Cathy Hughes to appeal Chief Justice’s ruling in “low life” case

Oct 02, 2024 News

---

Kaieteur News- Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Catherine ‘Cathy’ Hughes, is expected to appeal the decision of Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire to dismiss the case against the State over the establishment and failure to operationalise the Human Rights Commission, which Hughes said was a breach of her constitutional right.

The case stemmed from comments made by Vice President (VP) Bharrat Jagdeo during one of his November 2023 press conferences. He referred to the MP as a “low-life.”

On Monday, the Chief Justice dismissed the case. However, on Tuesday it was disclosed that the MP was advised that the decision of the Chief Justice ought to benefit from a review of a Court of Appellate jurisdiction and Hughes has consequently instructed her attorneys to appeal the decision.

Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall and Leader of the Opposition Aubrey Norton were listed as respondents in the case.

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’s 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.

Hughes’ lawyers in their

statement said that among the fifteen declarations sought by Hughes was, “A declaration that it is and has at all material times been a binding obligation on the State to establish and operationalise the Human Rights Commission”.

Notably, the Opposition MP also claimed that, “A declaration that the failure of the first named defendant (Attorney General) to establish and operationalise the Human Rights Commission is a breach of the Applicant’s right to protection and enforcement of the Human Rights established under Article 154 A of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.”

Hughes’ lawyers disclosed that in dismissing the application the Chief Justice in her oral decision said, “The non establishment of the Human Rights Commission and tribunal while a violation of the constitution does not amount to a violation of the Applicant’s right as claimed.”

The statement also quoted the Chief Justice as saying, “The actual response (The Vice President’s statement referring to Mrs. Hughes as a Low Life) may be frowned upon as being most inappropriate.”

The Chief Justice further opined, “In the circumstances, the court in recognition of its displeasure at the source of the controversy, the words of the Vice President, awards no costs.”

Moreover, the AG’s Chambers statement said that 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 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.

 

---

• Bharrat Jagdeo, Catherine Hughes, Chief Justice (Ag), Roxane George – Wiltshire, S.C.

---