The Telecommunications Authority of T&T (TATT) has warned radio station Trinibashment 91.9 FM that it breached its concession by allowing one of its shows to broadcast offensive statements about High Court Judge Frank Seepersad after he upheld a defamation case against four-time Calypso Monarch Weston “Cro Cro” Rawlins in January.
The action taken by TATT was revealed in a letter sent to Justice Seepersad on Wednesday that was subsequently shared with the Council of the Law Association of T&T (LATT).
In the correspondence obtained by Guardian Media, TATT chief executive officer Cynthia Reddock-Downes advised that the authority had completed its investigation into statements made on the Juju Love Programme, which was broadcast one day after Justice Seepersad delivered his judgment on January 29.
Reddock-Downes stated that statements made by the hosts and callers during the programme were found to be divisive, inciteful, and negatively portrayed or degraded the judge and/or the Judiciary.
She stated that the radio station was informed of the breaches.
“They were further informed that such a breach or any other breaches will be considered in the upcoming renewal of their concession,” she said.
The case decided by Justice Seepersad was brought by businessman and social activist Inshan Ishmael in relation to Rawlins’ 2023 song “Another Sat is Outside Again”.
Rawlins penned the song last year following social media furore towards Ishmael based on his comments on the celebrations hosted by residents of Beetham Gardens after fellow resident Kareem Marcelle was called to the bar in November 2022.
Although Rawlins did not qualify for the semifinals of last year’s Calypso Monarch competition, Ishmael claimed that a video of his performance during the preliminary round of the competition at the Cipriani Labour College in Valsayn was widely circulated on social media.
Justice Seepersad ruled that the song was defamatory and was not covered by the defence of qualified privilege. Although he ordered $250,000 compensation for Ishmael, it remains outstanding.
Guardian Media understands that Justice Seepersad referred the broadcast to the association on January 31.
Ishmael’s lawyer Richard Jaggasar sent a similar letter requesting the association’s intervention in the matter, yesterday afternoon.
In a follow-up correspondence sent in February, Justice Seepersad said: “Having carefully reviewed the broadcast, I am concerned that the editorial which the host delivered and the comments which were made throughout the broadcast may have impugned the integrity of the court and brought the Judiciary into disrepute.”
He stated that the comments appeared to exceed fair commentary and/or reasonable journalism and suggested that they (the comments) may have been intended to scandalise the court.
Justice Seepersad referred to a local case in which the T&T Law Society, a precursor to the association, pursued contempt of court proceedings against a newspaper editor, who under the guise of fiction suggested that the Judiciary was corrupt.
He noted that despite admitting that the story was contemptuous and unreservedly apologising, the editor was convicted of the offence and sentenced to 21 days in prison.
The editor did not appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence but later filed a constitutional case alleging that his constitutional right to not be deprived of his liberty except by due process of law was breached.
The case was rejected by both the Court of Appeal and the United Kingdom-based Privy Council.
“The broadcast should be reviewed as a matter of urgency and a decision should be taken so as to whether action in defence of the administration of justice should be engaged,” Justice Seepersad said at the time.
Guardian Media understands that the broadcast was reported to the Judiciary, which decided against issuing a statement.
The statements on the radio show were mentioned in a letter sent to Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher in early February.
He noted that shortly after the broadcast he was threatened by a man in public.
“As a member of the third arm of the state, I should not have to live in fear because of the fearless manner in which I discharge my judicial obligations and I hold the view that the State has an obligation to implement measures to keep me safe,” he said.
Justice Seepersad noted that several months after his security detail, which was assigned to him since December 2017, was removed in June, last year, he received a death threat in relation to another case.
He stated that while the threat level against him was rated as low, police officers investigating the threat were able to triangulate the source of the email and identify a person of interest.
“As a consequence, it is possible to conclude that there was a well thought out plan to threaten me and attempt to pervert the course of justice and the responsible individual(s) is/are still at large,” he said.
Guardian Media understands that Justice Seepersad’s security detail was not restored after his letter was sent and he was forced to retain private security to protect him and his family.
In his judgment in Ishmael’s case, Justice Seepersad stated that the calypso was clearly directed at Ishmael despite Rawlins’ claims that he sought to prevent defamation by singing “Imchan Imchelle” in the song.
“This obvious similarity of a name which is by no means common, when considered against the other portions of the calypso which included references to the comments which the Claimant made in relation to a lawyer from the Beetham and the sale of car parts in the Bamboo, results in a circumstance where any reasonable member of the society who heard the calypso, would likely conclude that the calypso referred to the Claimant,” he said.
While Justice Seepersad noted that Rawlins was free to use Ishmael’s conduct as the subject of his calypso, he noted that it must adhere to the principles of fair comment.
“Unfortunately, and with evident malice, the First Defendant (Rawlins) embarked upon a scathing and caustic personal attack which impugned the Claimant’s honesty and integrity,” he said.
“He mounted a vicious and venomous attack and these words were plainly and obviously defamatory,” he added.
