How the Law and the Court are continuing to circle around politicians

The judgment in Richard Frederick v. Allen Chastanet [2025] illustrates how the Judiciary has increasingly circled around politicians, treating words once used casually in the political lexicon to delegitimise opponents as carrying serious legal weight in the court of law. Politicians, recognising the courts as arenas for political battles, now deploy litigation as part of their strategy.

This does not alter their electability, since the court of public opinion remains the ultimate tribunal, where verdicts are rendered without evidence and reputations can be destroyed by perception alone. Yet politicians are justified in turning to the courts to seek damages for defamation and to salvage their reputations.

In this way, the Judiciary enforces accountability, reminding politicians that loose, opinionated rhetoric cannot substitute for fact. The deeper question, however, is whether citizens and institutions will leave accountability solely to the courts, or whether they will reclaim and expand their democratic role beyond the ballot box.

Before addressing that broader issue, it is necessary to examine the nature, lessons, and implications of Justice Pariagsingh’s ruling in Frederick v. Chastanet.

The Legal Framework

For a defamation claim to succeed under Saint Lucian law, a four-prong test must be satisfied. Article 917A of the Civil Code imports the UK Defamation Act 2013, which requires:

1. The claimant, whether natural or juridical, must have locus standi.
2. The statement must be defamatory – defined in Section 1 of the Act as publication causing or likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
3. The statement must refer to the claimant.
4. The statement must have been published or communicated to a third party.

In this case, Richard Frederick alleged that Allen Chastanet produced a video accusing him of corruption, dishonesty, misleading Parliament, abusing office, and being unfit for public office. Frederick claimed these words caused serious harm to his personal and political reputation and sought damages, an injunction and aggravated damages.

Chastanet countered that his remarks were not defamatory but constituted “legitimate political criticism concerning the sale of public land”. The judge rightly noted that while such allegations fall within robust political discourse, they must still conform to the law of defamation. Chastanet’s defences were truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest.

Issues Before the Court

Stephenson King, testifying for the claimant, contradicted Chastanet’s assertions. He noted that Council Committee records showed no objection to the sale of Parcel 50 to Mr. Gajadhar, and that no plans existed for a marine police base at the site at the time of sale. This raised the question: where did Chastanet obtain the claim that SLASPA had earmarked the land?

Chastanet conceded that the land need not have been tendered, and even if it had, it was not required to be sold to the highest bidder. His criticism might have been stronger had he argued for reform of tendering laws to ensure greater transparency and value in government property sales. Instead, he asserted opinion as fact.

The managing directors of SLASPA and the NHC confirmed that no plans existed for acquisition, no objection was lodged, and the sale was approved in accordance with Board processes. Chastanet himself admitted he was unaware of the statutory framework governing NHC’s decisions. How, then, could he claim tendering laws were breached?

The credibility of these witnesses was reinforced by the fact that they were appointed under Chastanet’s own administration.

The court’s broader point was that politicians too often treat commentary as fact. While opinion is permissible in policy debate, it becomes problematic when accusations of corruption are made without evidence, damaging reputations and international goodwill. Justice Pariagsingh underscored this when he found no factual basis for imputations of corruption or dishonesty. Criticism without proof, he noted, is conjecture or political rhetoric, not fact.

The Weight of the Word ‘Corruption’

What is troubling in Chastanet’s view is his attempt to numb the effect of the word corruption, as though it carries no stain capable of jeopardising political careers or reputations. Overuse trivialises the term, eroding its meaning and fostering public cynicism. If everyone is branded corrupt, the word loses its definitional force, discouraging honest individuals from entering politics while emboldening those who are truly corrupt.

Politicians sensationalise by invoking corruption rather than using more precise terms such as maladministration. This reflects a citizenry drawn to name‑calling and vitriol rather than a battle of ideas. Every word has a meaning, and stripping corruption of its legal and technical weight for popular effect undermines public trust.

The court rightly found the words defamatory. The reasonable reader would not interpret corruption as mere colourful criticism but as carrying serious connotations of misuse of office, abuse of public trust and improper enrichment.

