THE Lusaka High Court has dismissed an application by Patriotic Front (PF) president Michael Sata for an injunction to stop the TIMES newspaper from publishing articles about him.
Lusaka High Court Judge Evans Hamaundu said in a ruling that he had declined to grant an injunction sought by Mr Sata, who wanted an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Times from publishing what he alleged were defamatory words concerning him.
Mr Sata had said in the affidavit in support of his application that the Times published articles that concerned him in several of its editions in February this year.
The affidavit said the words in those articles were understood to mean that he was not a law abiding citizen, that he had a criminal record, that he was not a sincere Christian and that he was a dishonest person without integrity.
Mr Sata wanted the defendant, Times, to be restrained by way of a court order from repeating the publication of defamatory matters because he was likely to suffer irreparable injury as his political ambitions and standing in the Catholic Church could not be atoned for by damages.
The Times, through their lawyers Brian Singine and Joseph Musonda, filed an affidavit in opposition to the application saying that the plaintiff, Mr Sata was a president of the main opposition political party in Zambia and was for that reason a well-known public figure whose conduct the general public were entitled to comment on.
“The defendant published the articles complained of in the discharge of a public duty to the general public,” the affidavit says.
It said the Times were not the originator of the information contained in the articles and prior to the publication of the articles the defendant had contacted Mr Sata for his reaction.
At the hearing, Mr Sata’s lawyer John Mulwila said there were serious matters to be tried namely, whether or not the plaintiff was dismissed from the police because of a criminal offence and whether or not he led a polygamous life.
The court was asked to grant an injunction if there was prima facie evidence that the statements made were not true.
The plaintiff’s contention was that when it came to matters concerning a political career, the issue of damages would not suffice and only a freezing order would do.
In response, Times counsels argued that the question of whether an injunction ought to be granted or not was to be determined by reference to the circumstances and the state of the law.
“An injunction will not be granted if it will be oppressive to the defendant. The defendant will be able to substantiate the material complained of once the matter proceeds to trial.”
The lawyers argued that the defendant has not continued to publish the same material but has published different articles on different subjects.
An award of damages would sufficiently indemnify the plaintiff if he succeeded in that action.
Mr Justice Hamaundu said in his ruling that in such a matter, the newspaper’s right to freedom of speech should be considered.
He said the articles complained of could be defended successfully by the defence at trial and to satisfy himself, he wanted to closely look at the articles complained of.
The first article, the judge said, showed that it was a report by the Times of words said at a Press conference by former president Frederick Chiluba who was also responding to utterances that Mr Sata had said about him and his wife.
The rest of the articles showed that they were reports of what other people had said and in those articles, Mr Sata was quoted as having made some response or other to the utterances.
“Clearly, the defendant was merely disseminating what other people including the plaintiff were uttering.
However, the defendant was making attempts to balance the utterances by seeking the reaction of the plaintiff,” Mr Justice Hamaundu said.
He said the matter was an appropriate case where the defendant’s rights should remain protected and for that reason, he declined to grant the injunction sought.
[Times of Zambia]
