Senior Reporter
jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt
Senior professor at the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT), Wasi Khan, was awarded $200,000 in damages after a High Court judge ruled that he was defamed by a colleague.
Justice Kevin Ramcharan ruled on Monday that the comments made against the professor were defamatory and that they were false, malicious and unsupported by evidence.
The defamatory comments were made by his then colleague, Valerie Stoute, who, in a series of written complaints in 2019, made the comments to the board of directors at UTT.
Ramcharan, in his ruling, found that there “can be no question” that Stoute’s claims had a defamatory meaning as the texts criticised Khan’s qualifications, which in turn were critical of both his integrity and his ability to teach.
Stoute, in her defence, claimed she was justified in her comments. However, Ramcharan found no merit, saying that in defamation cases, it is the practice to presume the defamed words are untrue, unless proven otherwise, which Stoute failed to do.
“In a defamation claim, the words are, in general, presumed to be untrue; that is the reason why, in order to maintain a defence of justification, the burden is on the defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities that the words stated were true. The Court is not satisfied that the defendant has established that all of the material allegations are true. Particularly, the court is not satisfied that the defendant has established that the claimant was hired by the President because the claimant was his friend. In that regard, the defendant failed to establish that the claimant was the President’s friend, or that he was hired by the President, or that the President even had an undue influence over the hiring process.”
Ramcharan found that there was negligible evidence to support claims made by Stoute about the professor’s work ethic.
“The underlying basis for a successful claim in fair comment is that the facts upon which the comment is based are true. A defendant cannot make up facts about a person and then comment on them,” Ramcharan stated.
He added that he was not dismissing Stoute’s role to raise genuine concerns that could put the university’s reputation at risk. However, there was a duty of care to ensure the allegations made were verifiable and not made with any malicious intent.
“Having considered the evidence, the court is of the view that the basis of the publication was mainly as a means of getting back at the president for the action taken against her.
“In doing so, she made allegations against the claimant and others, the truth of which she either did not believe, or was reckless as to whether it was true or not.
“The Court is therefore satisfied that the publication was malicious. The defence of qualified privilege, therefore, fails.”
The award is inclusive of a 2.5 per cent per annum interest rate from the date the claim was filed in May, 2019 to the date of judgment, along with legal fees.
Khan was represented by attorneys Skeeta John and Rhea Sookhai, while Richard Jaggasar appeared for Stoute.
