- J7 P170 abrogate where the statement made was true and made on a matter of public interest. That the 1st respondent had a corresponding duty to inform the general public of this information. That it would have failed in its duty if it had withheld or altered any relevant information from them. Further, they argue that the words complained of, in themselves and in the context, are not defamatory. In this regard they referred to the definition of defamation in Mwanza v Zambia Publishing Company Ltd (2) and paragraphs 8 of Volume 28 of Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edition). In the Mwanza case, defamation is defined as: “Any imputation which may tend to injure a man’s reputation in a business, employment, trade, profession, calling or office carried or held by him”. Halsbury defines a defamatory statement as one: “which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling or trade or business”: See Volume 28, paragraph 10 (4th Edition). Relating the definitions to this case, the state that the statement complained of was an allegation that Hon. Sokontwe had had a private or clandestine meeting with the appellant and other