Lawyer: Politicians slander and escape unscathed

ANY POLITICIAN, including a Prime Minister, can defame an individual’s reputation and escape unscathed once his statement is determined to be political in nature. This was the argument advanced by former PM Basdeo Panday’s attorney, Fenton Ramsahoye SC, as an appeal filed by Panday against the $600,000 libel lawsuit judgment CCN chairman Ken Gordon won against him was heard in the Appeal Court yesterday. On October 11, 2000, Justice Peter Jamadar ordered then PM Panday to pay Gordon $600,000 plus interest and legal costs for libel arising out of a statement which Panday made on May 30, 1997 in which he (Panday) called Gordon a “pseudo-racist”.

Appearing before Chief Justice Sat Sharma and Justices Roger Hamel-Smith and Margot Warner, Ramsahoye said there was nothing defamatory against Gordon in Panday’s speech and even if there was, Gordon’s hands were tied because Panday was protected by Section 4(e) of the Constitution which grants individuals the right to “join political parties and to express political views”. According to Ramsahoye, Section 4(e) “affects the law of defamation itself”. Asked by Sharma if he was implying that libel and slander were wiped out as far as the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech was concerned, Ramsahoye said they were not. The attorney declared this case “has been tried on a misunderstanding of the law of defamation” and even if Panday libelled Gordon, the former PM was protected under the law once his statement was political. He said while there will be sacrifices to individual reputations every time a politician speaks, it was impossible to dissect every political speech to determine whether it contained any defamatory element.

Ramsahoye said Panday’s speech was a call for national unity and a response to Gordon’s “scathing attack” against the then UNC government’s Green Paper on media reform. He claimed the former CCN chairman was “exerting his influence” and had political motives in seeking to allegedly monopolise the media. The attorney said the population views political corruption as “a bad thing but not this racism talk” because of its commonality. While referring to previous defamation judgments by the Privy Council, Ramsahoye was reminded by Sharma that the Appeal Court “was in the best position” to adjudicate on this matter. Ramsahoye said Panday was not promoting racism in his speech and the racial divisions he alluded to were already well-entrenched in the society. The attorney added that Justice Jamadar “did not once address” people’s interpretation of the psuedo-racist remark before making his ruling.

Gordon’s attorney Douglas Mendes replied that it was unacceptable for a Prime Minister to promote national unity and in the same breath, “single out a person who is an obstacle to that”. “In no country, a charge of racism has less sting,” he declared. Mendes said while Panday had the defence of qualified privilege available to him in 2000, “that defence cannot be pursued” now because it was never pleaded then. The attorney said the evidence showed Panday never proved Gordon was a pseudo-racist or that Gordon was a “supporter of any party or critic of any government”. He declared Panday was being contradictory, having held Gordon “in high regard” during the UNC’s time in office and even appointing him chairman of BWIA.  He added that in Panday’s speech, the UNC leader directly tarnished Gordon’s reputation as CCN chairman. The attorney said there must be limitations to things politicians say about private citizens and the court must “devise rules to deal with those competing interests”.