IPTL drags tabloids to court for defamation

THE Independent Power Tanzania Limited and two other plaintiffs have sued Mwananchi Communications Limited and editors of The Citizen and Mwananchi newspapers, demanding three billion US dollars (about 4.8tri/-), for publishing defamatory articles concerning them.

Through Bulwark Associates Advocates, the plaintiffs, also comprising the new owner of IPTL, Pan Africa Power Solutions Tanzania Limited (PAP) and its managing director, Mr Harbinder Singh Sethi, filed the suit at the High Court in Dar es Salaam last Friday.

The plaintiffs are demanding such amount, being the biggest ever in the country’s judiciary history as loss of expected income during operations of the power plant a result of publication of a series of alleged defamatory articles against them by the three defendants.

“In consequence of defamatory statements complained about by Plaintiffs, (their) reputation has been seriously damaged, occasioning colossal business and financial losses for which the Plaintiffs claims orders for compensation against the defendants jointly and severally,” reads part of the plaint of suit.

According to the plaint, at the material time the alleged defamatory articles were published by the defendants, the Plaintiffs were negotiating and, or transacting various business deals with various parties, including WARTSILA.

It is alleged that in such negations the parties were almost striking a deal for conversion of IPTL’s Tegeta Power Plant into a dual gas-and-HFO fired plant and for expansion of the said plant from 100MW to 500MW, a previously ordered by the High Court.

“The plaintiffs were also pursuing project financing facilities with various lenders all of which have been shattered following publication of the defamatory articles,” the plaintiffs claim in the suit filed by advocate Joseph Makandege from the said law firm.

Among articles complained of include that published in The Citizen on March 3, 2014, heading, “The acquisition of IPTL facilities has caused anxiety and raised questions in legal and government circles – with some analysts likening it with the $131 million External Payments Arrears (EPA) mind-boggling scam.”

In their natural and ordinary meaning, the plaintiffs claim that the words meant and were understood by an ordinary right thinking member of the society to mean that the plaintiffs were fraudsters, criminals, involved in dubious transactions with intent to defraud and were individuals of moral turpitude.

Another article was published the next day involving monies in the Escrow Account, which the plaintiffs claim had to mean IPTL is liquidated company or non-existing company, the transfer of its shares to PAP was illegal and they were all swindlers involved in illegal dealings and duped Tanesco and thereby the public.

In another article published in Mwananchi of March 5, 2014, titled “Giza nene Mabilioni ya Tanesco, IPTL” the plaintiffs allege that the article contained defamatory statements with the effect of showing that IPTL is a scammer that secures profits in a business in which it has not invested.

The plaintiffs claim further that such article was meant to be understood that they hatched a stratagem to steal taxpayer’s money under the pretext of generating and supplying power to the national corporation and that IPTL is dishonest.

They claim that articles complained of as cited in the plaint of the suit were all published on the front pages with banners insinuating moral turpitude and illegality on their part and that they were bribing politicians in Tanzania, while they knew and/or have reason to know that was not true.

“The defendants falsely published that the second plaintiff bought shares of the first plaintiff by using money deposited into the escrow account in the Bank of Tanzania, which money belonged to the first plaintiff and Tanesco, which they knew and/or have reason to know that was not true,” it is alleged.

As a result of the said defamatory articles, the defendants allegedly inflamed the public to hate and ridicule not only the plaintiffs but the public authority and they have been exposed to public ridicule, contempt and hence suffered considerable inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

The plaintiffs are, therefore, requesting the court to declare that the words complained of are defamatory of them, abusive of the Defendants’ media freedom enshrined under the law for having been actuated by malice as opposed to good faith and diligence expected of a diligent journalist.

They further request for orders that the articles published by defendants are seditious in substance, hence contravenes the laws of the land and the defendants should be compelled to write and publish an article on the front page of the two newspapers apology for the libelous articles.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek an order, restraining the defendants from publishing or causing to be published said or similar defamatory words against the plaintiffs and repeating the said libelous publications to the detriment of the plaintiffs.

Daily News: