- J6 P169 On this ground, the gist of Mr. Kalaluka’s submissions, on behalf of the appellant, is that the 1st and 2nd respondents are duty bound to check the accuracy of any material they intend to publish. That the respondents ought to have taken steps to check the accuracy of the impugned material in this matter or at least justify the failure to take such steps. That the Respondents have no special rights to share any information about others without due regard as to how it may be injurious to the reputation of others. In support of these submissions, he referred to: (a) Sata v Post Newspapers Limited (No citation given). (b) Times Newspapers (Z) Limited v Wonani (1). (c) Galley on Libel and Slander 8th Edition 1981, paragraph 695 and page 117. In response on the 1st ground on behalf of the 1st respondent, Mr. Nchito and Mrs. Chirwa submit that the learned trial Judge never found or held that the duty of the 1st and 2nd respondents was that of full disclosure without due regard to the veracity and possible injury to third parties. They submit that what the learned trial Judge said, and did so on firm ground, was that if 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 a full disclosure of the story. They submit that the 1st respondent had a Constitutional right to inform the general public on the expulsion of Hon. Sokontwe from the ruling party, which right it could not