Shamakamba Wins Case Against Kaaba, Daily Revelation Former ACC Director General Wins Case Against Dr. O’brien Kaaba and Daily Revelation …public men and women conducting public affairs must be protected for the proper conduct of public affairs which requiresthat they be protected from destructive attacks upon their honour and character if made without any foundation.” […]

Shamakamba Wins Case Against Kaaba, Daily Revelation

Former ACC Director General Wins Case Against Dr. O’brien Kaaba and Daily Revelation

…public men and women conducting public affairs must be protected for the proper conduct of public affairs which requires
that they be protected from destructive attacks upon their honour and character if made without any foundation.”

FORMER ACC Director General Tom Shamakamba who had sued former ACC commissioner Dr O’Brien Kaaba and Daily Revelation Newspaper, seeking damages for libel in the sum of US$500 million has won his case.

Judge D Musonda of the Ndola High Court ruled that; “In the premises, I come to the conclusion that the plaintilf must succeed in this action. 1 accordingly enter judgment in
his favour. The plaintiff is entitled to damages to be assessed by the Registrar.”

“The defendant are restrained from publishing anything defamatory of the plaintiff.democratic society, it is in the interest of society that the public conduct of public men as the plaintiff was at the time
the article was published, should be criticized without any other limit than that the writer should have an honest belief that what he writes is true; and the equally important public interest in the maintenance of the public character of public men for the proper conduct of public affairs which requires
that they be protected from destructive attacks upon their honour and character if made without any foundation.”

Shamakamba wrote to Daily Revelation Newspaper, demanding an apology and a retraction of the published statements that he was working with Solicitor General Marshal Muchende to cover up corruption.

In a demand letter dated July 26, 2024, Shamakamba stated that Daily Revelation Newspaper must apologise within three days, or he will seek legal redress for libel.

Shamakamba proceeded to sue in the Ndola High Court, seeking an order that the article published by Daily Revelation Newspaper dated July 15 and 16, 2024, titled “ACC DG, MUCHENDE GETTING KICKBACKS”

Dr. OBRIEN KAABA SAYS HE WILL APPEAL

Thom Trevor Shamakamba v Patson Chilemba and O’Brien Kaaba 2024/HN/307

O’Brien Kaaba

(1 July, 2026)

The case in which I was sued in the Ndola High Court by former ACC Director General Mr Shamakamba demanding $500million for defamation has been decided against us. The High Court (Justice D Musonda) found in favour of Mr Shamakamba, that he is entitled to damages to be assessed by the Registrar. I would like to thank my advocates Mr Eddie Mwitwa (former LAZ President), Mr Mehluli Malisa Batakati and Mr Kamelu Chiyesu, who represented me with utmost dedication and conviction, and my courageous witnesses Mr Kalenga and Mr Frank Gwaba. My gratitude also to my former ACC chairperson Mr Musa Mwenye SC who exercised principled leadership and stood by my side throughout my ordeal. I am also profoundly grateful to Amnesty International and MISA Zambia for moral and logistical support which enabled me to defend myself adequately.

I must state, however, that we do not agree with the judgment in its entirety as it falls short of elementary standards of evaluation of evidence, shows minimal understanding of the law of defamation and contradicts well established precedents including precedents set by the Supreme Court, which precedents bind the High Court and cannot simply be ignored or wished away. In this matter, for example, the Plaintiff testified alone and brought no third-party witnesses to support his case, which technically is fatal to a defamation suit.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Given Lubinda v Edwin Lifwekelo and Daily Nation Newspaper Limited Appeal No 2 of 2018 stated:
“The passage we have quoted in the preceding paragraph shows that the article or  publication will be defamatory if its effect is to expose a claimant: to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or to lower the claimant’s reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of society; or to be shunned or avoided. A claimant must, therefore, lead evidence to prove that the publication complained of had this effect, not on him, but right thinking members of society, generally.”

The Supreme Court in the same case further held:
“We have difficulty holding the publication as being defamatory on the evidence led by the Appellant, because it shows that it is the emotions of the Appellant and not his reputation which was harmed. He categorically stated that it depressed him as is evident from his testimony at page 142 of the record of appeal. This is an emotional feeling. Damage to reputation is felt by how right-thinking members of society generally perceived you after the publication and not how you feel about the publication or the emotions it draws out of you.  The public either, shun and hold you in contempt, or hate, avoid and ridicule you, thereby lowering your standing in society generally. For this reason, it is incumbent upon a plaintiff to lead evidence, through his witnesses, the right-thinking members of society, to show that the publication complained of had such an effect on them especially that he pleaded that this was the effect it had as we have said in paragraph 8 of this judgment.”

This approach was also followed by the High Court in the recent famous ‘Mukula tree’ defamation case in the case of Given Lubinda, Jean Kapata, and Tasila Lungu vs Mukosha Funga, News Diggers Media Limited and Environmental Investigation Agency Inc 2020/HP/0047 (HC). Yangailo J stated what the Plaintiffs needed to do to obtain a favourable decision as follows:
“From the foregoing, it is clear that to succeed in a claim for defamation, a Claimant must lead evidence to prove that the Publication complained of lowered the Claimant’s reputation in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society generally. Further, the foregoing authority provides that the manner in which the Claimant must establish the defamation is by bringing witnesses, who are right thinking members of society, to confirm that the Publication of the alleged defamatory statements had such an effect on them.”

Yangailo J then noted that because the Plaintiffs failed to lead evidence from other witnesses, they had therefore failed to establish their case of defamation:
“I note further, that at the trial of the action, only the Plaintiffs testified about the effects that the Defendants’ Publications had on their reputation. In my view, the Plaintiffs ought to have led cogent evidence, such as witness testimonies, to show that the estimation of their reputation by right-thinking members of society had been lowered or that they had been exposed to hatred , disparaged or injured in their office or profession as a consequence of the Defendants’ Publications, as was guided by the Supreme Court in the case of Given Lubinda v Edmond Lifwekelo and Another, cited above.”

Because the Plaintiff’s failed to establish their case by not calling other witnesses, Yangailo J dismissed the case, noting:
“Having found that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that their reputations were injured by the Defendants’ Publications, it follows that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their allegations of libel against the Defendants. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ claims for damages for libel against the Defendants’ lacks merit and are accordingly dismissed.”

We believe these are elementary issues of the law which we raised at trial and in our final submissions. The precedents bind the High Court and judges are duty bound to apply the law consistently, fairly and not cherry-pick standards to apply according to litigants. For unknown reasons, the Judge in this matter decided not to address his mind to these clear principles of the law of defamation set by our courts. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, we have instructed our lawyers to appeal.