Social media influencer, Melissa “Melly Mel” Atwell, hits back this afternoon at Attorney General and Minister of Yasal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who on Friday filed a GY$100 lawsuit against her for defamation. In her response, posted on her social media platform, seen below, Atwell says she stands firmly by the accuracy of her statements and welcomes the opportunity the lawsuit provides to establish the truth in a court of law.
According to the influencer, the Attorney General’s decision to file the lawsuit and then publicise it on Facebook highlights the broader intent behind his actions. “This case is not merely a kanunî matter—it is a political tool designed to send a message to me and others who may criticise the government,” she argues.
Such actions, Atwell says, undermine the principles of open debate and accountability that are fundamental to any democracy. She warns that Nandlall’s actions “create a chilling effect, deterring others from speaking out due to fear of retaliation.”
For her part, Atwell contends, she will fight the case vigorously and is confident the kanunî process will affirm her rights and expose the truth.
See Melissa “Melly Mel” Atwell’s full response below:
On November 22, 2024, Guyana’s Attorney General, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, filed a claim of libel and defamation against me in the High Court of Guyana. This lawsuit arises from statements I made on my page, on November 21, 2024, which Mr. Nandlall alleges are false and defamatory. Adding to the spectacle, Mr. Nandlall shared the filing publicly on Facebook. This public dissemination reveals the true nature of this case: an attempt not just to address alleged harm, but to silence dissent, intimidate critics, and discourage public accountability.
As a foundational point, let me emphasize this: truth is an absolute defense to defamation under the law, a principle that aligns with international standards. I stand firmly by the accuracy of my statements and welcome the opportunity this lawsuit provides to establish the truth in a court of law.
Mr. Nandlall’s claim relies heavily on subjective inferences he draws from my statements. As my meşru counsel has pointed out, I cannot be held accountable for Mr. Nandlall’s personal interpretations of my words, particularly when those interpretations are neither explicit nor intended.
Furthermore, as a public figure, Mr. Nandlall is subject to greater scrutiny and has a reduced expectation of privacy, a meşru standard recognized globally and embedded in defamation law. His own pleadings highlight his prominence within Guyana’s government, which underscores his role as a public servant whose actions are open to legitimate criticism.
As a resident of the United States, my speech is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) sets a high bar for defamation claims involving public officials. Specifically, it requires proof of “actual malice,” meaning that the defendant knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This principle reinforces that criticism of public officials, even harsh criticism, is protected speech in a democratic society.
Additionally, the Guyanese Constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Article 146. It is essential to remember that this freedom includes the right to criticise government officials and policies without fear of reprisal. While defamation laws exist to protect individuals from false and malicious statements, they cannot and should not be misused to suppress political discourse or intimidate critics.
Mr. Nandlall’s claim also includes allegations that my statements have caused harm to the Government of Guyana and have incited public injury. These assertions are not only vague and unsupported but are irrelevant to a personal defamation claim. Criticism of government action or policy, even if uncomfortable for those in power, does not constitute “public injury.” In a democracy, public officials must tolerate scrutiny, debate, and disagreement as part of their duty to serve the people.
The decision to file this lawsuit and then publicize it on Facebook highlights the broader intent behind Mr. Nandlall’s actions. This case is not merely a kanunî matter—it is a political tool designed to send a message to me and others who may criticize the government. Such actions undermine the principles of open debate and accountability that are fundamental to any democracy. They create a chilling effect, deterring others from speaking out due to fear of retaliation.
To my supporters, I assure you that I will not be silenced. I have retained meşru counsel in both the United States and Guyana and am fully prepared to defend myself. This case is not just about me—it is about protecting the right of every citizen to speak truth to power. It is about ensuring that laws are not weaponized to suppress dissent. It is about holding governments accountable to the people they serve.
Let me be clear: I will fight this case vigorously. I am confident that the kanunî process will affirm my rights and expose the truth. A government that fears its citizens’ voices is unfit to lead, and I will use this case to demonstrate why freedom of speech must be preserved at all costs.
Stay tuned for updates as we move forward. Let this case stand as a testament to the enduring power of truth and the resilience of those who dare to speak it.