Sep 17, 2026
2 min read
Justice Peter Hugh has dismissed a defamation claim brought by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran against Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, ruling that statements Jagdeo made about Goolsarran at a press conference and a political rally in March 2023 were substantially true.
Delivering judgment on September 17, the High Court judge ordered Goolsarran to pay $250,000 in costs to Jagdeo.
Goolsarran had sued over remarks Jagdeo made at Freedom House on March 23, 2023, suggesting he lacked integrity by remaining in his post and collecting a salary during years when audited public accounts were not produced. A second claim concerned comments at a Port Mourant rally three days later, in which Jagdeo said Goolsarran, tied to the AFC Coalition, stayed silent on alleged corruption before being "rolled out as a fossil" ahead of elections.
Justice Hugh found both statements defamatory in their natural meaning, capable of lowering Goolsarran's standing among right-thinking members of society. However, he ruled that Jagdeo's defence of justification succeeded, noting Goolsarran admitted under cross-examination that no audited accounts were produced during his tenure, that he did not resign and that he continued to draw his salary.
"The gist of the statement that the claimant occupied a senior post in the audit office with responsibility to produce audit accounts and same was not executed, that he collected his salary and he did not resign is not disputed," the judge said.
On the second statement, he found Jagdeo had established a sufficient factual basis for the claimed political affiliation, noting evidence that Goolsarran's son was linked to the AFC and that Goolsarran had received sole-sourced government audit contracts. Goolsarran had denied formal party membership.
The court separately struck out Jagdeo's alternative defences of fair comment and qualified privilege, finding they were not properly particularised under the Civil Procedure Rules 2016. Justice Hugh said the defence failed to specify the defamatory meanings it sought to justify as comment, relying instead on facts pleaded elsewhere.
Despite that, the successful truth defence was dispositive, and the claim was dismissed in full.
Khemraj Ramjattan and Christopher Ram appeared for Goolsarran, while C V Satram and Ron Motilal represented Jagdeo, who did not testify personally; Attorney General Anil Nandlall gave evidence on his behalf.
