Maputo — The appeal, on procedural grounds, against a libel suit moved by Nhimpine Chissano, the businessman son of President Joaquim Chissano, against journalist Marcelo Mosse and the now-defunct newsheet "Metical", will now be heard by the Mozambican Supreme Court.
The libel case arises out of an article concerning Chissano Jr that was published in "Metical" in February 2001, when Mosse was editing the paper. This article cited an official in President Chissano's office denying that anyone had paid bail to release Nhimpine who had supposedly been detained in South Africa.
The prosecution also threw in articles that appeared in the South African weekly, the "Mail and Guardian", and the Portuguese paper "Expresso", which claimed that Nhimpine Chissano had been arrested in possession of cocaine. This charge is vehemently denied by Chissano. He maintains that he was neither detained in South Africa, nor was he transporting any illegal substance.
The "Mail and Guardian" article appeared under the byline of a South African journalist, while the "Expresso" piece was written by Mosse.
Nhimpine Chissano is seeking damages equivalent to 78,000 US dollars - and even though "Metical" is no longer published, any damages would come from its owners, who happen to be two young children, Ibo and Milena Cardoso, the 13 year old son and six year old daughter of murdered journalist Carlos Cardoso, who was the founding editor and sole owner of "Metical".
The libel case should be heard at a Maputo urban district court, but the lawyer for the Cardoso family, Lucinda Cruz, successfully argued against a trial on procedural grounds. Her appeal against the irregularities in the prosecution case was heard by the Maputo City court in late May.
When the City Court rejected Cruz's arguments, she applied for leave to appeal still higher, to the Supreme Court. That application, Cruz told AIM on Monday, has now been granted.
Cruz has three arguments as to why Nhimpine Chissano's suit should be thrown out. One of these hinges on the date when the accusation was submitted. Under Mozambican libel rules, the court gives the prosecution lawyer permission to proceed, and he then has five days in which to submit a formal libel accusation to the court.
Cruz believes she has clear evidence that Nhimpine Chissano's lawyer, Antonio Balate, submitted the accusation a day late. The notification to Balate left the court on 5 September, but he only delivered his accusation on 11 September - a gap of six, not five, days.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Balate's argument is that he only received the notification on 6 September, and so he was within the time limit.
The City Court ruled that Balate's accusation was submitted on time - a decision which Cruz believes is a blow against due process, and a potentially dangerous precedent.
The second defence argument was that, since libel is a criminal matter in Mozambique, the Public Prosecutor's Office must give its opinion. The accusation by Nhimpine Chissano's lawyer was not sufficient. Cruz argued that the Public Prosecutor could support the private prosecution, draw up separate charges, or declare there was no case to answer - he could not simply keep silent.
Again the City Court ruled against Cruz, and considered that there was no obligation on the Public Prosecutor to take a position. And again Cruz disagrees on the interpretation of the law.
The third ground for appeal is that it is illegitimate for Chissano Jr to hold "Metical" responsible for articles that were published in South African and Portugal.
The City Court agreed with Cruz that "Metical" is not a legitimate party to the libel suit as it currently stands. But instead of throwing the case out, the court invited Chissano to reformulate his suit, and left the door open for huge libel damages against "Metical".
No date has yet been set for the Supreme Court to hear Cruz's appeal - but it certainly will not be this month. July is a month of "judicial holidays" - the courts do not stop functioning during this period, but they only deal with cases where accused persons are imprisoned, or which are urgent. Libel cases do not fall under either category.
