Acting Chief Justice, Roxane George, on Monday, ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo discriminated against or breached the fundamental rights of Opposition Member of Parliament, Catherine Hughes when he referred to her as a “low-life,” as the Court dismissed a Constitutional challenge by Hughes calling for the operationalization of the Human Rights Commission. 

Last December, Hughes sought a number of declarations and conservatory orders aimed at having the Government establish the Human Rights Commission as prescribed by the Constitution.

She had argued that the State’s failure to establish the Human Rights Commission was a breach of her right not to be denied equal protection benefit of the law as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Opposition MP also asked the High Court to declare that the statement made by the Vice President was a breach of her entitlement to equal status with men in all spheres of political, economic and social life as guaranteed by the Constitution.

But according to a statement issued by the Attorney General’s Chambers, the High Court, in dismissing the Constitutional challenge, said MP Hughes did not sufficiently establish a case of discrimination under the provisions of the Constitution, or at all, and that her claim of discrimination on the basis of sex and race, in this context, cannot succeed. 

It was also determined that the utterance by the Vice President, “without more, could neither amount to a breach of any of Mrs. Hughes’ fundamental rights, nor could the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission, by that fact itself, amount to a breach of the Constitution.”

In arriving at her decision, the Acting Chief Justice said evidence suggests that MP Hughes did not approach the Women and Gender Equality Commission, though it was in operation, and provides for, among other things, the initiation of investigations into alleged violations of women’s rights and monitoring compliance with international instruments. 

On those grounds the Court held that MP Hughes’ claim “was wholly misconceived and without merit.” 

Hughes had filed the case against the Attorney General Anil Nandlall, and the Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Norton. 

The State was represented by the Attorney General; the Deputy Solicitor General, Shoshanna V. Lall and a number of other State Counsel while MP Hughes was represented by Attorneys-at-Law, Nigel Hughes and Kishana Jefford.

Related posts:

Opposition MP files Court action over non-appointment of Human Rights Commission Chief Justice denies Vice President and AG’s request to join APNU local elections case against GECOM Appeal filed against Chief Justice’s ruling in Hicken appointment case Chief Justice throws out Senior Superintendent’s challenge to Police promotions