Edghill files $25M libel suit against Sharma, Vieira

Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) Bishop Juan Edghill has filed a $25M lawsuit against TV station owner CN Sharma and Anthony Vieira over a commentary aired on CNS Channel Six, which he says has seriously damaged his reputation and has caused him distress, embarrassment, public humiliation and ridicule.

Edghill had earlier complained to the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) over the television commentary, which aired on May 4, 2011, but he moved to the High Court yesterday. Channel Six Programme Manager, Savitri Sharma, had issued an unequivocal apology to Edghill last week, saying a technician at the station erred in broadcasting the commentary.

Edghill is seeking an injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants and/or agents from repeating or republishing the said or similar libel.

Juan Edghill

In the lawsuit filed by Edghill’s attorney, Anil Nandlall, the ERC Chairman said Vieira’s statements can be interpreted to mean that he is unfit to hold any public office; that he is a criminal and has a criminal history and reputation; he is a religious farce; is corrupt and is a political stooge, among other things.

Edghill said Vieira’s commentary implied that he is intentionally marginalising and discriminating against persons on the basis of their religion, ethnicity and race and that he accepts bribes from the President.

In his letter to ACB Chairman Evan Persaud, Edghill said that “misleading and inflammatory statements and unsubstantiated allegations” were made by Vieira on the programme ‘Commentary,’ broadcast on CNS Channel 6 on May 4 at 12:30 hrs.

Edghill asserted that according to the Guyana Post and Telegraph Act, Chapter 47:01, Regulation 23A, his considered view is “that the licensee acted in contravention of the said Act. . . when it allowed the said programme to be aired on its station.”

Anthony Vieira

Edghill said too that the statements “are inaccurate, untrue and were designed to damage my reputation.” He cited statements such as ‘Edghill is financed by Jagdeo,’ ‘Edghill is a henchman for Jagdeo,’ ‘Edghill has been incarcerated for murder and has changed his birth name’ and ‘Edghill has accepted as a bribe – the Inter Religious Channel.’ Edghill also wrote that the content can create confusion among various religious groups and denominations.