The High Court in Kampala has ordered The Daily Monitor newspaper to pay former Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister, Pius Bigirimana, over 450M shillings in damages he suffered as a result of malicious and defamatory publications relating to the 2012 Corruption scandal.
In his petition, Bigirimana claimed that the “malicious stories” published by Monitor newspaper caused him loss of reputation, being shunned by the members of the public, his family, workmates and acquaintances in Uganda and throughout the whole world.
Bigirimana sought for general damages for defamation to the tune of UGX 1.9BN and a permanent injunction restraining the newspaper and or their agents, editors, publishers, from making, publishing, circulating any further defamatory stories against or about him. He also sought an order compelling the newspaper proprietors to publish an apology in the newspapers.
In his ruling, Justice Musa Ssekaana agreed with the petitioner that indeed Bigirimana suffered damage to his reputation but disagreed with the 1.9BN claim for damages saying they are exorbitant and excessively high. Ssekana ordered Monitor to pay 450million shillings to Bigirimana for damages to his reputation, distress and humiliation the defamatory statements had on his dignity as a Permanent Secretary.
Court also ordered Daily Monitor to pay interest at the rate of 10% on both general and punitive damages from the date of judgment to the date of payment in full and pay all costs of the suit suffered by Bigirimana but also publish an apology with equal publicity as the impugned defamatory publications for a period of two weeks at-least 2 times a week.
The High Court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants including Daily Monitor Publications LTD, Nation Media Group, MD Monitor publications, Monitor Managing Editor/executive editor/editor in chief, Editor Sunday Monitor, and Andrew Bagala, or their agents and assignees from publishing further defamatory statements about Pius Bigirimana.
According to the judgement issued today, Bigirimana contends that between the year 2012 and 2015, the Daily Monitor proprietors continuously made numerous malicious, spiteful, untrue and defamatory publications against him in the daily Monitor, Saturday monitor and the Sunday monitor.
In his petition, Bigirimana listed a total of 15 different stories with headlines; Auditors target Bigirimana in cash probe (14th October 2012), MPs Order Government to remove Bigirimana (2nd November 2012), Government remains undecided on calls to suspend Bigirimana (5th November 2012), MPs give ultimatum over PS Bigirimana (7th November 2012), Law makers want First Lady to defend self in OPM scam (9th November 2012), The Treasury Officials accuse OPM PS of covering money scam, (16th November 2012), Bigirimana contradicts himself on purchase of Ministers’ cars (30th November 2012), Bigirimana’s wife acquires shs 250m Mercedes Benz (4th December 2012), Police to question Bigirimana today (28th December 2012), Bigirimana refuses to meet detectives (29th December 2012), OPM inquest hits new set back (21st February 2013), OPM officials survive lynching (7th March 2013) Denmark warns of aid cut over OPM scandal (26th March 2013), Money, Drugs eat up police Force (5th November 2017) and Corruption Ledger, published on 10th March 2013.
Bigirimana contended that the stories portrayed him as; a smart criminal who was untouchable in any circumstances, an embattled civil servant who made illicit expenditure on OPM funds, a person who thrives on State house pampering and patronage, and one who obstructs police investigations and above all a liar. He also claims that as a direct consequence of the false and malicious publications, he has suffered damage and injury (lost public reputation and has been shunned) as result from taunts and malicious publications at his place of work, family, general public and the world at large.
“What made it even grave is that the said money was meant for Northern Uganda post-war rehabilitation, the said region having gone through decades of war and trauma. Any person believed to have tampered with the said aid, in the eyes of
reasonable and right thinking members of society would be equated to a mass murderer.” a statement in the petition to justify the extent of damage inflicted upon Bigirimana’s reputation, which therefore “must be compensated for by a reasonable amount of damages.”
In his judgement, Ssekaana agreed with the plaintiff basing on the evidence on record which he said clearly shows a systematic scheme to report specifically about Bigirimana in manner that would portray him as the key suspect in the financial scam which was under investigations. He says, the publications seem to excite the public against the plaintiff to form adverse opinions or exposes him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injure him in his employment and thus to cause him to be shunned or avoided in society. “The stories as set in the plaint are twisted, skewed and crafted in a manner which portrayed the plaintiff in a negative sense as a corrupt person under investigations.” He said.
“I have reviewed the evidence adduced and the submissions of all parties and I resolve that the Plaintiff suffered damage to his reputation. I am inclined not to award the shs 1,000,000,000/= as claimed by the plaintiff because it is exorbitant and excessively high and out of range in defamatory cases. This court is mindful of the fact that the defamatory statements were made in several publications and at different times, therefore I grant general
damages amounting to 350,000,000/= to compensate for the damage caused on the Plaintiff’s reputation, distress and humiliation the defamatory statements had on his dignity as a Permanent Secretary. The damage to his reputation was far reaching in Uganda and outside Uganda.” Justice Ssekaana ruled.
“The plaintiff sought 900,000,000/= as exemplary damages. This sum is equally high and excessive. The punitive damages are awarded to serve as a punishment to the defendant so that they do not repeat the same mistake or action, an award of 100,000,000/= is appropriate as exemplary damages to punish the defendants and discourage them from publishing any further defamatory statements about the Plaintiff in such a reckless and negligent manner.” He added.
