The High Court on Monday, January 12, 2026, awarded $10 million in damages to Vincent Alexander after finding the Department of Public Information (DPI) and the Attorney General of Guyana jointly liable for defamation arising from statements published in August 2022.
In her ruling, Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln held that material disseminated by DPI, originating from comments made by then Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, falsely portrayed Alexander as dishonest, unethical, and as personally benefiting from public funds allocated to the International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly–Guyana (IDPADA-G). The court found that the state entities failed to establish any of the defences pleaded, including justification, fair comment, or innocent dissemination.
However, the judge dismissed the claim against Jagdeo in his personal capacity, ruling that his statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege, as they were delivered in his role as a public official addressing a matter of public interest. The court further held that Alexander failed to properly plead or prove malice.
As part of the orders, DPI has been directed to remove the interview from its website by January 16, 2026, and to pay Alexander $500,000 in costs. Alexander has also been ordered to pay $350,000 in costs to Jagdeo.
The ruling reinforces the principle that while public officials may comment on matters of public concern, state media entities remain legally accountable for defamatory publications when recognised defences are not successfully established.
The case had its origins in a Fixed Date Application (FDA) filed in November 2022 by Alexander, who was represented by Attorney-at-Law Eusi Anderson. In the proceedings, Alexander sought $100 million in damages from Jagdeo for statements made during a DPI interview that allegedly accused the founding members of IDPADA-G of exploiting the Afro-Guyanese community for personal gain.
Alexander also sought $50 million in damages from DPI for publishing an article from the interview under the headline, “IDPADA-G, Cuffy 250 Committee officials using the cause of Afro-Guyanese to enrich themselves.” He denied any misuse of public funds, described the statements as false and malicious, and contended that DPI failed to provide him with an opportunity to respond.
Alexander argued that the publication seriously damaged his reputation and subjected him to public ridicule. He sought injunctive relief, including retraction and an apology, as well as a mandatory order compelling DPI to permanently remove the interview and accompanying article from its website.
