The Supreme Court of Judicature’s 7 November 2025 ruling that ‘The appeal is dismissed’ should echo across the nation. By upholding the High Court’s award of G$22.5 million in defamation and G$3.5 million in punitive damages against media figure Mikhail Rodrigues and They Break News Inc., along with costs of G$350,000 payable to Azruddin Mohamed, the court reaffirmed a principle too often ignored in our public life. Freedom of expression is not freedom from responsibility.
Justice Nicola Pierre captured this truth with clarity when she stated that “in a democracy, the press has a crucial role, yet so does its responsibility to truthfulness.” That reminder is not a mere judicial formality. It is a direct challenge to what we have allowed to become the norm.
For years, the society has been forced to contend with Rodrigues’s public behaviour, marked by crudity, insulting outbursts, cursing, and the demeaning of persons he disagrees with or considers political rivals. This conduct has been passed off as journalism even while it drags down the standards of civic discourse and corrodes the country’s moral baseline.
All of this has been made worse by the willingness of senior public officials to appear on his show, including Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo. Such appearances lend credibility to behaviour that has debased society and cannot be seen as representative of either a free press or true freedom of speech. Both principles carry responsibilities and both bear consequences when abused. This ruling reinforces that reality in decisive terms.
The case, Action No. 2024-HC-DEM-CIV-SOC-121, was not only about protecting one man’s reputation, though Mohamed’s vindication matters. It examined whether media figures may operate without guardrails while claiming immunity under the banner of free speech. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision makes the answer unmistakable. Recklessness cannot hide behind constitutional rights.
Concerns have been mounting for years about an environment where sensationalism overshadows substance and where, as critics argue, political affiliations can influence reporting rather than illuminate truth. This ruling forces the country to confront the consequences of this trend. It affirms the public’s right to protection from defamation and reinforces the obligation of media houses to act in good faith.
Accountability must return to the heart of journalism. Those who command large platforms must uphold basic ethical standards rather than use their reach to smear, distort or degrade. The consequences imposed by the court demonstrate what happens when these obligations are ignored.
This judgment is more than a setback for Rodrigues and They Break News Inc. It is a reaffirmation of national standards and a recognition that journalism is meant to inform, not inflame. It is a responsibility, not a stage for abuse.
If this ruling is to have lasting meaning, society must decide to uphold these principles beyond the courtroom. The country can no longer treat crude public abuse as entertainment or allow it to masquerade as free speech. The Supreme Court has shown the way. It is now for the people and their leaders to follow with equal resolve.
