Days after Liberian-Australian talk show host Susan Gbangaye was ordered by the Supreme Court of Western Australia to pay AUD 873,000 in damages for defamation, her husband, Stone Luckshine, took to Facebook with a cryptic yet bold message. His statement, though indirect, has sparked questions about what it means for Susan’s case and how the couple views the court’s decision.
He wrote:
“When a criminal triumphs over the truth in court, they celebrate quietly, knowing that a grand display could expose their secrets.
But we are watching. And when the time is right, we will uncover all their past wrongs and hidden evils.
Every person has a home, and every person will defend it when the line is crossed.
Believe me, I may stay silent, but that doesn’t mean I’m not watching and keeping record.”*
At first glance, the statement reads like a warning, perhaps not just to the plaintiff, Charlene Eminata Jabbie, but to anyone who supported the defamation case. His words strongly imply that he believes the court’s ruling was unjust and that the “real truth” was ignored or suppressed.
By calling the opposing party a “criminal” who has “triumphed over the truth,” he is rejecting the court’s decision, suggesting that the plaintiff has a questionable past or engaged in wrongdoing that was overlooked in the case. The phrase “we will uncover all their past wrongs and hidden evils“ further implies that they may have evidence or information yet to be revealed, possibly hinting at an appeal, a counter-lawsuit, or a public revelation in the future.
His closing remark, “I may stay silent, but that doesn’t mean I’m not watching and keeping record,“ reinforces this stance, indicating that while they may not be taking immediate action, they are gathering information and waiting for the right moment to respond.
As for Susan’s case From a legal standpoint, the court has already ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Unless Susan files an appeal or a separate legal action, she is required to pay the damages and abide by the court’s order, which includes restrictions on making further defamatory statements. However, public perception plays a significant role, especially given Susan’s platform and influence in the Liberian-Australian community.
This statement could have several impacts:
- For Susan’s supporters: It reinforces the belief that she was treated unfairly and that there’s more to the story than what was presented in court.
- For her critics: It could be seen as an attempt to undermine the legal process or even intimidate the plaintiff, which could have further consequences if interpreted as defamation or harassment.
- For the legal system: If new allegations or evidence emerge, it could potentially lead to further legal battles or reopen discussions about the case.
While this statement does not change the court’s ruling, it does signal that Susan and those close to her are not accepting the decision quietly. Whether this results in legal action, media exposure, or ongoing tension between the parties remains to be seen. One thing is clear, this case may be settled in court, but in the court of public opinion, the battle is still raging.
