- J15 P178 Counsel for the appellant conceded that the 1st and 2nd respondents had a duty to disclose all the information to the general public on matters of public interest, then they had a duty to make full disclosure of the facts of the story. That holding finds support in Article 20 of the Republican Constitution which deals with protection of freedom of expression. That article gives freedom to any person, inter alia, to receive information and to impart and communicate such information to the public generally. In this case, the two respondents received information, in the form of a response, from Hon. Sokontwe, for them to communicate to the public generally. And they did just that. We wish to emphasize that this holding is based on the facts of this case – with particular regard to the concession that was made at trial. We are not formulating a new defence in defamation law. On the totality of issues, the 1st ground of appeal fails. Ground two is that the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he held that the truth or otherwise of the impugned allegation is irrelevant for the question of whether or not the defence of fair comment succeeds. We have already dealt with the defence of fair comment in detail, in the 1st ground. What we have said in that ground covers ground two as well. We do not wish to repeat ourselves.