No Result
View All Result
By Mark DaCosta- In a significant ruling dated 7 November 2025, the Supreme Court of Judicature upheld the decision against media figure Mikhail Rodrigues and his company, ‘They Break News Inc.’, dismissing their appeal and ordering them to compensate the respondent, Azruddin Mohamed. This judgment is a vital reminder of the accountability media entities must maintain in their reporting, particularly in an environment where misinformation can easily take root.
The court’s unanimous decision not only underlines the importance of ethical journalism but also serves as a warning to others in the industry about the potential consequences of irresponsible reporting. Azruddin Mohamed initially stepped forward with legal action in response to accusations made by the appellants that tarnished his reputation. The case, referenced as Action No. 2024-HC-DEM-CIV-SOC-121, examined the balance between freedom of expression and the responsibilities of media makers to avoid defamation.
Following the court’s ruling, the appellants, including Guyanese Critic, were ordered to remit costs amounting to G$350,000 to Mr. Mohamed by 21 November 2025. This ruling upheld Justice Nigel Niles July 2024 ruling of G$22.5 million defamation along with punitive damages of G$3.5 million. This outcome has sparked discussions among legal experts and citizens alike about the broader implications for journalistic practices in our country. “The appeal is dismissed,” stated the court, clearly indicating its stance on the matter. Justice Nicola Pierre noted the essential need for media to adhere to factual reporting, emphasising that “in a democracy, the press has a crucial role, yet so does its responsibility to truthfulness.”
In the wake of this judgment, observers have raised questions about the role of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government in addressing media freedom and accountability. Critics argue that under the current administration, there has been a troubling trend of fostering an environment where sensationalism and false narratives often overshadow genuine journalism. The case against Rodrigues and They Break News serves as a critical intersection between the media’s influence and the importance of maintaining integrity in news reporting.
Mikhail Rodrigues and ‘They Break News Inc.‘ appealed the decision handed down in the High Court, aiming to rectify what they claimed was an infringement on their right to free speech. However, their defence ultimately faltered in the face of overwhelming evidence provided during the hearings. Legal representatives for the appellants faced scrutiny over their arguments, with many believing that the case should set a precedent for others in the media landscape who might think twice before making unfounded allegations.
According to one analyst, the ruling reflects a broader societal sentiment regarding the importance of holding media figures accountable. The Supreme Court’s decision stands as an affirmation of the public’s right to protection against potential defamation and the necessity for media organisations to act in good faith. Observers have emphasised the risks associated with unchecked media power, often exacerbated by political affiliations that may influence reporting practices. As supporters of a free press advocate for rigorous standards, this case illustrates the repercussions of failing to uphold the principles of responsible journalism.
The situation harkens back to the ongoing concerns regarding the PPP government’s approach to media relations in our nation. Detractors allege that the administration has consistently leveraged media narratives to promote its own agenda, at times contributing to misinformation rather than clarifying facts. As this legal battle reached a conclusion, many are left pondering the implications for the future of media integrity in our country.
The recent ruling against Mikhail Rodrigues and They Break News Inc. signifies a critical victory for individuals facing baseless allegations.
No Result
View All Result
