Jagdeo wins defamation case brought by Goolsarran

Sep 19, 2026 News

…Court finds statements substantially true; ordered $250,000 in costs

(Kaieteur News) – Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has successfully defended a defamation lawsuit brought against him by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran, with the High Court finding that the key statements complained of were substantially true.

Justice Peter Hugh, in a judgment delivered yesterday, dismissed Goolsarran’s claim and ordered him to pay $250,000 in costs, bringing the three-year-old dispute to an end. The case stemmed from remarks Jagdeo made at a press conference at Freedom House on 23^rd March, 2023, and at a political rally at Port Mourant on 26^th March, 2023.

Jagdeo wins defamation case brought by Goolsarran

Former Auditor General, Anand Goolsarran

Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo

Goolsarran had claimed that Jagdeo’s statements damaged his reputation by accusing him of lacking integrity, failing to perform his duties as Auditor General, remaining silent on public accountability issues and being politically motivated. At the Freedom House press conference, Jagdeo questioned why Goolsarran had remained in the Audit Office during a period when no audited public accounts were presented, arguing that he should have resigned if he had integrity.

At the Port Mourant rally, Jagdeo accused Goolsarran of being part of the AFC Coalition and of remaining silent about alleged corruption during the APNU+AFC administration, before being “rolled out as a fossil” as elections approached.

Goolsarran argued that the statements conveyed, among other things, that he lacked integrity and was unfit to serve as Auditor General, and that he had been used for political purposes. Justice Hugh found that the statements were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, capable of lowering Goolsarran in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

However, the judge ruled that Jagdeo had established the defence of justification, or truth. The court found that Goolsarran had occupied senior positions within the Audit Office during the relevant period, that audited public accounts were not produced during those years, that he did not resign and that he continued to receive his salary. While the court acknowledged Goolsarran’s explanations for why audited accounts were not produced, Justice Hugh found that those explanations did not negate the substantial truth of the facts relied upon by Jagdeo.

The judge also considered Jagdeo’s comments about Goolsarran’s political associations and public conduct. Although Goolsarran denied formal membership of the AFC, the court found that Jagdeo had established a sufficient factual basis for the opinion expressed about his political associations and conduct. Justice Hugh concluded that the “sting” of both allegations had been sufficiently justified and that the defence of justification therefore succeeded. The court also considered Jagdeo’s alternative defences of fair comment and qualified privilege, but struck both out after finding that they had not been properly pleaded under the Civil Procedure Rules. Despite that, the judge ruled that the successful truth/justification defence was sufficient to dispose of the case. The judgment formally ordered that Goolsarran’s claim be dismissed and that he pay $250,000 in costs to Jagdeo, taking into account the nature of the matter and the length of the proceedings.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Anand Goolsarran, Bharrat Jagdeo, defamation case

Latest News