Jagdeo appeals $15M libel judgment in Charles Ceres state land case

Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo has filed an appeal challenging the decision of High Court Judge Fidela Corbin, who awarded judgment in favour of businessman Charles Ceres in the sum of $15 million, together with costs of $2.15 million, in a libel matter arising from statements made by Jagdeo in 2019 while he was Leader of the Opposition.

According to the Notice of Appeal, filed through Attorney-at-Law Pratesh Satram, Jagdeo is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside Justice Corbin’s ruling. The appeal outlines 31 grounds, including arguments that the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence the appeal characterises as undisputed relating to the receipt or benefit of multiple parcels of State land.

The appeal contends that the trial judge did not give sufficient weight to the wider public context in which the statements were made. It argues that the statements were not isolated personal attacks, but comments on a matter the appeal describes as one of national importance concerning the distribution of public property in circumstances the appeal alleges to have been irregular and non-transparent.

The appeal further argues that the statements gave rise to what it characterises as a legitimate public concern regarding the appearance of favouritism in the allocation of State assets. The appeal also points to evidence that, under cross-examination in the proceedings, Ceres admitted transferring a portion of certain lands, which the appeal argues supported the substance of the original statements.

The Notice of Appeal also challenges the trial judge’s treatment of lands allocated to individuals as distinct from lands allocated to companies in which an interest was held. The appeal argues that such a distinction was artificial and did not address the substance of the concern being raised.

The appeal additionally disputes a finding concerning the timing of certain land allocations relative to the 2018 No-Confidence Motion, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly consider documentary evidence on the issue.
In seeking to overturn the judgment, the appeal relies on several legal defences, including truth or justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege. It argues that the statements were substantially true in their material respects, and that Jagdeo, as then Leader of the Opposition, was entitled to speak publicly on the allocation of public lands.

The appeal also states that the effect of the ruling, if allowed to stand, would be to restrict the ability of elected officials to comment on the allocation of public property, and would undermine public accountability regarding State assets.

Jagdeo is asking the Court of Appeal to reverse or set aside Justice Corbin’s decision.