- J9 P172 of public interest. They referred to Section 7 of the Defamation Act, CAP 68 of the Laws of Zambia, to support their arguments. On verification, they argue that it was not necessary because, the gist of the article was a report of Hon. Sokontwe’s response to his expulsion from the M.M.D. They argue that the only duty of the reporter was to confirm the response with Hon. Sokontwe, who was in fact the source and the M.M.D, who wrote the charge letter. On behalf of the 2nd respondent on the 1st ground, Mr. Sinkamba points out that the appellant conceded at trial 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 disclose all the facts of the story complained of. He submits that the 1st and 2nd respondents were informing the public that the 3rd appellant’s witness, Hon. Sokontwe, had been charged with disciplinary offence by the M.M.D, for allegedly having clandestine meetings with named people, who included the appellant. That there is evidence on record that in fact it was Hon. Sokontwe himself who gave the charge letter to the 1 st and 2nd respondents, with the intention that it be published and inform the public in fulfilment of their duty to do so. He submits that it would not have been accurate reporting if some details of the charge, such as the name of the appellant was deliberately left out. He submits that it was inconceivable to have expected the two respondents to investigate the veracity of the charges because that had no bearing