Expression
Defamation claim dismissed in case affirming public scrutiny of political power
On 12th November 2024, the High Court of Justice of Grenada found that a news report by the Grenada Broadcasting Network (GBN) did not defame Gregory Bowen, then Minister of Finance, Economic Development, Physical Development and Energy, and reaffirmed the media’s right to report on matters of public interest. Bowen sued GBN over a televised and online segment quoting him as saying that electricity prices would not fall until 2030, claiming the broadcast distorted his comments and implied dishonesty and incompetence.
The report referred to Bowen’s remarks at a press conference in October 2021 about the government’s transition to renewable energy after the repurchase of shares in the national electricity provider, GRENLEC. In October 2021, GNB published: “Finance Minister Gregory Bowen says, despite the promise made upon the repurchase of GRENLEC shares that consumers will see a decrease in their electricity bill, such a relief will not be witnessed until 2030”.
The Court held that the report reflected Bowen’s public statements and that an ordinary person would not interpret them as deceptive, concluding that GBN’s statement did not bear a defamatory meaning:
“The court accepts that the publication did not encapsulate the entirety of the statements made by the claimant at the press conference. However, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that the misquotation when understood in the context of the full press conference would have lowered his estimation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Such a strained construction and unrealistic imputation cannot be ascribed having considered the full context of the press conference. Accordingly, the claim fails on the innuendo as it fails to meet the threshold of defamation”.
The Court also addressed viewer comments posted on GBN’s Facebook page, determining that they amounted to “vulgar abuse” and could not reasonably be interpreted as factual allegations.
By dismissing the claim, the Court reinforces that defamation law should not be weaponised to deter legitimate journalistic criticism, and ordered Bowen to pay EC$12,500 in costs within 60 days.
Days before the appeal period expired, GBN’s General Manager was served with legal documents indicating Bowen’s intention to appeal the judgment.
Lack of transparency over ministers’ absences and conflicting official information
Journalists in Grenada continue to face obstacles in accessing accurate and timely information from government officials, citing repeated failures to disclose when ministers are out of state. Recent inconsistencies between official records and public statements have further fuelled concerns about transparency and accountability.
According to the 3rd January 2025 Government Gazette, Minister Andy Williams served as Acting Prime Minister from 27th December 2024 to 5th January 2025, and as Acting Minister for Health from 19th December 2024 to 4th January 2025, while Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell and Health Minister Philip Telesford were overseas. However, a 27th December news release from the Government Information Service (GIS) and the Office of the Prime Minister claimed that the Prime Minister was away on personal, not official, business, contradicting the Gazette.
Journalists have reported that government communication officials, including the Press Secretary and Director of Information, have failed to respond to multiple information requests or clarify discrepancies.
Other developments
Landmark human rights ruling
On 16th October 2024, the High Court of Justice of Grenada delivered a landmark ruling in Edward Joseph and Others v Attorney General, declaring judicial corporal punishment unconstitutional. The decision, issued by Justice Raulston L. A. Glasgow, affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and reinforced the principle of human dignity in Caribbean constitutional law. In Grenada, “flogging was often used to enforce laws designed to support and maintain an oppressive system of colonial and imperial domination”.
The case was brought by Edward Joseph, Shabba Ferguson, and Jason Alexis, who challenged provisions in the Criminal Code and Praedial Larceny Act allowing flogging and whipping as criminal penalties. They argued the laws breached constitutional protections against inhuman or degrading treatment, violations of due process, and discrimination. Joseph and Ferguson were flogged immediately after sentencing, without medical supervision or the chance to appeal, a practice authorised under colonial-era statutes that applied only to men.
Justice Glasgow ruled that flogging constitutes inhuman and degrading punishment, incompatible with modern standards of humane treatment. Citing regional precedents, including Caesar v Trinidad and Tobago and McEwan v Attorney General of Guyana, the Court found corporal punishment inconsistent with both domestic and international human rights law.
The judgment also rejected the state’s reliance on the “savings clause” in section 5(2) of the Constitution, holding that pre-independence laws cannot shield discriminatory or degrading punishments from constitutional review. The Court further found that the exemption of women from flogging violated the right to equality, as the Government failed to justify the same protection to men.
As a remedy, the Court ordered the removal of all references to flogging from the Criminal Code, struck down section 16 of the Praedial Larceny Act, and awarded vindicatory damages to the claimants.