Colm gets conditional stay in defamation case

THE Court of Appeal has granted a conditional stay in the defamation lawsuit brought by former government minister Mustapha Abdul-Hamid against Finance Minister Colm Imbert.

Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Henderson, in a written ruling on February 6, upheld Imbert’s application for the stay, provided that he deposits the full judgment sum of $296,500 into the court within 29 days.

This follows a ruling by Justice Kevin Ramcharan on January 3, ordering Imbert to pay Abdul-Hamid damages for defamation. The lawsuit stemmed from statements Imbert allegedly made at a public meeting in Sangre Grande in September 2018.

Abdul-Hamid claimed Imbert falsely accused him of leading an effort to remove Prime Minister Dr Rowley as PNM leader because of Rowley’s skin colour. Abdul-Hamid argued these statements portrayed him as racist.

Justice Ramcharan ruled in Abdul-Hamid’s favour, awarding him $200,000 in damages, $50,000 in exemplary damages, and for Imbert to cover Abdul-Hamid's legal costs amounting to $46,500.

Imbert challenged the ruling on several grounds, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding that the alleged conversation between Abdul-Hamid and National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds did not occur as Hinds described.

Ramcharan concluded that Imbert’s statements were defamatory.

Imbert’s appeal challenged the judge’s findings on evidence presented at the trial, and he contends Ramcharan erred in law. In his ruling on the stay, Henderson outlined the key findings of Ramcharan’s ruling.

“While the court accepted that a conversation did occur between the respondent and Mr Hinds during which the subject matter of Dr Rowley’s skin tone did arise, the trial judge rejected the version of events put forward by Mr Hinds as to the circumstances of their meeting.

“Ramcharan J. found it unlikely that Mr Hinds would have stopped to have a conversation with the respondent while he (Mr Hinds) was walking around the savannah.

“The court accepted, as a finding of fact, that the appellant had taken up a leadership role in the Cabinet’s move against Dr Rowley and it was, therefore, not unlikely that he made remarks in critique of Dr Rowley.

“The trial judge went further to find that the topic of whether the electorate would support the PNM if offered a candidate with a dark skin tone must have arisen in conversation between Mr Hinds and the respondent.

“The trial Judge then considered whether the words used could reasonably be construed to mean that the respondent was racist.

“The court found that the statements made did not inherently suggest that the respondent was racist but could suggest that the maker recognised the socio-political context which exists in Trinidad and Tobago.

“The trial judge concluded that the words used were defamatory as the impugned statements were of interest not only to members of the PNM but to the wider national community.

“The court found that the defences of justification, honest comment and Reynold’s privilege failed.”

Imbert contends he has a strong case on appeal.

“The appellant asserts that the trial judge was plainly wrong in finding that the conversation between Mr Hinds and the respondent, occurred the way that Mr Hinds alleged that it did.

“The appellant further argues, as a matter of law, that the trial judge erred in arriving at the conclusion that the statements were defamatory, after having already determined that the appellant’s statement would not lead the ordinary man to conclude that the respondent was racist.”

He also contends the judge failed to identify what the defamatory insinuation was in the case.

Imbert also argued that if forced to pay the damages now, he might not be able to recover the funds should his appeal succeed.

He expressed concerns about Abdul-Hamid’s financial situation, noting that he was retired with no clear income.

Justice Henderson agreed that Imbert’s appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, particularly in challenging whether the statements were truly defamatory. He also found that the financial risk to Imbert was not insignificant, given Abdul-Hamid’s reluctance to provide detailed information on his income.

However, rather than granting an outright stay, the court ordered that Imbert deposit the full judgment sum into court as a safeguard. This ensures that, should Imbert lose his appeal, Abdul-Hamid can still access the funds.

The case will now proceed to the substantive appeal, where the Court of Appeal will determine whether Justice Ramcharan’s ruling should be upheld or overturned.

Imbert was represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, and Alatashe Girvan while John Jeremie, SC, and Gregory Delzin, SC, instructed by Suriah Heeraman represented Abdul-Hamid.