GUYANA | Alexander files Multi-million dollar lawsuit against Jagdeo, DPI and Attorney General

GEORGETOWN, November 16, 2022 - Chairman of  the International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly- Guyana (IPADA-G) Vincent Alexander, has filed a claim in the Guyana Supreme Court, suing Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, the Department of Public Information(DPI) and the Attorney General of Guyana in relation to an article published on the 19th and 20th of August 2022 on the website of the DPI, which he claims defamed him and brought his otherwise good name into disrepute.

In a statement of claim filed on November 15, in the Supreme Court, Alexander is claiming GYD$50-million in damages  from Vice President Jagdeo for “defamation published in the news interview published by the DPI on 19th August, 2022 in Georgetown Guyana and published on the 20th August, 2022 on the electronic/online version of the DPI and continuing thereon on the internet/world wide web on the website IDPADA-G Cuffy 250 Committee officials using the cause of Afro-Guyanese to enrich themselves - Department of Public Information, Guyana (dpi.gov.gy)”.

Alexander is also claiming GYD$50-million in damages from the DPI for continuing to publish the defamatory statement and offending matter on its website on the 19th and 20th of August 2022.

He is asking the court to make an order mandating an apology from Mr. Jagdeo And the Department of Public Information for “a retraction and apology for the false, malicious and defamatory statements impugning the character and reputation of the Claimant in the publication, contained in the interview with Bharrat Jagdeo, dated 19th August, 2022 on its website.”

The lawsuit wants “A Mandatory Injunction compelling the DPI, whether by themselves, their servants and or agents to forthwith permanently remove the offending  interview with Jagdeo  from its website and available on the world wide web at the website IDPADA-G, Cuffy 250 Committee officials using the cause of Afro-Guyanese to enrich themselves - Department of Public Information, Guyana (dpi.gov.gy);

According to the suit filed with the Supreme Court, reference was “made exclusively to VINCENT ALEXANDER as Director of the impugned company,  who acted to his self-interest. The Defendants published the official designation of the Claimant a one who has acted illegally, corruptly and perversely in a manner a fiduciary ought not to.”

The  claim pointed out that “the willful malice of this allegation is to be found in the failure of the Defendants to contact the Claimant prior to publication to give him an opportunity to exonerate himself. Specifically, the Second Named Defendant never put the allegations to the Claimant or invited him to counter the utterances of the First NamedDefendant before publication as is common and mandatory for ethical journalism.”

“The gravity of the allegations made against the Claimant by the Defendants and subsequently published by them mandated that, a mind not intent on malice, afford him some manner of due process to hear and confront the allegations against him and be invited to comment or advance his truth.”

“The Defendants falsely and maliciously published the aforesaid slander/defamation. The words contained in the impugned interview expressly referred and were understood to refer to the Claimant.

“The words published of the Claimant were untrue, malicious and penned in undiluted falsehood. The Claimant denies subverting public funds or using a race of people for self advancement a parasite does to its host organism. 

“The allegations levelled against the Claimant by the Defendants have substantially hurt and diminished his image in the eyes and minds of the Guyanese public and the international community.

The claim noted that in Mr. Jagdeo’s interview published on the 19th August, 2022 in DP’s webpage page in electronic format the allegations meant and published and in their natural and ordinary meaning,  words to the reasonable reader were understood to mean either expressly or by innuendo that:
a.    The Claimant was dishonest;
b.    The Claimant is perverse, of questionable character, devoid of integrity and unfit for the Director's office he holds;
c.    The Claimant abuses and misuses the powers of his office in an arbitrary, capricious and unlawful manner engineered only for his self-interest and personal advancement,
d.    The Claimant was unscrupulous;
e.    The Claimant engages in unethical, immoral and illegal behavior;
f.    The Claimant is prone to displaying tendencies of a parasite in the discharge of his fiduciary duties as a Company Director;
g.    The Claimant is not a professional or a Law-abiding citizen;
h.    The Claimant discharges or is inclined to discharge or has discharged his statutory and  fiduciary director duties in a perverse and or unlawful manner.
i. Imputed improper motives to the Claimant in the discharge of the functions of his office.

The lawsuit is asking the court to award Exemplary Damages; Aggravated Damages as well as  Costs.