Maravi

Court bans The Post from covering Chiluba’s case

Court bans The Post from covering Chiluba’s case
Written by Staff Reporter
Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:40:45 AM

NDOLA High Court Deputy Registrar Jones Chinyama sitting as magistrate in Lusaka yesterday banned The Post from covering the theft case of former president Frederick Chiluba.

This is in a case where Chiluba is charged with former Access Financial Services Limited (AFSL) directors Faustin Kabwe and Aaron Chungu with theft of about US $500,000.

Magistrate Chinyama made the order following an application by Chiluba's lawyer Robert Simeza who expressed concern about an article in yesterday's Post, saying Chiluba had refused to swear on the Bible to tell the truth.

"This publication is not a version of the truth," Simeza said. "My client has not refused to swear to tell the truth, nothing of that sort happened in this court. We do concede that it's in the public interest that proceedings before you are reported. But the reporters have the duty to report accurately, to report truthfully."

Simeza argued that the publication at a time when Chiluba was still on the stand was clearly meant to affect the conduct of his defence.

"How does he continue to testify before you to defend himself against the allegation before him when the public and indeed himself are being told that he refused to swear to tell the truth?" Simeza asked. "What the publication is saying is that whatever he is telling you is not the truth, that is why he feared to hold the Bible. This is highly prejudicial. How then does he conduct his defence? It is our submission that you have the duty to protect the integrity of these proceedings, to protect the accused person so that he is at liberty to marshal his defence in the manner he deems fit."

Simeza submitted that every accused person that appeared before court had various choices as to how he wanted to conduct his defence.

"We all know that every accused person that appears before you has various choices as to how he is to conduct his defence and if he chooses to proceed in the manner he has decided, he cannot be a subject of ridicule. We would, in the premise, seek your indulgence for the sake of the proceedings to summon the reporter to show cause why they cannot be cited," Simeza submitted.

He said in the event that the court could not proceed in the manner he prayed for, he would at least pray that a serious warning be issued that would equally help other reporters covering the proceedings.

He said reporters were not allowed to give their own interpretation of the proceedings that were still in court.

In making the ruling, magistrate Chinyama said he had heard the application by the defence and had skimmed through the contents of the article at issue.

He said he agreed with Simeza that the article was misleading and highly prejudicial.

Chinyama explained that according to the law, an accused person had a right to defend himself in any way he deemed fit. He said just like he had ruled on similar matters, the contempt in this case was contempt outside and what Simeza asked for was not tenable.

At this point, magistrate Chinyama asked if there was anyone from The Post in the courtroom and the author stood up. He told the author that the conduct was unacceptable and ordered her to leave the courtroom.

Chiluba's case will be on the whole of this week.

When Chiluba opened his defence on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, Simeza informed the court that his client would give an unsworn statement. The following day, The Post carried a story headlined "Chiluba refuses to swear to tell the truth" with a kicker that read: "Chiluba fails to hold the Bible and say: ‘I swear by the Almighty God that the evidence I shall give in this court shall be truth and nothing but the truth and so help me God’.

The first five paragraphs of the story explained that an accused person had an option to give a statement either under oath, unsworn statement or by electing to remain silent.

The article further explained that when a person chose to give an unsworn statement, they were in a way avoiding cross-examination in that their evidence could not be questioned and verified through cross-examination like what happens when a witness takes oath.

The article also reproduced the oath taken in court before giving evidence. The story explained that by not taking oath, Chiluba avoided cross-examination. It added that Chiluba, who had confessed that he was an anointed Christian, opted not to swear on the Bible. It is these contents that angered Chiluba, thus making the application in question to the court.

Labels: AARON CHUNGU, ACCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, CHILUBA, COURTS, FAUSTIN KABWE, THE POST

posted by MrK @ 9:40 AM