_{Andre Gray}

BELIZE CITY, March 6, 2025

A defamation suit is currently making its way through the Belize High Court against News Director Jules Vasquez, cited in the claim form as trading as Channel 7 Media House. The latter is operated by Tropical Vision Limited. The claim was brought by Belizean American Andre Gray who is being represented by his brother, attorney Ian Gray. The attorney told Amandala that another claim, about 99% similar to the Channel 7 claim is about to begin as well against the principals behind Love News at RSV Media Center, and that action was averted by Brent Toombs, who settled out of court about a year ago. That settlement, according to attorney Gray, included an apology on Toombs’ Facebook page. 

The suits stem from news reporting and commentary made during Andre Gray’s visit to Belize in January of 2023 when he was promoting his professional achievements. In the 8-page claim form dated December 23, 2024, Andre Gray as the Claimant claims aggravated damages, special damages and punitive damages “arising out of defamation and malicious falsehood. Through several Televised TV programs and Social Media postings which were aired or and published by the Defendant which defamed the Claimant under the Defamation Act 2022.” He adds in the claim form that the postings eventually went viral internationally, and as a result, his character was damaged and injured. Apart from interest and costs, he also seeks an injunction to restrain the Defendant and his agents or servants from further publishing “the same or similar or any similar libel upon the Claimant.”

In the statement of claim accompanying the claim form, Andre Gray points to news reports and talk shows aired between January 15 and 18, 2023, and December 30 and 31, 2023. The statement of claim reads, “…the Defendant, falsely and maliciously aired television shows on the nightly news, and on the Sunup 7 at 7:00 TV show,

“So who really is Andre Gray? Is he indeed a great inventor who is responsible for the birth of social media, downloadable apps and an entire genre of science fiction? Or is he just the inventor of a very elaborate (sic) rouse?”

Gray argues that the natural and ordinary meaning of those words are: “(a) That the Claimant is a fraud; (b) That the Claimant has made untruthful claims about his awards and international accomplishments; (c) That the Claimant did not attend The Julliard School – music technology studies, New York City; (d) That the Claimant is a grifter; (e) That the Claimant is a pay to play participator, and (f) That the only thing the Claimant appears to have invented is his own story…”

Gray affirms that the words were calculated to disparage and discredit him, and further, that they were malicious and were intended to damage his reputation and character. He argues that the Defendant made his publications knowing that they were defamatory “or with reckless disregard as to whether or not they were defamatory of the Claimant or without any proper inquiry as to whether or not the said words were defamatory of the Claimant.”

Gray informed the court that pre-action letters dated November 28 and December 28, 2023 were ignored by the defendant who failed to provide any apology. He affirms that he is “and was at all relevant times an independent computer software developer, author, publisher, and internationally known inventor and visionary,” has over 16 globally recognized inventions and has authored more than 10 books.

A defence was entered on behalf of the Defendant by attorneys Godfrey Smith SC, Hector Guerra and Edgar G. Lord denying the defamation claim. They noted on their client’s behalf that based on diligent research and all reasonable inquiries, assertions made by the Claimant could not be substantiated. In the case of the number of books published, the Defendant notes that a search revealed that only four titles ascribed to the Claimant are publicly available on Amazon, with three having just been published in late 2024. The Defendant also affirmed that there is no evidence to substantiate the Claimant’s claims of 16 globally recognized inventions. The defence states, “Tropical Vision Limited’s broadcasts highlighted that the platforms conferring certain awards lacked credibility and were recently established, thereby fairly and reasonably questioning the authenticity of the awards.” The Defendant denies that Tropical Vision Limited suggested or implied Andre Gray was a fraud. The defence explains, “Tropical Vision Limited’s broadcasts presented factual information regarding the sources of the Claimant’s accolades and raised legitimate questions as fair comment about the credibility of those sources.” Furthering the argument of fair commentary, the defence outlines that the Claimant declined an interview to Channel 7, however, they still included his responses given on other media houses. Tropical Vision Limited affirms that they therefore ensured Gray’s position was represented in the broadcasts.

Another argument in Tropical Vision’s defence is hinged on qualified privilege affirming that the broadcasts addressed matters of significant public interest and were disseminated in the context of responsible and investigative journalism. The defence filing reads, “Tropical Vision Limited acted in good faith, conducting thorough research before publication. The broadcasts relied on publicly available information, credible sources, and reasonable inquiries into the Claimant’s assertions, ensuring accuracy and fairness in reporting.” The media households that the publications “were not motivated by malice or ill will” and therefore had no defamatory intent.

Despite being requested to retract the statements and to apologize, the Claimant says the Defendant has refused to do so. Instead, Vasquez moved to have the matter struck out against him in his personal capacity. On February 24, 2025, he signed an affidavit in support of the application for strike out. He argued that he should not be held personally liable for statements made by a corporate entity, that is, Tropical Vision Limited, because he personally did not make or publish the statements. The argument is that the legal personality of Tropical Vision Limited is distinct and separate from his. Vasquez also sought that Gray be ordered to pay his costs. However, Justice Tawanda Hondora dismissed Vasquez’ application. The strike out application was heard by Justice Hondora on February 26. The judge has urged both parties to reach a settlement and report back on progress.