Serious Harm

To establish defamation, the court considered whether the statements caused serious harm, drawing on UK and Caribbean jurisprudence. Serious harm requires evidence of publication scale, gravity of meaning, claimant’s standing, and actual or probable impact.

• Reach: The Facebook video metrics showed it reached a significant audience.
• Gravity: Allegations of corruption and lying are among the gravest imputations against a sitting Minister, striking at integrity and fitness for public life.

The judge distinguished between the court of public opinion, where such words are thrown about indiscriminately, and the court of law, where they carry precise ramifications. Politicians must therefore be more measured in their condemnations, reserving theatrics for the opera rather than governance.

The Defence of Truth

On every count, the defence failed:

• Frederick had not lied to Parliament; his statements on land subdivision were interpretations, not falsehoods.
• Chastanet did not verify the valuation he claimed was too low, nor did he provide expert evidence to rebut it.
• No evidence showed SLASPA intended to acquire the land.
• Chastanet admitted he had no proof of personal gain, a key component of corruption.

Honest Opinion and Public Interest

The defence of honest opinion requires that a statement be recognised as opinion, based on true or privileged facts, and one that an honest person could hold. Chastanet could not rely on this defence because he presented his remarks as fact, not opinion. His conclusive language – “this was a blatant act of corruption” – was not excusable as political rhetoric.

The defence of public interest was similarly unavailable. While the matter clearly concerned public interest, the court held that Chastanet made serious factual allegations without proof. He failed to act responsibly, neglecting to verify information with other sources.

Damages

The court emphasised that damages serve to vindicate reputation, compensate for injury to feelings, and console for harm suffered. Frederick argued the allegations “cut to the core of his reputation as a Minister”. The court agreed, noting aggravating factors: Chastanet’s refusal to apologise, persistence in unsubstantiated claims, accusatory tone, and conduct during litigation.

Although Frederick did not prove actual financial loss, the court awarded $60,000 in recognition of humiliation and embarrassment. Ministers’ reputations and integrity, the court stressed, are central to their role. In mitigation, the court acknowledged that political speech enjoys some latitude, that Chastanet genuinely believed his criticisms, and that the remarks were made in a political context.

The Role of Citizens and Institutions

Citizens must demand evidence when politicians accuse each other of corruption. Democracy depends on a well‑informed population with access to reliable information. Allowing allegations to circulate unchecked undermines public trust. Citizens should press for reforms that require officials to substantiate claims, and advocate for a new ethos of anti‑corruption rooted in citizen‑driven principles, processes and legislation.

The Freedom of Information Act is one necessary step, granting citizens the right to request vital government information. Beyond this, there must be consensus on key data that should be mandatorily public, communicated in accessible, culturally relevant ways.

Politicians must also adopt a proactive ethic of transparency, providing information on key decisions without being prompted or forced by leaks. In colloquial terms, they should “Pran douvan avan douvan pran’w”.

This democratic ethos responds to the shortcomings of Westminster governance in the Caribbean, where citizen participation is often reduced to a vote every five years. As Dr. Tennyson Joseph observed, representative democracy can alienate citizens as much as factory work alienates the labourer from the finished product. Maurice Bishop called the vote “two‑second democracy every five years”, and Rousseau described it as both an exercise of and a surrender of sovereignty. All three point toward participatory democracy, where sovereignty is retained through continuous engagement.

Joseph further noted that all 20th‑century political organisations, whether Lenin’s vanguard party or liberal democracy, are forms of representation in which a few act for the many. Rousseau argued for participatory democracy, and thinkers like Toffler saw new technologies as enabling deeper citizen involvement. Even the radio call‑in programme hinted at these possibilities; the internet now makes them far greater.

Citizens should also use petitions before Parliament and encourage representatives to pose Questions to Ministers, strengthening transparency and accountability.

Finally, the media must play its role. Legislation and toolkits will fail if the press is comatose, compromised, or consumed by sensationalism. A vigilant, skilled media must research, verify and challenge assertions, particularly when corruption is alleged, so that citizens can distil truth from rhetoric and understand the implications for governance and public trust.