Griffith accuses journalist and PR specialist of defamation; legal action filed

Home*Cover Story*News

Griffith accuses journalist and PR specialist of defamation; legal action filed

Two more people are being targeted by Police Commissioner Gary Griffith, over statements they made about his son Gary Griffith III and his short-lived inclusion on the National Men’s football team.

Attorneys for Griffith have sent pre-action protocol letters to public relations practitioner Dennise Demming and sport journalist Lasana Liburd accusing them of publishing defamatory statements about him.

The legal paperwork was reportedly sent on Friday.

Earlier this month, proceedings were filed on an ex-national cricketer for statements made on social media.

Griffith’s attorneys, Larry Lalla and Vashisht Seepersad said the statements on Liburd’s Wire868 website and Facebook page as well as Demming’s own website were “defamatory, offensive, unfounded and highly irresponsible.”

The statements relate to an opinion piece by Demming, published on June 24, on her website, and reposted on Wired868, headlined: “Demming: Today he used his power to try to get his son into national tea, what will it be tomorrow?”

Seepersad said the article implied that Griffith abused his office as commissioner to influence his son’s election on the national football team; was guilty of malfeasance; was no longer fit to perform his duties and should resign or be removed from office.

“This letter serves to inform you that the said defamatory statements contained in the said article and the innuendos of and concerning our client, resulted in him unjustifiably brought into odium and disrepute and suffering irreparable damage to his personal, professional, national and international reputation.”

Demming and Liburd were informed that as a “sensible alternative to long and expensive litigation,” the commissioner was prepared to accept, by way of settlement, an unqualified apology, an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or make similar claims, and the payment of a substantial sum in damages “to demonstrate the baselessness of the allegations” and compensate him for the injury he has suffered to his reputation.

They were given 14 days to respond.