The High Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran against Vice-President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo after finding that the substance of Jagdeo’s statements, including his assertion that Goolsarran lacked integrity, was substantially true.
Justice Peter Hugh also ordered Goolsarran to pay Jagdeo $250,000 in costs.
The lawsuit stemmed from statements Jagdeo made at a press conference on March 23, 2023, and a public meeting three days later. He criticised Goolsarran for remaining in senior positions at the Audit Office and collecting a salary during the former PNC administration, when the country’s public accounts went unaudited for several years.
Jagdeo had declared that Goolsarran “could have resigned if he had integrity.” He also accused the former Auditor General of remaining silent about alleged abuses under the APNU+AFC government while being politically selective in his public commentary.
Justice Hugh found that the remarks were defamatory because an ordinary, reasonable Guyanese would understand them to mean that Goolsarran lacked integrity in performing his duties. The judge determined, however, that the essential facts supporting Jagdeo’s statements were substantially true.
Under cross-examination, Goolsarran admitted that no audited accounts were produced during the relevant period, that he did not resign and that he continued receiving his full salary.
Although Goolsarran argued that he was not Auditor General for most of the period cited by Jagdeo, the judge described that discrepancy as an “inaccuracy around the edge” which did not alter the central truth of the statement.
The court also examined Goolsarran’s receipt of audit contracts from the APNU+AFC coalition government. He acknowledged being retained to conduct audits of NICIL, the Marriott Hotel, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Guyana Forestry Commission.
Goolsarran further admitted that the contracts were not awarded through public open tendering and that he was not the only provider capable of performing the services.
Justice Hugh found that Goolsarran’s receipt of government audit contracts not awarded through open tender contributed to the factual basis for Jagdeo’s criticism of his political associations and selective commentary.
While Goolsarran denied being a formal AFC member, the court ruled that proof of card-holding membership was unnecessary. It found sufficient grounds for Jagdeo’s suggestion that he was associated with the coalition and selective in his public criticisms.
The judge ultimately concluded that Jagdeo had established the underlying facts supporting both statements and had sufficiently justified the “sting” of the allegations. Since truth constitutes a complete defence to defamation, Goolsarran’s claim was dismissed.