The irony is conspicuous

#### Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo has successfully defended a defamation lawsuit brought by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran, after the High Court found that the defence of justification had been established in relation to the statements at the centre of the case. Justice Peter Hugh dismissed Goolsarran’s claim and ordered him to pay $250,000 in costs to VP Jagdeo. The ruling brings to an end the defamation proceedings arising from comments made by Jagdeo at a press conference at Freedom House on March 23, 2023, and at a public meeting in Port Mourant, Berbice, on March 26, 2023. Goolsarran had taken issue with statements concerning his tenure in the Audit Office and his public commentary, contending that the remarks were defamatory and had damaged his reputation. Jagdeo, through his legal team, defended the statements and maintained that they were grounded in facts concerning Goolsarran’s record and public conduct. The central issue became whether Jagdeo could establish the truth, or substantial truth, of the matters conveyed in the publications. The court found that he had. ... #### Truth defence A key aspect of the judgement was the defence of justification. In a defamation claim, justification turns on whether the substance of the allegedly defamatory publication can be shown to be true. In this case, Justice Hugh found that the evidence supported the substance of the statements made by Jagdeo. The finding meant that the defamation claim could not succeed, despite the claimant’s challenge to the statements. The court examined Goolsarran’s role in the Audit Office during the period under discussion, including his tenure as Deputy Auditor General and subsequently as Auditor General. The evidence considered by the court included the absence of audits of the public accounts during a period when Goolsarran served in a senior position within the Audit Office. ... #### Jagdeo’s legal team had previously relied on this history in responding to Goolsarran’s complaint, arguing that the former Auditor General had been part of the senior management of the Audit Office during years when the public accounts were not audited. The legal response also pointed to the constitutional responsibility of the Auditor General to audit the public accounts and prepare reports for presentation to the National Assembly. Those issues became significant to the court’s consideration of whether Jagdeo’s statements had a factual basis. The court ultimately found that the explanations advanced by Goolsarran did not negate the substantial truth of the matters relied upon by Jagdeo. As a result, the defence of justification succeeded. ... Justification decisive The court also considered the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege. Those defences did not succeed on procedural grounds because they had not been properly pleaded in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 2016. However, that did not alter the result. The successful defence of justification was sufficient to dispose of the proceedings. The court therefore dismissed Goolsarran’s claim against Jagdeo. The ruling also carries a costs consequence for the former Auditor General, with the court ordering him to pay $250,000 to Jagdeo. The outcome means that the court accepted the substance of the factual matters underpinning the statements challenged by Goolsarran. ... #### Public accountability The case arose against the backdrop of Gools ... ’s longstanding ... the history of the Audit Office between ... 82 and ... when, according to their response ... the public accounts were not audited and reports were not prepared for presentation to the National Assembly ... They argued that Goolsarran ... served as Deputy Auditor General during part of that period ... but on whether the substance of the ... could be justified by the evidence ... that they could. The Court accordingly dismissed the claim and awarded $250,000 in costs against Goolsarran.

