By Timothy Hendricks-In a landmark affirmation of judicial integrity, the Full Court of Guyana has resoundingly upheld a High Court ruling holding social media provocateur Mikhail Rodrigues – infamously styling himself as the “Guyanese Critic” – liable for defamation against prominent businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed.
The decision, delivered this week, mandates Rodrigues to remit the sum of $22.5 million in compensatory damages, a figure emblematic of the profound reputational harm inflicted by his baseless calumnies. Yet, as the gavel falls in vindication of the Mohameds’ rights, a darker shadow looms: Rodrigues’ brazen defiance of prior judicial edicts, shielded not by legal merit but by the insidious aegis of political affiliation with the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) apparatus. This is no isolated contretemps; it is a symptom of systemic erosion, where partisan favouritism eclipses the sacrosanct principle of equal justice under law.
To contextualise this travesty, one must rewind to the febrile atmosphere of early 2024, when Guyana’s nascent oil wealth amplified the stakes of public discourse. Rodrigues, a self-anointed digital demagogue operating under the banner of “They Break News Inc.,” weaponised his Facebook platform, “Morning Live with the Critic,” to disseminate a torrent of vituperative falsehoods. On February 17, 2024, and in subsequent broadcasts through March, he accused the Mohameds – veteran entrepreneurs whose enterprises span construction, transportation, and civic philanthropy – of heinous crimes, including murder and illicit smuggling.
These were not mere rhetorical flourishes but deliberate fabrications, devoid of evidentiary tether, designed to assassinate character and incite public opprobrium. The Mohameds, whose contributions to Guyana’s infrastructure include vital roadworks and flood mitigation projects, found their legacies besmirched, their familial bonds traduced, and their commercial viability imperiled.
The judicial response was swift and unequivocal. On July 14, 2024, Justice Nigel Niles, presiding in the High Court, entered a default judgment in favour of the plaintiffs after Rodrigues and his entity failed to appear or mount a defense – a dereliction the court later deemed “woefully inadequate” in justification. The orders were crystalline: Rodrigues and They Break News Inc. were jointly and severally liable for $52 million in total damages, comprising $22.5 million in general damages for reputational injury, plus $3.5 million each in aggravated and exemplary damages to deter such malfeasance.
More critically, the court issued a perpetual injunction, expressly prohibiting Rodrigues “from further publishing, broadcasting, or disseminating any defamatory statements concerning the plaintiffs, Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed, whether orally, in writing, or through any medium including social media.” This restraint was no advisory homily; it was a binding decree, enforceable under Sections 228 and 229 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, with contempt sanctions up to two years’ imprisonment.
Yet, Rodrigues has flouted these mandates with impunity, continuing his vitriolic broadsides on platforms that amplify his reach to tens of thousands. Post-judgment, he has reiterated smears, framing the Mohameds as emblematic of “corrupt elites” in defiance of the gag order – a pattern corroborated by contemporaneous affidavits and digital archives submitted to the Full Court.
His appeal against the July 2024 ruling, dismissed on March 31, 2025, by Justice Niles, who reaffirmed the injunction in toto, elicited no contrition; instead, Rodrigues escalated with veiled threats of extralegal reprisal, declaring on air, “If I can’t live in peace, I will die trying. Nothing ain’t deh off the table for me.” Such rhetoric not only contravenes the court’s explicit prohibitions but evinces a contemptuous disregard for the judicial process, as if the rule of law were a mere suggestion for the unconnected.
This recalcitrance cannot be divorced from Rodrigues’ entwinement with the PPP/C ecosystem. Whispers in Georgetown’s corridors – and louder echoes in opposition circles – point to his role as a de facto surrogate, his content often aligning with government narratives while savaging perceived adversaries.
Critics, including the Alliance for Change (AFC), have documented instances of Rodrigues receiving preferential treatment: expedited bail in unrelated matters, unhindered access to state events, and a conspicuous absence of enforcement actions despite multiple contempt filings by the Mohameds’ counsel, Eusi Anderson.
The ramifications of this judicial sabotage transcend the courtroom, corroding the edifice of Guyanese society at its foundations. Article 144 of the Constitution enshrines the supremacy of the law, mandating that “all persons… are equally entitled to the equal protection of the law.” When a commentator, emboldened by political patronage, thumbs his nose at injunctions and judgments, it vitiates this covenant, engendering a chilling cynicism among citizens.
Victims of defamation -be they business magnates or ordinary laborers – will hesitate to seek redress, fearing protracted battles against the state-backed untouchables. The judiciary, Guyana’s bulwark against executive caprice, is demeaned as a paper tiger, its decrees enforceable only against the politically expendable. This fosters a Hobbesian public square, where discourse devolves into ad hominem savagery, unmoored from truth or accountability.
Worse, it entrenches inequality in a nation teetering on the precipice of petro-state pathologies. As oil revenues swell PPP/C coffers, the temptation to co-opt media mouthpieces grows, stifling dissent and perpetuating a veneer of democratic normalcy. Rodrigues’ defiance is not heroic whistleblowing; it is the canary’s death rattle in a coalmine of authoritarian drift. The Mohameds’ victory, while righteous, rings hollow absent enforcement – a $22.5 million phantom, unenforced against a debtor who mocks the bailiff from the safety of partisan embrace.
Guyanese, regardless of political persuasion, must, calls upon Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, to enforce the Full Court’s writ with the vigour reserved for less-favoured litigants. Let Rodrigues remit the damages, honour the injunction, or face contempt proceedings that affirm the judiciary’s sinews. Guyana’s democracy demands no less; its people deserve a forum where words wound but justice heals. Only then can we reclaim the promise of a republic where law binds the mighty as inexorably as the meek.
