POLITICAL Leader of the Progressive Empowerment Party Phillip Edward Alexander has lost his appeal of a judge’s order that he pay Finance Minister Colm Imbert $525,000 in damages for defamation.
In an oral ruling on February 12, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Ronnie Boodoosingh and Geoffrey Henderson held Justice Jacqueline Wilson’s findings were “unassailable.”
Imbert sued Alexander over a series of posts on Facebook, published between February 29 and March 1, 2020.
In October 2023, after Wilson delivered her ruling, Imbert posted a copy of the judgment on X (formerly Twitter) saying, "I got an award for defamation of $525K today against Phillip Alexander. He had falsely alleged that I purchased an exotic Swedish sports car for US$2M using forex that I obtained by corrupt means or by abusing my office as the MOF."
In the judgment, Wilson said Alexander's statements did not meet the criteria of fair comment. She found Alexander failed to "establish that the steps he had taken to gather and publish the information were responsible and fair. "
She said, "Although there is a significant public interest in determining that foreign exchange reserves are distributed in a fair and transparent manner, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that he took reasonable steps to verify that the allegations made against the claimant were true.
“The tone of the publications was neither measured nor circumspect but may be labelled as cavalier or even dramatic."
On damages, she said, “On the facts of this case and having regard to the nature of the allegations, the manner and duration of the publications and the claimant’s status as Minister of Finance, I have concluded that an award in the sum of $525,000.00 is appropriate compensation to the claimant as general damages."
In their unanimous ruling, delivered by Mohammed, the Appeal Court dismissed Alexander’s appeal, affirming the judge’s orders and ordering him to pay the minister’s costs.
Mohammed said, “Respectfully, we are not persuaded that the trial judge materially erred by failing to adopt an impressionistic interpretation of the seven publications involved (or) by failing to examine and evaluate each of the seven publications separately and apart from the other publications and in isolated compartments.”
Mohammed said even if the court was not correct in its conclusion, and while they were not required to look at the matter afresh, their conclusion “would be the same as that of the trial judge.”
He said there was “compelling justification” to examine the seven postings collectively not separately as argued by Alexander’s attorney, Gregory Armorer.
“Armorer’s submissions are respectfully a highly technical one, which cannot withstand scrutiny against the backdrop of the specific and actual context of this case.”
In deciding the appeal, the judge said they could not look at the posts separately because of the “very narrow window involved” – approximately 24 hours – the medium used and the “manifest interrelation of the posts.”
“Even if requir
