Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira has successfully defended a $15 million defamation claim filed by former Environmental Protection Agency Executive Director Dr Vincent Adams, with the High Court finding that her remarks were protected by qualified privilege.
Justice Jacqueline Josiah-Graham dismissed the lawsuit in an October 15 judgment, ruling that Adams had not established malice, even though part of the meaning conveyed by Teixeira’s statements was defamatory and had not been proven substantially true.
The dispute centred on remarks made during Guyana’s appearance before the United Nations Human Rights Committee on March 19 and 20, 2024. Teixeira was leading the country’s delegation during a review of its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Adams contended that her comments wrongly associated him with the secrecy surrounding the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement with ExxonMobil and information about its signature bonus.
The court found that the remarks suggested Adams had an unspecified connection to the agreement during the period when its terms were not publicly available. That implication went beyond his subsequent work as head of the EPA and could suggest a lack of transparency on his part.
However, the judge did not interpret the statements as accusing Adams of personally negotiating or concealing the agreement, depositing the signature bonus, or engaging in corruption or dishonesty.
The evidence established that Adams had no involvement in negotiating, executing or publicising the PSA when it was signed in 2016 or when its terms were disclosed approximately a year later. He became EPA Executive Director in October 2018.
Teixeira therefore failed to establish the substantial truth of the defamatory implication.
The decisive issue, however, was the context in which she spoke.
Justice Josiah-Graham found that Teixeira had an official duty to respond to the committee’s questions and that the committee had a corresponding interest in receiving her answers. That exchange attracted qualified privilege.
For Adams to overcome that defence, he had to prove malice. This could include demonstrating that Teixeira did not honestly believe her statements, consciously disregarded whether they were true, or used the occasion for an improper purpose.
Although the judge considered her language inaccurate and overly broad, the court accepted Teixeira’s explanation that she had been referring to Adams’ association with the Alliance For Change and his later regulatory responsibilities involving environmental authorisations under the PSA.
The factual foundation for linking him to the earlier period was weak, the judge found, but the evidence did not establish that Teixeira knowingly gave a false explanation or was recklessly indifferent to its truth.
“The defence of qualified privilege therefore succeeds and the claim fails,” the judgment stated.
Adams had requested $15 million in damages and a permanent injunction. The judge indicated that a successful claim would have attracted $4 million in general damages, but no damages or injunction were awarded because the action was dismissed.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Attorney-at-Law Khemraj Ramjattan represented Adams, while attorneys C.V. Satram and Ron Motilall appeared for Teixeira.
