of the media. This was a clear attack on the freedom of the press and of expression, as well as on the public’s right to information. This interpretation is based on the fact that the gang that attacked MI was only interested in the hard discs of the computers – where the information is kept – and left other pieces, such as the monitors, behind. A few months later, the offices of the Mozambican daily newssheet Vertical, was broken into in the early hours of October 2, 2007. Two computers were stolen. Victor Matsinhe, the editor of the paper, which is distributed by fax and e-mail, said the entire archive of this year’s editions of the publication had been lost. Apart from the computers the intruders also took a tape recorder. But according to Matsinhe, “there were no signs that the premises of the paper had been broken into”. Unlike Moyana, Matsinhe dismissed the hypothesis that the attack was a form of intimidation or harassment, because Vertical, in the editions preceding the robbery, had not published anything concerning important figures or sensitive issues. The Legal Front as a target 2007 also saw introduction of a new tactic as an attempt to silence the media – namely involvement of exorbitant sums as compensation in court cases, much more than the media concerned could possibly pay. Without referring to statistical data it can be said that in 2007 there was a significant increase in the number of court cases against the media over alleged libels. Two Maputo lawyers’ firms corroborate this, saying they have received an increased number of requests from clients seeking action against the media. One of the tactics used is to demand exorbitant sums in compensation, much higher than the media accused of libel could pay. By way of illustration, a high-ranking official in the Ministry of the Interior sought compensation of 500,000 meticais (about USD 20 000) from the editor of the electronic daily A TribunaFax, with the allegation of libel and defamation. However, the court only sentenced the editor to pay 45 000 meticais (USD 1 800). The director of one well-known and influential paper (who requested anonymity for this article) said he spent the first months of the year on trips to the courts and to lawyers’ offices than in exercising editorial leadership. Adding to this sombre scenario for journalists was the promulgation by the President of the Republic, Armando Guebuza, of a new law governing the country’s law courts. One clause in this law bans the broadcasting of sound or pictures of trials. For many people, this provision cast a shadow over press freedom and the right of information in Mozambique. Organisations that defend press freedom and the right to information, namely the National Union of Journalists (SNJ), MISA-Mozambique and the Mozambican Editors’ Forum, EditMoz, wrote to the Head of state urging him not to promulgate the law, arguing that it would overthrow all that has been achieved for the right to information. Guebuza referred the law to the Constitutional Council, the body that has the final word in matters of constitutional law. But the council disagreed with the journalists’ associations and saw nothing unconstitutional in keeping cameras and microphones out of courtrooms. Guebuza then promulgated the law. Also on the legal front, the Mozambican Parliament continued to pay no attention to the bill on Access to Sources of Information proposed by MISA. This showed the Parliament’s lack of political commitment to deepening the right to information in Mozambique. The Parliament has So This Is Democracy? 2007 -55- Media Institute of Southern Africa