Debt announced in newspaper

Years ago, I was a news editor at a media house. Like many, I took an interest-free loan to buy a car and later left with part of the loan unpaid. Suddenly, the company published my name and photo in its national newspaper with the headline ‘Wanatafutwa’ (Wanted), as if I were a fugitive. They printed another notice calling me a ‘delinquent debtor’ and warning of legal action if I did not appear. This was humiliating; people in my profession saw it. I owed money, but I was not hiding, and my new employer could be contacted. They knew I worked elsewhere. I believe this is defamation, but I am unsure. What does the law say about defamation in my case?

GH, Dar es Salaam

We are not certain about all the facts you stated. However, if what you stated is the truth, then what happened to you may meet the legal definition of defamation. In Tanzanian law, the Media Services Act, 2016, defines a statement as defamatory if it exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or lowers them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. However, one can rely on the defence of truth under section 37(a) of the Media Services Act, to avoid liability for defamation.

Your case involved publishing your photo with the label ‘Wanted,’ which suggested to any fair reader that you were a criminal fugitive. Additionally, describing you as a “delinquent debtor” painted you as dishonest and untrustworthy. Several Court of Appeal decisions have confirmed that statements published in media outlets meeting the criteria set out in the Media Services Act are considered defamatory. Importantly, the Court has clarified that the truth of the statement is irrelevant; what matters is the effect of the words on your reputation. At this stage, whether the debt is true or not is not crucial. The key test is the impact the statement has on your reputation. Consequently, the defence of truth or justification cannot be relied upon.

Under section 37(a) of the Media Services Act, truth alone is insufficient; it must also be demonstrated that the publication served a public benefit. In your case, while it is true that you owed the loan, two issues negate the justification: (i) the claim that you were ‘untraceable’ was false, and (ii) publishing your photo to shame you into repayment served the private interests of the company rather than the public benefit. The Court explained that public benefit refers to actions that protect society, such as warning about a dangerous fraudster, not private debt collection. To be certain whether you have a good case, consult a lawyer for further guidance.