High Court dismisses Goolsarran’s lawsuit as Jagdeo proves “substantial truth” of statements – News Hub Guyana # High Court dismisses Goolsarran’s lawsuit as Jagdeo proves “substantial truth” of statements September 17, 2026 The High Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran against Vice-President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo after finding that the substance of Jagdeo’s statements, including his assertion that Goolsarran lacked integrity, was substantially true. Justice Peter Hugh also ordered Goolsarran to pay Jagdeo $250,000 in costs. The lawsuit stemmed from statements Jagdeo made at a press conference on March 23, 2023, and a public meeting three days later. He criticised Goolsarran for remaining in senior positions at the Audit Office and collecting a salary during the former PNC administration, when the country’s public accounts went unaudited for several years. Jagdeo had declared that Goolsarran “could have resigned if he had integrity.” He also accused the former Auditor General of remaining silent about alleged abuses under the APNU+AFC government while being politically selective in his public commentary. Justice Hugh found that the remarks were defamatory because an ordinary, reasonable Guyanese would understand them to mean that Goolsarran lacked integrity in performing his duties. The judge determined, however, that the essential facts supporting Jagdeo’s statements were substantially true. Under cross-examination, Goolsarran admitted that no audited accounts were produced during the relevant period, that he did not resign and that he continued receiving his full salary. Although Goolsarran argued that he was not Auditor General for most of the period cited by Jagdeo, the judge described that discrepancy as an “inaccuracy around the edge” which did not alter the central truth of the statement. The court also examined Goolsarran’s receipt of audit contracts from the APNU+AFC coalition government. He acknowledged being retained to conduct audits of NICIL, the Marriott Hotel, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Guyana Forestry Commission. Goolsarran further admitted that the contracts were not awarded through public open tendering and that he was not the only provider capable of performing the services. Justice Hugh found that Goolsarran’s receipt of government audit contracts not awarded through open tender contributed to the factual basis for Jagdeo’s criticism of his political associations and selective commentary. While Goolsarran denied being a formal AFC member, the court ruled that proof of card-holding membership was unnecessary. It found sufficient grounds for Jagdeo’s suggestion that he was associated with the coalition and selective in his public criticisms. The judge ultimately concluded that Jagdeo had established the underlying facts supporting both statements and had sufficiently justified the “sting” of the allegations. Since truth constitutes a complete defence to defamation, Goolsarran’s claim was dismissed.

High Court dismisses Goolsarran’s lawsuit as Jagdeo proves “substantial truth” of statements – News Hub Guyana # High Court dismisses Goolsarran’s lawsuit as Jagdeo proves “substantial truth” of statements September 17, 2026 The High Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran against Vice-President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo after finding that the substance of Jagdeo’s statements, including his assertion that Goolsarran lacked integrity, was substantially true. Justice Peter Hugh also ordered Goolsarran to pay Jagdeo $250,000 in costs. The lawsuit stemmed from statements Jagdeo made at a press conference on March 23, 2023, and a public meeting three days later. He criticised Goolsarran for remaining in senior positions at the Audit Office and collecting a salary during the former PNC administration, when the country’s public accounts went unaudited for several years. Jagdeo had declared that Goolsarran “could have resigned if he had integrity.” He also accused the former Auditor General of remaining silent about alleged abuses under the APNU+AFC government while being politically selective in his public commentary. Justice Hugh found that the remarks were defamatory because an ordinary, reasonable Guyanese would understand them to mean that Goolsarran lacked integrity in performing his duties. The judge determined, however, that the essential facts supporting Jagdeo’s statements were substantially true. Under cross-examination, Goolsarran admitted that no audited accounts were produced during the relevant period, that he did not resign and that he continued receiving his full salary. Although Goolsarran argued that he was not Auditor General for most of the period cited by Jagdeo, the judge described that discrepancy as an “inaccuracy around the edge” which did not alter the central truth of the statement. The court also examined Goolsarran’s receipt of audit contracts from the APNU+AFC coalition government. He acknowledged being retained to conduct audits of NICIL, the Marriott Hotel, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Guyana Forestry Commission. Goolsarran further admitted that the contracts were not awarded through public open tendering and that he was not the only provider capable of performing the services. Justice Hugh found that Goolsarran’s receipt of government audit contracts not awarded through open tender contributed to the factual basis for Jagdeo’s criticism of his political associations and selective commentary. While Goolsarran denied being a formal AFC member, the court ruled that proof of card-holding membership was unnecessary. It found sufficient grounds for Jagdeo’s suggestion that he was associated with the coalition and selective in his public criticisms. The judge ultimately concluded that Jagdeo had established the underlying facts supporting both statements and had sufficiently justified the “sting” of the allegations. Since truth constitutes a complete defence to defamation, Goolsarran’s claim was dismissed.