FORMER Central Bank governor Jwala Rambarran plans to appeal a court order requiring him to pay former finance minister Colm Imbert $100,000 in damages for defamation.
On May 13, Justice Kevin Ramcharan awarded damages following Imbert’s defamation lawsuit over a 2019 blog post published on Rambarran’s website.
The post alleged Imbert used his ministerial role to block Rambarran’s employment with the G24, an international economic institution. Imbert disclosed the ruling in a post on his X social media account, while Rambarran’s attorneys, led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, announced their intention to challenge parts of the judgment.
In his decision, Ramcharan found that Rambarran’s assertions in the blog — including that Imbert acted out of spite and breached a court order — were not based on facts and were therefore defamatory. The judge said Rambarran could not have “reasonably come to the view” that Imbert obstructed his job prospects at the G24.
The contentious blog entry, posted June 9, 2019, referenced a Freedom of Information Act judgment delivered by Justice Frank Seepersad concerning Imbert’s delay in releasing communication with the G24. Rambarran argued that his post was a synopsis of that ruling and a personal commentary. He said he was unaware it had been republished by a local newspaper.
In deciding the case, Ramcharan said Rambarran’s interpretations and reasoning in the blog could not have been honestly reached by a reasonable person.
He also rejected Rambarran’s claims about a call between Imbert and a G24 official, saying there was a lack of evidence and communications that suggested otherwise.
In his ruling, Ramcharan said Rambarran could not have reasonably come to the view that it was Imbert who prevented him from getting employment at the G24 secretariat.
“His assertions in his article were, therefore, defamatory of the claimant.”
However, Rambarran’s legal team argued the judgment contradicts a prior High Court decision by Justice Devindra Rampersad, upheld by the Court of Appeal, which ruled his 2015 termination from the Central Bank was unlawful. They assert that parts of Ramcharan’s ruling are inconsistent with those rulings and are grounds for appeal.
In deciding damages, the judge noted that the two men were on different sides of the political divide and “it was clear” the two were political adversaries, despite Imbert’s reluctance to describe them as such.
In considering damages, the judge said the accusations were not criminal in nature, accusing the former minister of engaging in illegal or unlawful conduct, adding that the “racist abuse” Imbert received was “more due to the state of politics in Trinidad and Tobago than anything the defendant wrote in his article.”
Taking into account the nature of the accusations while acknowledging the political context, the judge said, “This court is firmly of the view that those wishing to enter the political arena in Trinidad and Tobago, and especially those seasoned in the political machinations and the ‘picong’ wh
