Moonilal loses defamation case against PM, Express
Dr Roodal Moonilal. – File photo
UNC MP for Oropouche East Dr Roodal Moonilal said it is not over with respect to a defamation case involving the Prime Minister, the Trinidad Express and its Editor-in-Chief Omatie Lyder.
On September 4, High Court Justice Carol Gobin gave her judgment and dismissed the case with costs. She said costs should be on a prescribed scale but gave the involved parties seven days to give another view on it.
However, Moonilal said in a WhatsApp response to Newsday that the judgment was considered and it is believed that the trial judge “unfortunately erred in her interpretation of the Prime Minister’s words in relation to me.”
He added, “I believe that the Prime Minister uttered a horrible and unfounded defamatory statement in relation to me.
“I intend to fully defend myself against his actions and will be taking my attorney’s advice in relation to an appeal. This isn’t over yet.”
Moonilal said he was willing to go to the Privy Council on the matter and told the PNM’s constitutional reform committee to “hold up.”
The committee has endorsed the Caribbean Court of Justice as this country’s final appellate court instead of the Privy Council.
Rowley shared the judgment on his Facebook page with a caption which read, “The court has dismissed the claim of defamation made against Dr the Hon Keith Rowley by Dr Roodal Moonilal.”
Senior Counsel (SC) Larry Lalla instructed by Vashist Seepersad appeared for Moonilal while Douglas Mendes, SC, Michael Quamina, instructed by Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon, represented Rowley and Justin Phelps, instructed by Rumeal Peters, represented the Trinidad Express and Lyder.
The matter arose from a 2020 Express article written by its political reporter Anna Ramdass, which showed a text exchange between Rowley and NGO Fixin’ TnT chairman Kirk Waithe.
In the exchange, Rowley asks Waithe about questioning Moonilal and Jearlean John about the Housing Development Corporation’s (HDC) Couva development, Eden Gardens.
Waithe previously questioned Rowley about Camille Robinson-Regis and the monies drawn on her RBL account.
The article was titled Rowley vs Waithe…Terse Text Exchange.
The claim was brought against two specific lines in which Rowley asked Waithe about questioning Moonilal and John about Eden Gardens.
The judgment said, “At the date of the Express publication, questions concerning a certain bank transaction of Minister Camille Robinson-Regis were the focus of national attention.
“There were calls from Fixin’ TnT and opposition parliamentarian Ramona Ramdial for her removal from Cabinet.”
It added that matters raised during the exchange were both matters of public interest.
In the matter, Moonilal claimed that the two lines about Eden Gardens, which Rowley texted to Waithe and were then published by the Express, were defamatory to him.
“It is important to note that the case on the pleadings, both in form and substance, was not one based on an innuendo meaning, but on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words,” Gobin’s judgment read.
“If any confirmation was needed on this, the claimant’s submissions settled it. There is no mention of innuendo. It follows that the evidence of meaning which was allowed de bene esse in the course of trial has been ruled inadmissible.”
The judgment said the defendants (Rowley, Express and Lyder) relied on the available defences, including that Moonilal failed to establish the defamatory statements that were spoken of and concerning him and also the words complained of were incapable of being understood in the manner contended by him.
Gobin said that the claim was based entirely on two sentences in circumstances where one happens to follow the other. She added that Moonilal’s case relied on the juxtaposition of the two sentences to establish that, when read together, they should be interpreted as defamatory.
However, when read apart, the sentences carried no defamatory meaning, she said.
Among other reasons for the decision, Gobin said that in Trinidad and Tobago’s political space, robust, colourful and even vulgar language was common and “throwing barbs” or picong happened all the time.
She added, “These statements, sometimes, go beyond ‘throwing barbs’ and into more significant general statements alleging corruption by supporters of the other side.
“These statements can be hurtful and offensive; they can be insulting and crass. It does not necessarily follow that they are defamatory in our context.”
She said Trinidad and Tobago was a society that recognised freedom of speech and expression as a core right, especially in the political sphere.
“This is reflected, for example, at times, in statements being made which are built on shaky theories, rumours or perceptions unsupported by evidence,” the judgment read.