Former Executive Director of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited, (NICIL), Winston Brassington has won a lawsuit against the Kaieteur News newspaper for defamatory statements it had published about him back in 2014 and he has been awarded $10 million in damages.
The award was made by High Court Judge Navindra Singh, who in a ruling yesterday said he found the offending statements to have been “clearly defamatory.”
Brassington is now head of the government’s gas-to-shore task force.
Justice Singh pointed out in his written ruling that though the defendants, Kaieteur News and its former editor Adam Harris, denied that the publication concerned Brassington, they still pleaded the defence of justification.
Among the issues that were determined by the judge were whether the words were defamatory and, if so, whether the defences of justification and/ or fair comment could prevail.
The judge said it had to be ascertained as a question of fact, the single meaning of the various words used; whether reading the words in their natural and ordinary meaning would convey to a reasonable reader who is not naïve but not unduly suspicious and not avid for scandal, a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff; and whether the words used would convey to a reasonable reader an implied meaning or an inferred or indirect meaning that is defamatory of the plaintiff.
The judge noted that having examined a number of case law authorities and applying the principles laid out therein, he found that the words complained of by Brassington (the plaintiff) in the publication of July 30th, 2014, would convey to a reasonable reader that he (Brassington) “is dishonest and engages in fraudulent or criminal practices.”
Consequently, the judge found the words in contention to be defamatory.
He then went on to note that he had found that “the publication clearly attacked the Plaintiff’s character, labelling him as a dishonest person that engages in fraudulent or criminal practices.”
This, the judge said, was done without setting out, factually, any conduct of the plaintiff that justified such a comment.
On this point, he noted that the defence of fair comment could not stand.
Justice Singh then turned his attention to examining the defence of justification—the basis of which he said, in accordance with case law, is a claim that the statement complained of is one of truth.
The judge said it was not at all necessary to embark upon an analysis of the evidence to determine if this defence was established, while noting that the defendants failed to produce one iota of evidence to support the defence pleaded.
Having regard to these findings, Justice Singh said that the defendants could not avail themselves of the defences of fair comment and justification even as he observed that despite veiled attempts to establish vague malfeasance through what he called “unsavory” cross examination of the plaintiff, no material evidence was garnished to support a plea of justification.
The judge said that on the evidence, the word/s used to describe the Plaintiff “could not possibly be considered to be justified” while adding that “the words are therefore defamatory of the Plaintiff and would tend to lower his standing” in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
“The words published and complained of by the Plaintiff are clearly defamatory to the Plaintiff,” Justice Singh concluded.
The judge then awarded Brassington damages against the defendants jointly and severally to the tune of $10,000,000, which he says includes an assessment of aggravated damages.
In addition, interest was awarded at a rate of 6% per annum from the date the libel was published to yesterday’s date when the judgment was delivered and thereafter at a rate of 4% per annum until fully paid.
Brassington was additionally awarded $1,000,000 in court costs which also has to be borne jointly and severally by the Kaieteur News and Harris.
