Newsauce blogger ordered to pay Moonilal for defamatory Facebook post

BLOGGER, journalist, university instructor and communications consultant Rhoda Bharath has been ordered to pay Oropouche East MP Dr Roodal Moonilal for a defamatory post on her social media page in April 2020.

Justice Margaret Mohammed ordered Bharath to pay general damages of $75,000 and $19,000 in costs. She was also restrained from repeating the “serious, accusatory and sarcastic” comments. The judge made the order on February 21.

In an immediate response, Moonilal said, “As I have said repeatedly, my political opponents have been working overtime to tarnish my reputation.

“I have never been approached by police and asked one single question about my stewardship as a minister of government in the partnership administration.

“Those who peddle that propaganda will face the court.”

Bharath posted about the ruling on her Newsauce Facebook page and said she was considering the legal avenues available to her. Her post concerned the appropriateness of Moonilal's donating 100 cases of bottled water to the police while allegedly under ­police investigation.

Moonilal contended that the defamatory post led a reasonably-minded person to believe he was being investigated by the police for some illegal activity.

In her defence, Bharath said she was entitled to raise questions on a newspaper article about an alleged rift between the police service and the government during the pandemic and Moonilal’s donation of 100 cases of water to the police.

She claimed it was public knowledge that Moonilal had been the subject of an investigation by the police since 2017 and also produced a purported search warrant, which she posted. Bharath maintained the information was of public importance, factual, already in the public sphere and undisputed.

She asserted that she held a social, moral, constitutional and public interest duty as a journalist.

However, in her ruling, Mohammed said the post was written with a “serious and sarcastic tone.

“In my opinion, a typical ordinary reader scrolling through Facebook would not pause to consider the detailed meaning of items listed in the defendant’s Facebook post, but would have formed the impression from the entire post that the (police) commissioner’s financial management of the TTPS at that time in the covid19 was a cause for concern and this included accepting water as a gift from the claimant which was not proper as he was being investigated by the TTPS.

“I am of the view that an ordinary reader of Facebook scrolling through the post quickly would form the view that the claimant was involved in some sort of illegality that warranted an investigation by the TTPS and that it was wrong for him to be donating water to the TTPS.

“In this regard, the meaning is defamatory of the claimant,” the judge said.

She said the sting of the words used “strongly insinuated” the allegation that Moonilal was being investigated by the police “was a statement of fact.”

“The ordinary reader scrolling quickly would have formed the impression that it is so.”

Turning to Bharath’s defences, she said her claim of justification failed “as she did not provide any evidence to prove that the claimant was being investigated by the TTPS when the alleged defamatory words were published.”

According to the judge, Bharath failed to produce an authentic search warrant.

“On the face of the digital copy which she produced it was not authentic.”

She also said Bharath provided no evidence from the police that Moonilal was being investigated in 2020.

On Bharath’s fair/honest comment defence, the judge said this, too, failed.

“The defendant was unable to adduce any evidence from the TTPS to prove that the comment ‘Moonilal is currently under investigation by the TTPS’ was true and there was no evidence that those words were protected by privilege.”

Mohammed also noted that while malice did not arise, Bharath also did not have a “valid defence in qualified privilege,” as she was aware when she published the defamatory words she “had no proof that the digital copy of the warrant she had was authentic.”

“In the WhatsApp conversation she had with the claimant, she was informed that the said warrant was fake and that it was the subject of litigation by his attorneys at law.

“As a responsible journalist, the defendant knew that the statement was false as she had no evidence to prove this.”

She also said the post did not include Moonilal's statements to her in the WhatsApp message.

Mohammed said while it would be in the public’s interest if an MP was being investigated by the police, it could not be in the public’s interest “to be informed of matters not substantiated.”

On responsible journalism, the judge had this to say, “The defendant was well aware of her duties as a responsible journalist…

“The more serious the allegation, the more the public is misinformed and the individual is harmed, if the allegation is not true…”

She said the allegations misinformed the public that Moonilal was an MP being investigated by the police and donating water for leniency.

“In my opinion, the allegations were very serious against the claimant, with serious harm to him…As an experienced journalist, the defendant should have known that she could only rely on the search warrant if she had an authentic copy or the TTPS had verified that it was investigating the claimant.”

While the judge noted a journalist’s duty was not to “fact-check every minute detail,” she said Bharath had three years to verify the authenticity of the warrant, but had failed to do so. She added, “In my opinion, the tone of the alleged defamatory words was serious, accusatory and sarcastic.”

In ordering Bharath to pay compensatory damages, she declined to make an award for exemplary damages.

Larry Lalla, SC, and Vashisht Seepersad represented Moonilal. Keith Scotland, SC, represented Bharath at the trial before he became Minister in the Ministry of National Security, along with Asha Watkins-Montserin, Jacqueline Chang and Laurina Ramkaran.