Luanda — Angola's Supreme Court today in Luanda considered as "defaming" and "injurious" the statements levelled against the courts and judges contained in an article published in the edition 42 of the privately owned "Semanário Angolense" weekly of December last year.
In the article entitled "land dispute in Viana unveils signs of judicial corrupution when even the justice seems bought", the article of the said weekly states, in defence of a citizen allegedly usurped of his lands and his rights to property rejected by the Courts.
According to the writer, the problem seems to rest with the Courts where the alleged victim's rights are being usurped to the benefit of someone who only has "more money and is not right." "A simple examination of the file could lead many people from those stances into jail.
From the first to the last degree..." reads the article that adds that it was said by the district attorney that the Supreme Court Judge, Belchior Samuco, who tried the appeal, had ordered the cancellation of the new file, on grounds that the case had already been tried and was thus over.
In face of this information, the journalist came to the conclusion that "this is one of those cases that should be analysed by the Magistracy Higher Council". Reacting to this, following an ordinary session on January 13 this year, the Supreme Court considers the right to freedom of expression of thought through the press as one of the valueable attainments of democracy and one of the instruments of development of the lawful State, and asserts that in terms of the law, no citizen should be injured in the exercice of this right.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
However, the Court states, in a communique, that the right provided by the constitution to express and publish ideas has the limits set by the Law, being one of them that of not offending the good name and reputation of others.
The Court states that the public function of information, right/duty to inform, can only be realised through the publication of true facts or justifiedly seen as facts, obtained through the honest exercice of the principle of the contradictory (hearing of all parties involved) that would permit one to learn that it was a cautious procedure and that the decisions contained in it had provisional character.
The Court communique stresses that the "objectively injurious" statements levelled against the courts and judges, could by no means be seen as free and appropriate criticism from the public function of informing as it contains the clear purpose of offending and not that of exposing, for correction, eventually irregular acts committed by the judicial magistrates.
In view of the newspaper's statements considered as "grave", the Court strongly repudiates this fact of "clear abuse of the press freedom" and reserves the right to take legal action on offenders.
