Senator demands apology from blogger

GOVERNMENT senator Laurel Lezama-Lee Sing has “categorically and emphatically,” said she is not “ capable of such a horrendous act” alluded to by the public after an interim court order was made public on September 24.

Her attorneys have since issued a pre-action protocol letter to social media blogger Rhoda Bharath for her publication of a portion of the order and entertaining comments on her Newsauce page on the Facebook platform.

Up to late Wednesday, attorneys from the firm of Hove and Associates were finalising a similar pre-action letter to a media house.

Attorney Alisha Ponambalam told Bharath she was “liable for any and/or all republications” shared by other Facebook users.

Ponambalam, along with Farai Hove Maisasai, is seeking the senator’s interest and has alleged the social media blogger misused their client’s private information, leading to defamatory remarks being made by the public.

“You ought to have anticipated that there was a significant risk that the article would be shared given the position of our client and the abundant appetite for gossip and matters of a salacious nature, of the public of TT.

“Our client, states categorically and emphatically that she is not capable of such a horrendous act.”

They have asked for the removal of the Facebook post, an apology and a public retraction.

“This should be done via the same mediums as the defamatory statements were made.

“The apology and retraction are to be in terms approved by our law firm on our client’s behalf. Such an apology may reduce the amount of damages that a court may order you to pay for your reckless actions.”

They also want an undertaking not to repeat the statements, to desist from making similar or further statements, and a substantial proposal for damages.

Bharath was given until 9 am on September 25 to apologise to Lezama-Lee Sing.

In the letter, Ponambalam pointed out that the interim court order from the Family and Children Court Division of the High Court was granted ex-parte and Lezama-Lee Sing was waiting for her opportunity to be heard.

“Our instructions are that this is a private matter which has impacted the lives of three minor children and it is presently before the Family and Children’s Division of the High Court.

“Your actions by sharing this private information on social media can at best be described as irresponsible journalism and at worst malicious and premeditated.”

Ponambalam said the order disclosed “highly sensitive and confidential information” which their client expected to be kept private.

“The reckless dissemination of such information to the general public has put the mental and emotional health of our client and her children at risk.

“It has caused undue trauma in circumstances where you are unaware of any of the facts that are before the honourable court.”

She added, “The said defamatory headlines written by you and published on your Facebook online page paint our client in a negative light by the use of vacuous, misleading and unfounded allegations.”

The attorney further noted that the post has since captured the attention of other social media accounts, causing the public to “comment and chime in on the discussion,” speculating and “casting negative assertions” against their client.

“The nature of our client’s position requires the highest degree of trust, confidence and respect in her ability to uphold and carry out her duties as a politician and senator.

“Any blemish to her good name and reputation puts her life’s work and distinguished career into disrepute and severe jeopardy.

“Our client’s children have in some instances been targeted and tagged by your followers to the article and our client has now had cause to seek professional assistance for the mental and emotional harm that your publication has now caused.”

Ponambalam said Bharath said the Facebook publication was done sensationally and prominently “and with reckless disregard to the accuracy;”

She added, “You knew or ought to have known that the allegations insinuated in your publications were untrue.

“You falsely and maliciously wrote and caused to be published the defamatory statements in the article concerning our client; and you knew or ought to have known that the said article would be of a particularly sensational nature and you wrote and caused it to be published knowing it was private information, libelous and/or reckless as to the libelous nature.”