ANZ sues Moyo, Herald for defamation

ANZ sues Moyo, Herald for defamation

MOYO

• Mugabe spin doctor eyes presidency

• Deported Mugabe ally calls Moyo 'gay rant'

• Matsanga deported in Sky News row

• Moyo for President?

• Sky News debacle tears Zanu PF apart

• Moyo orders Sky News out, again

• Moyo 'to fill jails with lying journalists'

• Moyo clashes with Shamuyarira over Sky

• Moyo orders Sky News crew out

• Zim deports second sports journalist

• Telegraph journalist thrown out of Zim

By Zvamaida Murwira

THE Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) has instituted civil claims in the High Court involving more than $50 million against the Minister of Information and Publicity in the office of the President and Cabinet, Jonathan Moyo and Zimbabwe Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd, arising from stories carried by the publication which it contended were defamatory of the company.

ANZ, publishers of the defunct Daily News and the Daily News on Sunday, has also cited as a co-respondent, The Herald columnist, Nathaniel Manheru.
However, the real Manheru failed to appear in court in person but The Herald editor, Pikirayi Deketeke told the court that Manheru was a pseudonym used to run the column.

High Court judge, Justice Yunus Omerjee reserved judgement in the case saying he needed time to consider the evidence led by both counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

ANZ lawyer, senior counsel Advocate Adrian de Bourbon said Moyo had defamed the newspaper by cursing the ANZ publications last year in The Herald in several of his statements, which alleged that ANZ was publishing “anti-Zimbabwe stories meant to peddle British intelligence propaganda”.

He further averred that stories from The Herald suggesting that ANZ was British-owned would be a violation of provisions of Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) which forbids foreign ownership, thereby making the remarks defamatory of the ANZ.

De bourbon further said Moyo responded out of context to a story which had appeared in the Daily News in May last year alleging that there would be an economic package for Zimbabwe should President Robert Mugabe accede to a political settlement.

The lawyer accused Moyo of abusing his position as a government minister in order to pursue an agenda against the ANZ. “You are obviously making a political statement without any base because when a newspaper defames a person, it does not matter that one is a minister or an ordinary person but it is one’s legal right to seek recourse,” said Moyo who occasionally had a heated exchange with de Bourbon.

“I am not here as Jonathan Moyo the individual but I am here as a Minister of Information, I am here in my official capacity and in that capacity I should discharge my duty as what the President appointed me to do.”

Moyo further said it was strange that the ANZ was suing another newspaper when it could settle the issue by publishing an article countering it.

When asked how many cases he had instituted against ANZ, Moyo said: “I can’t remember because they are in the business of defaming people, they are too numerous to remember.”

In addressing the court, de Bourbon submitted that the respondents had failed to make a proper defence on a requirement for fair comment in that it should be fair, bona-fide, true and should be of public interest and based on facts which are generally known to the relevant audience.

“The witness we have today is arrogant and used the opportunity as a free licence to say what he wanted to say no matter how scandalous,” said de Bourbon. “He rumbled on why he denied the story.

“He talks of unethical pink journalism and Mr. Moyo would want us to believe that those journalists who write for pink newspapers are unprofessional without giving any shred of evidence.”

He said Moyo must be made to pay $25 million and Zimpapers $30 million.
However, Deketeke, who admitted that he had written the Nathaniel Manheru column complained about why he should be made to pay $100 000 in his personal capacity.

The respondent’s lawyer, Johannes Tomana urged the court to dismiss the claim saying the ANZ had failed to discharge the onus on them, that of proving their case.

He said the respondents had merely responded to a Daily News article, which he said claimed that there would be a transitional government in the country within six months from the date of its publication.

“The defendants demonstrated the fallacy carried by the plaintiff (ANZ) on May 17 2003 which said there would be a transitional government in six months and yet it’s now more than 12 months and no transitional government is in place as claimed in the article.”
From the Daily Mirror
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com