NCA spokesman sues over ‘hooker fight’ story
By Fortune Tazvida
The spokesman for the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), Madock Chivasa is suing a local tabloid for US$35 000 in damages over a story that claimed he was involved in a violent scuffle with some commercial sex workers at a flat in Harare’s Central Avenue.
The Thursday, 13 October 2011 edition of the H Metro newspaper made the sensational claims that “two siblings identified as Hillary and Kebby Zhou, in the company of their friend Madock “Murder” Chivasa (who fled the scene), allegedly assaulted two sex workers Rumbidzai Zambuko (23) and her flat mate Elizabeth Mtetwa (30).
In response Chivasa has engaged lawyers Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans who in turn filed a lawsuit against the paper on the 20th of October. A letter from the lawyers addressed to the reporter Aaron Nyamayaro, Lawrence Moyo and the Managing Director at H Metro pinpointed the offending parts of the article as;
“There was drama at Fintra Court in the capital on Tuesday night when two suspected pimps beat up two self confessed commercial sex workers for denying them free sex services. The two siblings identified as Hillary and Kebby Zhou, in the company of their friend Madock “Murder” Chivasa (who fled the scene), allegedly assaulted two sex workers Rumbidzai Zambuko (23) and her flat mate Elizabeth Mtetwa (30).
“H-Metro established that the trio had an understanding with the women such that they would sometimes be given sex services on a “play now pay later basis”, but on the day in question Rumbidzai was busy with a cash on delivery client. She turned down Hillary who wanted free sex as per their tradition opting to go for the cash paying client. Hillary could not afford to wait for his turn nor fathom the idea of having leftovers so he bashed Rumbidzai leaving her badly injured.
“H-Metro learnt that Hillary and his mates Madock and Kebby were “account holders” and could have regular free sex from the Fintra Court self-confessed tarts whom they often even pimp. All the prostitutes here have serviced Madock and he comes everyday leaving his wife at his flat located at the Corner of Selous and 8th here in the Avenues.”
The lawyers wrote to the paper saying “Our client’s dignity and reputation has been impinged as the article itself and the photograph of our client and its accompanying caption were understood by all readers of average intelligence to mean the following:-
(a) That our client is of loose morals.
(b) That he consorts with prostitutes and he engages in risky sexual behavior.
(c) That he is a serial cheat who engages in adultery with prostitutes.
(d) That he is a violent character.
The editorial that you published in the same edition of the paper made the same point and injured our client’s reputation. In particular we quote the following:-
“The picture of the commercial sex worker butchered on our front page in the lead story should leave people begging for answers. Is this really what we are as a society? Do we let the hounds of anarchy haunt and hound all we do not like or think to be lesser moral people than us? Like the pigs and humans through the window in Animal Farm , one day people may never know the difference between us the moral and they who err at the street corner every night if we do not stand up against such a travesty ”.
The lawyers say “None of the allegations contained in the article and the editorial in question are factually correct. The offending article is therefore materially false, scurrilous and malicious. For the record our client was never contacted for him to comment on the substance of the story before it was published thus taking away his inalienable right to be heard.
“The article goes so far as to convict our client in the so called court of public opinion and thereby injuring his reputation. Our client is a well known public individual, he being the spokesperson of the National Constitutional Assembly (“NCA”).
Chivasa’s lawyers are demanding that H Metro “fully retract the published story and tender an apology with the same prominence given to the offending article. We further demand that you pay the sum of US$35 000.00 here at our offices as damages within 7 days of your receipt of this letter. We also demand that the retraction and apology be published within 7 days of your receipt of this letter.
“Should you fail to comply with this demand we are firmly instructed to commence legal proceedings against you for appropriate relief. We shall not be giving any further notice,” the letter warned.
