Justice’s make ruling in Ara Macao appeal

Court of Appeal’s Justices: Boyd Carey, Cecil Morrison and President Elliott Mottley today made their ruling in the Ara Macao appeal before them. The issue brought on by Ara Macao and their attorney, Elson Kaseke, sought for the Chief Justice’s ruling of last May to be set aside based on the choice of words that the Chief Justice, Abdulai Conteh used in passing his judgment. In his ruling, Chief Justice Conteh had used words written by the group Placencia Citizens for Sustainable Development’s website stories, entitled “A reality check for Ara Macao” and “Setting the Record Straight from the Peninsula’s Perspective” in June 2006. Ara Macao’s Paul Goguen had filed that the words had libeled him personally and was defamatory. And when he made his ruling, Chief Justice Conteh maintained that he had read both articles in their entirety and while they were not friendly, only a heightened sensitivity would have read between the lines to find they were truly defamatory. And today the two were before the Appeal’s Court Justice’s to review that decision. And that they did and depending on how you look at it, it could score a partial victory for either side. But while Kaseke claims victory, attorney for the Placencia Citizens for Sustainable Development, Oscar Sabido says not quite.

Elson Kaseke, Attorney for Ara Macao
“We were arguing that the Honourable Chief Justice was wrong in a judgment he gave on the sixth of May, 2008 when he said the words which were published by the Placencia Citizens for Sustainable Development and Mary Toy, that that they were attempting to set village against village in order to get approval for their project and trying to drive a wedge among people living harmoniously in the Placencia peninsula; and that they were selling dreams of prosperity and plenty– that these words were defamatory. The Chief Justice said that the words were not defamatory. In this court, the Court of Appeal disagreed with his approach and set aside that judgment and remitted the case back to the Supreme Court for trial.”

Oscar Sabido, Attorney for P.C.S.D. and Mary Toy
“It was only a partial setting aside of the judgment of the Chief Justice. The judgment still stands, which was that they had a list of six items that they were complaining about as being defamatory. Chief Justice found that all those items were not defamatory, but now because of a procedural error in the fact that there was a procedure under Rule sixty-eight where the Chief Justice had to do a preliminary finding whether the words were capable of being defamatory. The Chief Justice’s ruling still stands in regards to four and only two they contested and therefore the court has found that those two probably the Chief Justice went a little bit too far.”

“We still maintain that we have the judgment of the Chief Justice that the criticism against the Ara Macao was not defamatory. It was sustainable as being proper so we don’t feel bad about the judgment, I think it was something that was only based on procedural issues.”

Marion Ali
“But you must still go back now to the Supreme Court again.”

Oscar Sabido
“They would have to choose to go back and we would have to choose to defend but it’s only on two sets of words that they are complaining about. Only two sets of words that they say they want to contest. The rest remains the same, Chief Justice’s ruling stands.”

Marion Ali
“Does it really make a difference hereafter though, does it? Even if you go back to court and the judge rules in their favour, does it really make a difference?”

Oscar Sabido
“It doesn’t really make a difference because the matter is already concluded as far as most of the words that they’re complaining about have still been maintained by the Court of Appeal as not being defamatory. It’s only those two small issues which they themselves have conceded are the only issues they want to quarrel about.”

Marion Ali
“So do you see this going back to the Supreme Court?”

Oscar Sabido
“I don’t think so.”

Elson Kaseke
“Unfortunately, cost was not awarded today for my clients but it was a major victory for my clients because, as you know, in the Supreme Court the Chief Justice had summarily ruled that there was no defamation – period.”

Oscar Sabido
“The court did not award them cost because it is because of their own accepting the procedure before the Supreme Court, the sixty-eight Rule procedure, which is that the Chief Justice should rule on the preliminary basis. They themselves accepted it, we accepted it and they want to get costs on their own failure, so to speak, to say hey wait, we cannot do this. Let us go back and consider it carefully and let us not proceed on it at this point and that is what the Court of Appeal said, you’re not entitled to costs.”