(MISA/IFEX) – Supreme Court President Mario Mangaze is suing the weekly newspaper “Zambeze” for libel. The lawsuit arises out of an article published in the 10 April 2003 issue of “Zambeze”, in which the paper suggested that Mangaze had interfered in the decision of a lower court for material benefit. Mangaze reportedly phoned Judge Wilson […]
(MISA/IFEX) – Supreme Court President Mario Mangaze is suing the weekly newspaper “Zambeze” for libel. The lawsuit arises out of an article published in the 10 April 2003 issue of “Zambeze”, in which the paper suggested that Mangaze had interfered in the decision of a lower court for material benefit.
Mangaze reportedly phoned Judge Wilson Dambo, who was presiding over a Maputo urban district court, when it was feared that the judge was about to order the seizure of vehicles belonging to the National Directorate of Mapping and Land Tenure (DINAGECA). Money from the sale of the vehicles would have been used to compensate a citizen whose car had been damaged in an accident involving a DINAGECA vehicle.
Mangaze says he had no intention of interfering in Dambo’s decisions and was merely warning him not to commit an illegality. Vehicles owned by DINAGECA (or any other state department) are public property and therefore cannot be seized and sold off.
The “Zambeze” article, relying on anonymous sources, claimed that Mangaze had intervened on behalf of DINAGECA, because the DINAGECA director had illicitly provided Mangaze with large amounts of land in Catuane, Maputo province, at no cost.
Mangaze’s lawyer, Albano Silva, claims Mangaze has paid for the land. In a letter published in the 16 April issue of “Zambeze”, announcing intent to sue, Silva accused the newspaper of rushing into print without checking its sources.
According to Silva, certain documents in the DINAGECA Maputo provincial services refute the anonymous claims against Mangaze. “By way of example, I cite the various receipts now in my possession – and you will have a chance to see them in court – which prove payment by Dr Mario Mangaze, in installments of tens of millions of meticais, to the provincial DINAGECA services,” said Silva.
The receipt for the last payment is dated 24 February. The demarcation of Mangaze’s land in Catuane, said Silva, was something that had been decided upon a long time ago, and had nothing to do with the attempt to seize the DINAGECA vehicles. Silva suggested that “Zambeze” should have also inquired about the vehicles. The paper would then have found that “the attempt at confiscation, which you say my client aborted, sought to deprive the state – and not the director of DINAGECA – of three mini-buses and four jeeps. These are goods of public utility, exempt from confiscation, acquired in 2001-02 from the taxes that citizens pay,” Mangaze’s lawyer stated. The total value of these vehicles, Silva added, is US$210,000. They were to be seized to compensate for damage done to a car valued at only US$853.
Silva warned “Zambeze” that it will have to prove in court “that the defence of the state, and of the prestige of the courts, which were always at the root of the decisions, recommendations and advice that Dr Mario Mangaze gives in his day-to-day work, are paid for, not by his salary, but by favours from DINAGECA.”
Since Mangaze’s intervention had rescued state, rather than personal, property from confiscation, “Zambeze” would also have to explain how this could possibly benefit the director of DINAGECA, Silva argued.
The concession of the Catuane land to Mangaze was initiated in 1999. Silva therefore suggested that “Zambeze” would also have to convince a court that in that year Mangaze somehow guessed that in 2003, there would be a compensation suit against DINAGECA, in which he could intervene to repay the favours allegedly granted to him by this body.
In response, “Zambeze” director Salomao Moyana claims that the newspaper attempted to confirm its story with DINAGECA, but ran into a brick wall, as neither DINAGECA national director Jose Mucumbo nor Mangaze were willing to speak to the paper.
Mucumbo agreed to receive the “Zambeze” reporter, but started the interview by demanding the names of the DINAGECA workers who had given information to the paper. The reporter refused to reveal his sources. Confidentiality of sources is a normal part of journalism ethics and is also enshrined in the Mozambican press law.
Mucumbo then asked for a list of questions. The reporter dictated 11 questions, which included the allegations against Mangaze and a specific request to see receipts for any payments made by Mangaze. Other questions concerned allegations of thefts at DINAGECA and of illicit enrichment by Mucumbo. Instead of replying to any of the questions, Mucumbo stated, “Affairs of a state institution are not discussed in the press.”
“Our reporter’s insistence that the director should change his mind was to no avail,” Moyana said. “[Mucumbo] purely and simply refused to cooperate.”
The “Zambeze” reporter noted that the whole encounter was filmed. “If Silva does not believe the ‘Zambeze’ account of the meeting, he can check against ‘the secret and illegal’ film made by DINAGECA,” Moyana suggested.
According to Moyana, the paper also repeatedly tried to speak to Mangaze, but without success. Despite promises from Supreme Court officials that Mangaze would phone the newspaper back, by the time it went to print, “Zambeze” still did not have his version and decided to go ahead with the story.
The newspaper “never had any intention of offending or defaming when it investigated public figures of our country,” the newspaper director concluded. “In this case, we just want the relevant people to collaborate, to clear up the allegations hanging over one of the leaders of our state. We think we took all the steps that were ethically necessary.”
