Dear Editor,
In the January 29, 2020, issue of the ‘Kaieteur News’, there is a report of the Court proceedings in the libel case of Donald Ramotar vs. the National Media and Publishing Company Limited, National Media and Broadcasting Com-pany Limited, Glenn Lall and Adam Harris, the trial of which is ongoing in the High Court.
This article is one of the worst examples of yellow journalism. The headline itself aggravates the alleged libel. It screams: `Lawsuit over oil blocks give away …’ One of the core issues before the Court in the self-same proceedings is whether there was an `oil blocks giveaway!’ In fact, so far, there has not been a scintilla of evidence adduced capable of supporting the contention that there was an “oil blocks giveaway”.
The report of the proceedings was, unfortunately, most skewed and jaundiced. Statements made were taken out of context, the entirety of answers given to questions asked were not provided to readers and, worse yet, only answers beneficial to the newspaper were contained in the article and, even then, twisted to suit its interest.
For instance, in answer to the question whether the companies had a track-record in drilling, the witness said that all due diligence were done by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission and the technical staff at the Ministry of Natural Resources. Further, the witness said that the companies were comprised of persons that had years of experience in the oil industry. He mentioned one such name and stated that he met the companies and the technical people but could not recall the names of all those persons and proceeded to say that the information can be made available.
The witness also pointed out that he was aware that these companies were connected to and had joint ventures with large companies in North America that were experienced in oil exploration and drilling and that were sound financially. He gave JHI of Toronto, Canada, as an example.
Both in his evidence-in-chief and under ‘cross-examination, the witness explained that for several years, Offshore Guyana was considered a high risk destination, in respect of oil, and there was a marked unwillingness and lack of interest by companies to invest in the expensive exercise of oil exploration in Guyana’s waters. The oil giant, Shell, gave up fifty percent of its share in the Stabroek Block for one dollar ($1), clearly demonstrating how unattractive Guyana was as an oil exploratory destination before 2015. Those companies referred to in the article had their applications pending since 2012 and 2013, but the application process was held up because of the seizure of the ‘Teknik Perdana’ by the Venezuelan military during their geotechnical survey, under contract with Anadarko Petroleum.
Mr. Ramotar further explained both in his evidence-in-chief and in cross-examination that all of this took place at a time when there was no finding of oil in commercial quantities and the processes that these companies went through were identical to the processes that ExxonMobil and other companies had gone through, previously.
It is quite unfortunate that the KN report of the witness’s testimony was so lopsided.
While I recognise every news agency’s right to carry in their media stories of ongoing litigation, the law casts upon them a duty to be fair, objective and balanced in their coverage. This principle applies a fortiori, when the Press outfit itself is a party to the proceedings. The duty of care in such a case is, appreciably, greater. To do what it has done, is in my considered view, not only highly unethical and unprofessional, but can constitute an attempt to pervert the administration of justice.
Needless to say, I intend to draw this matter to the attention of the Learned Trial Judge.
Yours faithfully,
Anil Nandlall
