State-owned DPI to pay Vincent Alexander $10M for defamation

Jan 13, 2026 News

---

Kaieteur News – The high court has ordered the state-owned Department of Public Information (DPI) to pay chairperson of the International Decade for People of African Decent Assembly – Guyana (IDPADA-G), a not-for-profit organisation, Vincent Alexander $ 10 million for defamatory statements published in August of 2022.

In his original suit, Alexander had sued both the DPI and Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo claiming in excess of $150 million for damages and special damages done as a result of the words uttered by Jagdeo. The statement of claim document lists Jagdeo, (DPI) and the attorney general of Guyana as respondents in the case.

The document outlined that Jagdeo defamed Alexander by claiming that he had a personal financial interest in the administration of the affairs of IDPADA-G. Alexander has countered by saying he was never paid a penny and acted purely as a volunteer.

The lawsuit accused Jagdeo of making the claims when there has not been a shred of evidence to support them. As a result, the claimant is also seeking a public apology, retraction for information that was broadcasted over the electronic media.

On August 19 2022, during a press conference, Jagdeo accused the organisation’s leaders of pocketing State funds to support Afro–Guyanese.

Jagdeo had alleged that the organisation’s board of directors were personally benefitting from an almost $500 million state allocation, and singled out Alexander, as one of the beneficiaries who have done little to nothing for Afro-Guyanese.

Jagdeo stated too that while the organisation is registered as a private agency, receiving state funds, it has not been accountable to the government and has been conducting private audits in relation to its spending. Jagdeo questioned how much of the $100 million per year IDPADA-G received since 2019, was spent on salaries and details on those that were paid.

However, the case was heard and determined by Justice Fidela Corbin at the supreme court in Georgetown found that Jagdeo was not liable for defamation. Jagdeo successfully defended his case justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.

The court found that in the instance of qualified privilege as a public official Jagdeo was addressing matters of public concern and that Alexander failed to properly plead or prove malice.

As the publisher of alleged defamatory statements on 19th and 20th of August 2022, and continuing on its website, DPI failed in its bid to raise the defenses of qualified privilege, fair comment, justification and innocent dissemination. Mr. Nandlall SC, the attorney-general, is on record as the attorney for DPI.

According to the record of the ruling handed down by the judge, the attorney general, filed a witness statement, was called to give evidence and was on record as the attorney for DPI and himself having filed a defence.

The court document noted that the witness statement filed by Mr. Nandlall SC outlined that that he was authorised by Jagdeo give evidence on his behalf and that he makes “this statement in support of the defences filed herein.”

The court noted that it was not immediately apparent on whose behalf Mr. Nandlall SC was giving evidence having regard to the fact that Jagdeo was sued in his personal capacity and the attorney general was made a party based on DPI being a media outlet owned and controlled by the state.

Under cross examination, counsel for Alexander, Eusi Anderson sought to clarify on whose behalf Mr. Nandlall was giving evidence. Nandlall first stated that when he swore to the affidavit of witness statement, he swore to it on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

He was asked whether in paragraph two of his defence, whether he was familiar with Part 30.01 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2016 (“CPR”) which was read to him. He indicated he would need to consider the rule further. Under further cross examination he was asked whether he was there to give evidence in his capacity as attorney general representing DPI and he stated he was there to give evidence exclusively for Jagdeo.

In determining the outcome, the court noted that Nandlall who was listed as defendant in the matter was equally liable for paying the$10million judgment award.

In determining the quantum of costs, Justice Corbin took into consideration all the circumstances including the time reasonably spent on the case and the overriding objective.  In addition to the $10 million award, she ordered DPI and the attorney general to pay Alexander additional costs of $500,000. He in turn has also been ordered to pay $350,000 in costs to Mr. Jagdeo.

In addition to the damages award, DPI has been ordered to remove the interview from its website by January 16, 2026 and to pay $500,000 in costs to Alexander.

---

• $ 10 million, African Decent Assembly, Bharrat Jagdeo, IDPADA-G, Vice President, Vincent Alexander

---