By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Senior reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net 

WORKS Minister Desmond Bannister wants former Bahamas Power & Light chairwoman Darnell Osborne to provide “strict proof” that he acted with malicious intent when he discussed her departure from BPL’s board in 2018, according to a defence filed in the Supreme Court last month.

The defence represents one of the government’s first substantive filings in the matter after attorney Alfred Sears brought lawsuits on behalf of Mrs Osborne, Nicola Thompson and Nick Dean, the three former BPL board members who controversially left their posts in 2018.

The lawsuits involve claims of wrongful dismissal, defamation and misfeasance in public office.

A defence of Mr Bannister was filed on February 15, 2021, nearly two weeks after Mr Sears filed a re-amended statement of claim on January 28.

Days after Mrs Osborne’s faction left BPL’s board in 2018, Mr Bannister made comments to reporters about Mrs Osborne that are at the centre of her defamation claims. Some of those comments were made outside Cabinet.

However, Mrs Osborne, according to the defence filed, will be asked to provide strict proof that Mr Bannister said what was reported in the media and that he intended for the comments to be published through various media platforms.

“…(Mr Bannister) and (the Attorney General) will aver that (Mr Bannister) attended Cabinet for a Cabinet meeting in his capacity as the Minister of Public Works and that on leaving Cabinet he was approached by reporters and questioned on matters concerning the operation of the boards of the (BEC) and (BPL). (Mr Bannister) will aver that he responded to the specific questions put to him. (Mr Bannister) denies that he authorised the publications of any such words and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof of any such allegation,” the defence says.

“(Mr Bannister) and (the Attorney General) deny the plaintiff’s allegation of malice as alleged against (Mr Bannister) in paragraph 17 of the plaintiff’s re-amended statement of claim or at all and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof of such malice and/or alleged malicious intent.”

Mrs Osborne’s statement of claim says that the “natural, ordinary or inferential” meanings of Mr Bannister’s comments about her is that she was dishonest, disruptive, incompetent, “impaired the success of BPL’s board,” “compromised the public’s interests,” and misappropriated “BPL funds for her own personal use”.

The comments, according to the statement of claim, also mean that she “deliberately or recklessly failed to authorise the purchase of turbocharges,” “thereby causing economic loss to BPL, ““increasing load shedding” and “compromising the delivery of electricity to customers”.

While the defendants deny this claim, the defence says: “If and insofar as the precise words spoken by (Mr Bannister) on the said occasion are proven by the plaintiff and insofar as the said proven spoken words bear the natural, ordinary or inferential meanings alleged or any meaning which is defamatory of the plaintiff, (Mr Bannister and the Attorney General) will aver that the said questions posed by reporters on the said occasion and (Mr Bannister’s) said resultant responses thereto were fair comments upon a matter of public interest, namely the operation and performance of the boards of (BEC and BPL) and the conduct of the members of the board.”

The defence provides context for the controversy, saying the country had been experiencing “unprecedented power outages which resulted in significant consumer discontent and public outcry,” information about the problems concerning the functioning of the BEC and BPL boards had been placed in the public domain, and the issues concerning the functioning of the boards was a matter of public interest.

“Further or alternatively,” the defence then says, “if and insofar as the precise words spoken by (Mr Bannister) on the said occasion are proven by the plaintiff, and insofar as the said proven spoken words bear the natural, ordinary or inferential meanings alleged or any meaning which is defamatory of the plaintiff, they are true in substance and in fact.”

According to the defence, the defendants want Mrs Osborne to show strict proof that she has suffered the “injury, public scandal, contempt, distress and embarrassment” that is alleged in her statement of claim.

They deny she suffered special damages and want her to prove that she did.

Mrs Osborne, according to the statement of claim, is seeking special damages of $588,8000.

The defendants deny entering into an agreement or contract with Mrs Osborne.

Instead, the defence says Mr Bannister appointed Mrs Osborne to the board of BEC by a letter dated July 7, 2017 and she was subsequently appointed executive chairperson of BPL by a letter dated January 5, 2018.

“(Mr Bannister and the Attorney General) at the trial of this action will rely on the said letter and the provisions of the Electricity Act for their full terms and effect,” the defence says.