Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case...Hughes to apply for amendments to defence case

Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case…Hughes to apply for amendments to defence case

Feb 20, 2014 News

Oral submissions could not have been made to support the defence intent to amend their case in the Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case. As a result, Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes who is representing Kissoon in the matter is scheduled to apply by summons; with an affidavit to include the amendments that the he is seeking to make.

Kaieteur News columnist Fredrick Kissoon

Yesterday’s hearing at the High Court was scheduled for the plaintiff’s side and the defence to argue whether they (defense) should be allowed to amend their case given the stage of the matter which has been ongoing for little over three years.
The plaintiff legal team is headed by Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos and includes, Sase Gunraj. When the matter convened, it was notified that the procedure towards applying for the amendments would have to see Hughes making his application.
Hughes will therefore make that application within seven days and the plaintiff side will submit an affidavit in answer within another seven days and return to court in March 6 for the commencement of arguments.
Former President Baharrat Jagdeo is suing Kaieteur News columnist Fredrick Kissoon, Kaieteur News Editor-in-chief Adam Harris and Publisher Glenn Lall for over $10M after claiming libel in one of Kissoon’s articles which described the former head of state of practising “ideological racism.”
Based on the evidence that the latest witness for the defence was giving, the issue of justification was raised. Senior Counsel De Santos felt that the defence was making statements that they were unable to back up. He said that there are no particulars of general assertions which provided the defence with the right to lead certain evidence in the matter. He said that the defence is not only tasked with proving the allegations made against Jagdeo, but they must also justify it.
Hughes said to the court that the defence was tasked with proving the statements being made against the former president, and that was being done based on the research which was conducted by the defendant and the evidence given by the witnesses. He stated also that the defense’s case is a plea of justification, and in doing so, witnesses are being called to speak on the areas of public/social services where “ideological racism” was practiced.

Former president Bharrat Jagdeo

He in turn is seeking to amend his case to specifically deal with the issue of justification which is being peddled by the plaintiff side. De Santos has however acknowledged that although the law allows that amendments could be made at any stage of a case, he believes that the court should use its discretion in allowing that to happen since he (De Santos) feels that it will be prejudicial to the plaintiff since they have already closed their case.
De Santos is adamant that Hughes should have known to show justification and should have made that application some three years ago when the matter was in its earlier stage.
Hughes continues to insist that his amendments will be introducing nothing new, but will only seek to fortify the defense’s case since the matter that is in the fore was already asked of by the plaintiff’s principle witness Dr. Roger Luncheon, who was at the time answering questions pertaining to the different areas where Kissoon alleged that the former president practiced “ideological racism.”
Kissoon claims that he made those statements against Jagdeo following research findings which were placed in a report. Kissoon is alleging that the former president practiced “ideological racism” by suppressing institutions, activities, and the professional mobility of Afro-Guyanese among other areas.