US-based businessman wants GUY$30 million in compensation from journalist

GEORGETOWN (CMC):

Lawyers for a New York-based Guyanese-businessman, say their client is asking the High Court to award him GUY$30 million (One Guyana dollar=US$0.004 cents) following a ruling in his favour against a reporter.

The High Court had earlier ruled in favour of Ed Ahmad in the undefended case against the journalist, Travis Chase, who had been accused of posting several defamatory posts on social media.

The lawyers in their submission are asking the High Court to award their client GUY$30 million, down from the original demand of GUY100 million, because his reputation has been affected not only in Guyana, but also in the United States, where he has his business.

Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln had issued the default judgement on June 10, 2025 after Chase failed to file a defence or make an appearance. Court papers state that efforts by Court Marshals to serve him the lawsuit were unsuccessful.

Ahmad’s lawyers told the High Court that at the request of attorney Roysdale Forde, the lawsuit was served through him.

“The defendant has failed to defend these proceedings; in defamation proceedings, the words complained of are presumed to be false and untrue and the burden is normally upon the defendant to prove that the words complained of are true in fact and in substance, if he relies upon the defence of justification. Likewise, it is upon the defendant to lead evidence of the claimant’s previous conviction,” the lawyers said in their latest submission.

Justice Corbin-Lincoln had given Ahmad until July 1, 2025 to file any additional submissions. Those were filed last month end.

Ahmad said Chase’s publication has caused persons to shun and avoid him and have hurt his feelings and exposed him to humiliation and embarrassment.

His lawyers argued that there was compelling inference that the publications are being published, shared and read by third parties, reaching more and more viewers around the world. They added that those posts were now permanently on the world wide web for posterity.

They said any order which the court makes for Chase to take down those publications would not be enforceable against third parties who have shared and published the offending statements.

Further, the lawyers have asked the court to take note that there has been no retraction or apology offered by Chase to mitigate damages.

The lawyers had previously told the court that contrary to the Facebook posts in January and February this year, their client had never arrested or questioned by the police in relation to money laundering and gold smuggling nor is he part of any criminal gang as alleged in the social media posts.