Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Oct 09, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Kaieteur New – Guyana’s libel laws need changing. They are undemocratic. For too long these laws have been used to stifle free expression. For too long, libel suits have been used as a ruse to suppress the public’s right to information and to prevent the media from exposing corruption and other forms of malfeasance in public office.
Democratic government assumes that governments derive their authority via the consent of the governed. It is for this reason that free and fair elections are held so that the people can give their consent to be ruled.
It is also an essential aspect of government that the people are entitled to know what their government is doing. Without this right, the people would not be able to make informed decisions and therefore give an informed consent to their rulers.
Freedom of expression also guards against possible abuse of power by government officials. People, however, can only hold their governments in check and accountable to the extent that they enjoy the right to know what their government is doing.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right because it mediates the relationship between the governed and the government. It is limited, however, in that the right does not enjoy constitutional protections when it is used to unfairly and maliciously disparage the character and reputations of others. However, protection of persons’ reputation cannot be viewed as equal or as primary as the right to free expression. It remains a mere limitation of the protections enjoyed by virtue of that right.
The right of the media to expose public corruption and wrongdoing is part of the protected right of freedom of expression. The media stands in the vanguard of protecting tyranny and by ensuring that government is held accountable. Without this safeguard, the people would not be able to receive information by which to give their informed consent. As such, the right of the media to expose wrongdoing is linked not only to freedom of expression but to the consent of the governed. It is an essential aspect of democratic government.
Unfortunately, libel actions – done in the name of protecting the reputations of public officials – have become a weapon against exposing public corruption. No sooner does a public official feel that his or her actions will become liable to public censure or other adverse publicity, that that person files a libel action, not so much to protect his or her reputation but as means of suppressing the public’s right to information.
We have had a long history of such actions in Guyana. Libel actions have killed many a story within the media. No sooner does a story emerges which could question the actions of public officials, that an action is filed in the courts calling for an injunction to be placed in further publication until such time as the libel action is heard. The injunctions neutralize any further revelations of wrongdoing.
In some jurisdictions, notably in the United States, public officials are held to higher standard when it comes to libel. In cases where public officials are bringing libel actions against others they have to prove that the person making the offending statements did so with knowledge that it was false or was reckless in not determining whether it was true. That is, public officials are required to establish actual malice.
Today, it has become customary for public officials to claim that some publications have impugned their reputation. But reputation? The claim of harm to one’s reputation should not be entertained when dealing with scoundrels or crooks – white or blue collared. If a public official is engaged in wrongdoing or even misadventure that person ought to be ashamed of seeking refuge in libel.
A person should not be the arbiter of their own reputation. Your reputation is the beliefs and opinions others hold about you. How then can someone suing determine the extent to which his or her reputation has been impugned?
Public officials who refuse to answer questions from the media should be disqualified from seeking protection under the country’s libel laws. If these officials were more open with the public, then there would be no need for them to sue for libel.
Those suing should be required to establish malice. It is unreasonable for a defendant to be asked to disprove that what they published was not done out of malice. The burden of proof should be on the claimant. Why is it, if you accuse me of speaking an untruth about you, is it up to me to prove that the statements were true and published without malice?
Without transparency in government, there can be no democracy. Transparency involves the public right to information, including information about wrongdoing in government. And without free expression, the public’s right to know is compromised.
The country’s libel laws need reforming so as to promote greater rather than less press freedom. The revision of our libel laws should aim at preventing libel suits from being used to suppress information. It is a time for a debate on revamping Guyana’s libel laws.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]