Latest update April 6th, 2025 12:03 AM
Latest News
- Exxon admits to operating above production rates in EIAs
- Oil sinks to pandemic lows; metals, soybeans slump as China retaliates against U.S. Tariffs
- Israel has turned two-thirds of Gaza into no-go zones, UN says
- ‘If the President’s award means anything, he would terminate Ramson’- Protestors
- Power China, Kalpataru sign US$422M contracts for extension of transmission lines for GPL
Court rules Jagdeo did not discriminate in calling Cathy Hughes a “low-life”
Kaieteur News – Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire SC, on Monday dismissed the legal proceedings brought by Opposition Member of Parliament, Catherine Hughes, against the State over the establishment and failure to operationalise the Human Rights Commission, which she said was a breach of her constitutional right.
Vice President (VP) Bharrat Jagdeo
The respondents listed in the case were the Attorney General (AG) and the Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Norton. Hughes approached the court seeking a number of declarations which stemmed from comments made by the Vice President (VP) Bharrat Jagdeo referring to her as a “low-life.” The Opposition MP was represented by attorneys: Nigel Hughes and Kiswana Jefford. The lawyers argued that the VP’s comments were in breach of Mrs. Hughes entitlement to equality before the law (Article 149D) and 149F of the Constitution (equality for women).
According to a statement from the AG Chambers, in her submissions Mrs. Hughes argued that the statements made by the Vice President at one of his press conferences amounted to discrimination against her as a female African member of the National Assembly. She further contended that the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission violated her constitutional rights under Article 154A of the Constitution and breached her legitimate expectation that the Commission would be established.
Opposition Member of Parliament, Catherine Hughes
In dismissing the case, the CJ ruled that Mrs. Hughes had not sufficiently established a case of discrimination under the provisions of the Constitution, or at all, and that her claim of discrimination on the basis of sex and race, in this context, cannot succeed.
The court ruled that the utterance made by the Vice President referring to the MP as a “low-life” could neither amount to a breach of any of Mrs. Hughes’ fundamental rights, nor could the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission, by that fact itself, amount to a breach of the Constitution.
It should be noted, that the CJ also ruled that Mrs. Hughes presented no evidence to prove that Jagdeo’s comment was an official statement of the Government. The court also questioned that no evidence to show why Mrs. Hughes did not approach the Women and Gender Equality Commission, which is an operational constitutional body whose functions, include, initiating investigations into alleged violations of women’s rights and monitoring compliance with international instruments.
The Chief Justice ruled that Mrs. Hughes’ claim was wholly misconceived and without merit. She said too that it is “more than passing strange” that Mrs. Hughes sued her Parliamentary opposition colleague, Norton.
Moreover, in his arguments, the AG contended that Mrs. Hughes failed to make out a case for discrimination under Articles 149, 149D and 149F of the Constitution, and that in any event, Article 154A of the Constitution which provides access to certain international treaties enshrined in the Constitution, could not be invoked.
In support of this submission, the Attorney General relied on Article 154A (2) of the Constitution which states, “154A (2). The rights referred to in paragraph (1) do not include any fundamental right under the Constitution.”
Nandlall argued that once a right is protected under the fundamental rights regime, such as the rights Mrs. Hughes claims in discrimination under Articles 149, 149D and 149F – she is not entitled to seek additional refuge in Article 154A of the Constitution in relation to the same rights. He also said that there is no evidence of discrimination in the Vice President’s utterance, as he was speaking only of Mrs. Hughes, and that where discrimination is alleged, on the prescribed ground of race or gender, an inference of discrimination cannot be drawn, unless there is a true comparator, that is, where the circumstances are equal and the only difference is that of race or gender.
In this case, he said there was no comparator. The State was represented by the Attorney General, and Shoshanna V. Lall – Deputy Solicitor General, Mrs. Saabira Ali-Hydarali, Ms. Laurel Dundas and Mr. Pierre Squires – State Counsel.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The One-Man Republic
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- There exists, tucked away on the margin of maps and minds, a country that has perfected... more
The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- Recent media stories have suggested that King Charles III could “invite” the United... more
Weekend Cartoon
