(MISA/IFEX) – The semi-private newspaper, the “Swazi Observer”, has been sued for E1 million (approx. US$143,000) by a Member of Parliament for alleged defamation. In court papers, the MP, Maqhawe Mavuso, has claimed that the newspaper defamed him by publishing a story to the effect that he assaulted an ex-Clerk to Parliament, Ben Zwane, when […]
(MISA/IFEX) – The semi-private newspaper, the “Swazi Observer”, has been sued for E1 million (approx. US$143,000) by a Member of Parliament for alleged defamation.
In court papers, the MP, Maqhawe Mavuso, has claimed that the newspaper defamed him by publishing a story to the effect that he assaulted an ex-Clerk to Parliament, Ben Zwane, when this never happened.
He said the context of the article, published on June 4, 2005, had wronged and defamed him in that it was intended, and was understood by readers of the newspaper, to suggest that he had no respect for authority, was unethical, unprincipled and had no appreciation to follow laid-down procedures and regulations.
Mavuso further alleges that as a result of the defamation, his dignity had been damaged. He claims to have suffered damages in the amount of E1 million.
In defence, the “Observer” denies that the article had wronged and defamed Mavuso. The newspaper further states that the publication of the article did not lower Mavuso in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
“The article was published on a privileged occasion by the defendant in discharge of its duty to inform the public of newsworthy events, characters and conduct of a political nature, which has a corresponding duty to receive or be informed of such newsworthy items,” the newspaper states.
It further claims that it took reasonable steps to verify information by seeking comment from Mavuso who neither denied nor confirmed the allegations despite the fact that he and the then Clerk to Parliament had met the Speaker to resolve their dispute.
The newspaper said its evaluation of the facts and the response from the parties who commented, justified the publication of the article. The tone of the article, the “Observer” argues, was moderate and they were neither reckless nor negligent.
The case is yet to be argued in court.
