Media under siege
Oarabile Mosikare | Friday April 29, 2016 13:48
In this tussle stands the powerful Collins Newman and Company (CNC) led by managing partner Parks Tafa and senior partner Rizwan Desai. The trio wants Business Weekly and Review, managing editor Tshireletso Motlogelwa and reporter Keabetswe Newel to stop publication of ‘defamatory’ articles about them.
Established in 1977, the firm prides itself as providing “premier experience in the corporate, commercial and mining fields and has become known for its dynamic, resolution focused and client oriented approach. The firm contributes a significant amount of experience in all areas of law in Botswana, acting for a broad spectrum of financial institutions, multinational and national corporations, and most state enterprises”.
CNC counts President Ian Khama, cabinet ministers and ‘the who is who’ of Botswana as clients. The ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) is also a client of the firm. On the other hand, Business Weekly and Review is a new entrant in the media industry in the country with two years of news headlines. It also prides itself, as the only business newspaper in Botswana co-owned by former Mmegi editor, Motlogelwa. In the current not so conducive media environment in Botswana, the company is amongst the 14 newspapers battling for the diminishing advertising revenue.
Motlogelwa and the company have provoked the wrong people. They were recently served with an urgent application to restrain them to stop further publication of defamatory articles about the law firm and its partners. The firm hired advocate Chris Loxton SC from Johannesburg, South Africa to lead its team of lawyers to fight an Motlogelwa and his company. And Motlogelwa could pay heavily for picking on the mighty CNC led by the powerful Tafa.
In this case before Justice Michael Leburu, Motlogelwa’s lone attorney Martin Dingake submitted that the matter was not urgent. In his answering affidavit Motlogelwa said the matter was not urgent and represented an abusive process. He said the harm, which the application sought to forestall if any, has already materialised. “The assertion that the first applicant forged documents, lied to the court, obstructed the interest of justice, abuse the court’s trust and committed perjury are not defamatory and are supported by the judgment of Justice Kebonang A.J,” said Motlogelwa.
He also said the respondents have no intention of contacting more of the applicants’ clients as they had gathered adequate information to run a news story on the responses of the applicants’ clients. He continued to say that on March 15, 2016 the High Court delivered its judgment in respect of the application for rescission. In the course of delivering its judgment it made damning findings against the first applicant, its senior associate Bokani Machinya, one of the senior partners being Desai and Bank of Botswana.
“In my mind, there is no doubt that Justice Kebonang found in his judgment read as a whole and that the first applicant acting on behalf of Bank of Botswana deliberately set to use the court process as an instrument of fraud by submitting forged documents. The first applicant is a partnership of lawyers and the partners are the second and third applicants,” said Motlogelwa.
In his replying affidavit Tafa said he has explained in detail why the matter was urgent and that the applicants had delayed bringing this application in the hope that the newspaper would desist in its defamatory publications. “It was only when that hope was dashed by the first respondents’ continued publication of false and defamatory statements concerning the applicants and their approaches to the first applicant’s clients, that the applicants launched the present application,” said Tafa.
He continued: “Suffice it to say that the argument appears to be that a victim of wrongdoing by several wrongdoers cannot choose to proceed against only one of them and must elect either to sue all or none. That is a preposterous position to take. One of the most important circumstances which persuaded the applicants to bring this application against the respondents and not to continue in their hope that the respondents would simply desist in their conduct was the growing campaign by the respondents to target the first applicants’ clients by sending them questionnaires which sought, on the basis of untruthful and defamatory statements, to persuade such clients to terminate their relationship with the first applicant… This attack constituted a malicious attempt on the part of the respondents to cut off of the first applicant.” Leburu will deliver judgment on May 12.