- J10 P173 on the issues, that the appellant’s 3rd witness had been charged over the alleged clandestine meetings. That the question whether the contents of the charge letter were true or not is neither here nor there. The newspaper article is simply informing the public about the fact that the appellant’s 3rd witness was charged with disciplinary offences by the M.M.D. We have examined the case record and the judgment appealed against. We have also considered the submissions and have looked at the authorities cited, on the 1st ground. Two defences were pleaded and argued in the Court below, and have been raised and argued again in the 1st ground. These are the defences of fair comment and denial that the words complained are not defamatory. In the judgment, the trial Judge did not specifically deal with them. He dealt with the claim on the basis of the respondent’s duty to inform the public, full disclosure in the process of doing so and the veracity or otherwise of the statement complained of. In this judgment, we intend to deal with the two defences in relation to the evidence on record. We wish to start with fair comment. It is a defence to an action for defamation that the statement is a fair comment on a matter of public interest. The rationale is that criticism ought to be, and is, recognised in any civilised system of law as indispensable to the efficient working institution