life” during a November 2023 press conference was “fair and reasonable”, and awarded him $4,099,999 in legal costs. The case stemmed from Hughes’ public criticism of Jagdeo’s handling of the Guyana–Venezuela border issue, to which the Vice President responded with the now-infamous insult.
The Vice President, notably, did not testify during the trial, which spanned fewer than seven full days. Despite this, the court found in his favour, dismissing Hughes’ attempt to seek $50 million in damages on the basis that the insult had defamed her and caused emotional distress.
The ruling, issued just months before the September 1 national elections, has sparked a national debate over legal precedent, free speech, and the boundaries of political discourse. Legal counsel for Hughes, Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes, confirmed that the entire decision will be appealed. The matter is up for hearing June 29, 2025.
Public Outcry and Gender Concerns
The judgment has been met with strong criticism, particularly from women’s rights advocates and civil society voices.
In a widely circulated letter to the editor, citizen Audreyanna Thomas questioned whether the judiciary was now rewarding “bad behaviour.” She emphasized the public stature of both person, intimating, that with the positions both hold, a certain level of propriety and decorum is expected.
Thomas raised deep concerns about the gender implications of the ruling, stating that the court’s decision “flies in the face of women in Guyana who are every day subjected to abuse whether it be in music, or otherwise.” She warned that the hefty costs award could have a chilling effect on women and citizens generally who seek legal redress for verbal or other abuse.
“If our women will be faced with having to pay $4 million in costs for simply seeking some form of redress for abusive behaviour… then they may be hesitant to approach the courts,” Thomas wrote. “This could be an infringement on the rights of citizens to seek justice.”
Thomas further notes that the judge appears to be sending a message to the public, especially women, not to “waste the court’s time” by bringing such matters forward.
Legal and Political Implications
This latest ruling comes after acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire in October 2024 dismissed Hughes’ earlier claim under the Constitution, ruling that Jagdeo’s comments did not violate her rights to equality or protection from discrimination.
However, Thursday’s ruling in the civil libel suit goes further by establishing that such language, however harsh, may fall within the bounds of acceptable political speech. Some observers warn the judgment may embolden coarse rhetoric ahead of the upcoming elections and could erode standards of public discourse.
Dr. Henry Jeffrey, political analyst and columnist, recently warned that Guyana is “on the downward slope to dictatorship” and in dire need of political reform to restore decency, accountability, and inclusion in governance.
The case of Hughes v. Jagdeo now stands as a flashpoint in the intersection of law, politics, and gender justice in Guyana—a signal of how the courts may interpret civility and accountability in a rapidly polarizing landscape.
