The High Court has ordered Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo to pay prominent geotechnical engineer and groundwater hydrologist Charles Ceres G$15 million in damages after finding that statements he made at a 2019 press conference were defamatory, marking another successful legal challenge by a citizen against one of Guyana’s most powerful political figures.
The ruling, handed down on Friday by Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln, adds to a growing body of court decisions that have found Jagdeo liable for statements made in the course of his public commentary and political engagements.
At the centre of the case were remarks made by Jagdeo on June 27, 2019, while serving as Leader of the Opposition and General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), concerning the acquisition of land by Ceres and his now former wife.
In her judgment, Justice Corbin-Lincoln found that Ceres had successfully established that Jagdeo made or caused the publication of the defamatory statements.
“The claimant gave evidence of the publications which was unchallenged and has established that the 1st defendant (Mr Jagdeo) published or caused to be published the alleged defamatory statement,” the judge ruled.
The court awarded Ceres G$15 million in damages and G$2.15 million in costs.
Significantly, Justice Corbin-Lincoln rejected Jagdeo’s principal defences of justification and fair comment, finding that he failed to present evidence to support them.
The ruling noted that Jagdeo “led no evidence” in support of his defences of justification, fair comment or qualified privilege.
The judgment is likely to reignite scrutiny of a political style that has long drawn criticism for its aggressive rhetoric and frequent public attacks on opponents, critics and private citizens.
Over the years, Jagdeo’s press conferences have become one of the most influential platforms in Guyanese politics. His remarks often dominate headlines and shape public debate. However, they have also generated a series of legal disputes, with individuals contending that allegations made against them were false and damaging to their reputations.
One of the most notable cases involved former Minister Annette Ferguson.
In 2021, Justice Judge Sandra Kurtzious, awarded Ferguson G$20 million in damages after finding that Jagdeo had defamed her during a press conference. The court rejected his defence of fair comment and concluded that the statements had injured Ferguson’s reputation. The matter is now at the Court of Appeal.
In that ruling, Justice Persaud found that the comments exceeded the limits of acceptable political criticism and were defamatory in nature. The case was widely viewed as a significant reminder that political speech, particularly when made by influential public officials, remains subject to the law of defamation.
The Ceres decision now adds another name to the list of citizens who have successfully challenged Jagdeo in court.
Ceres is not a public official or political figure. He is a veteran engineer and groundwater specialist with more than four decades of professional experience in Guyana and internationally. The judgment therefore underscores that private citizens can seek legal protection when courts determine that their reputations have been unjustifiably harmed.
The lawsuit also named Guyana Times and its Editor-in-Chief, Tusika Martin, as defendants.
However, after reviewing recordings of the press conference, Justice Corbin-Lincoln concluded that the newspaper’s report constituted a fair and accurate summary of what was said by Jagdeo. The claim against the newspaper was dismissed, and the court awarded discretionary costs of G$1 million in favour of Guyana Times and Martin.
Ceres was represented by Attorney-at-Law Darren Wade, while Jagdeo was represented by attorneys C.V. Satram and Ron Motilall.
Following the ruling, Wade indicated that Ceres intends to appeal aspects of the decision relating to Guyana Times and will also seek a higher award of damages against Jagdeo.
He urged the Vice President to satisfy the judgment rather than pursue an appeal.
“Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, please pay up as soon as possible. Do not let anyone convince you that there is any real prospect of success on appeal,” Wade said.
The latest judgment arrives amid continuing debate over standards of political discourse in Guyana and the responsibility of public officials to ensure that allegations made in public forums are supported by evidence.
For many observers, the significance of the ruling extends beyond the financial award. It represents another instance in which the courts have drawn a line between robust political criticism and statements that unlawfully damage an individual’s reputation.
Coming after the former Ferguson’s ruling, the decision is likely to fuel further discussion about the tone of public debate and the legal consequences that can arise when political rhetoric crosses into defamation.
For Ceres, the judgment brings legal vindication after a dispute that began six years ago. For Jagdeo, it serves as another costly reminder that the protections afforded to reputation apply regardless of the political stature of the person making the allegation.
