State of the media in Southern Africa - 2003 very vocal about government buying its ministers expensive Mercedes Benz Compressors while simultaneously seeking food donations for the starving poor in Lesotho. Public Eye newspaper faced a ZAR200 000 defamation suit from ‘Makhopotso Lebona MP, the President of the major opposition Basotho National Party (BNP) Women’s League over an article that claimed she had set a government vehicle issued to the former BNP deputy leader on fire in a jealous rage. The paper was also sued by Molapo Qhobela MP, leader of the opposition Basutoland African Congress (BAC) seeking ZAR750 000 for defamation over an article that said he may have misappropriated ZAR1 350 belonging to the Basutoland Congress Party (BCP), of which he was leader before being deposed through a court case. Mopshatla Mabitle MP, former Minister of Home Affairs sued MoAfrika newspaper for ZAR150 000 over a report that he may have been seen depositing cheques far in excess of his ministerial salary in 2000. MoAfrika, ever controversial, also faced a legal suit for ZAR2 million from businessman Cowson Seipobi over a 1996 article that reported on a rape case against him. Retired army Colonel Mohanoe Lefosa sought ZAR70 000 from MoAfrika radio over a phonein by a Catholic nun, Sister Chrisentia Mosito that he had vandalized church property during the 1998 political unrest. Advocate Haae Phoofolo demanded ZAR200 000 from the ruling party mouthpiece, Mololi over its claim that he was in the habit of procrastinating and then withdrawing from cases he was likely to lose. Mohahlaula newspaper, whose proprietor and editor, Afrika Molungoa passed away in 2003, faced a ZAR200 000 defamation suit from Minister of Trade and Industry, Mpho Malie over an article that claimed he had allowed the construction of sub-standard factories in the country. It is worth noting that some of the above incidents had taken place as far back as the 1980s. The plaintiffs were encouraged by Sello’s success against MoAfrika to pursue litigation. A statute of limitations (time-frame) within which a plaintiff can sue for defamation from the date of publication should be introduced to dissuade people with frivolous claims from trying to enrich themselves at the expense of the media.The unreasonably high claims by plaintiffs should also be discouraged. Mopshatla Mabitle, one of the plaintiffs cited above, sought relief amounting to hundreds of thousands of Rands against The Mirror but backed down when he was offered ZAR10 000 in cash or payments of ZAR25 000 over 12 months in an out-of-court settlement. MISA-Lesotho should deploy the Media Legal Defense Fund (MLDF) in these cases with a brief for the lawyer to argue that the ridiculously high sums sought by plaintiffs will throttle alternative views by crippling the independent media. Mabitle’s negotiated settlement must be used as a quantum of damages a plaintiff can seek. In court, plaintiffs must be made to quantify how they arrived at the amounts being requested. To stem the tide of these defamation claims, the media fraternity and Government must urgently engage in honest deliberations that will lead to the formation of an all-inclusive media policy. Such policy should include self-regulation mechanisms, such as a media Ombudsman and/or a media council. Aggrieved people would have to take their grievances to these bodies before they could go to court. The policy would have to include strategies for the freeing of regulatory mechanisms such as those in the broadcast and telecommunications sector. A case in point is the Lesotho Telecommunications Authority (LTA). It should set up frameworks for converting state run broadcasters into public utilities. Strategies for the development of ICTs must be incorporated in such a policy. So This Is Democracy? 2003 31 Media Institute of Southern Africa