Case Summary and Outcome

A Zambian High Court set aside an interim interdict preventing the screening of a documentary on the realities of Chinese investment in Zambia. After a media house published a preview of the documentary on social media, the Zambian chapter of a Chinese business association obtained an interdict on the grounds that they had not been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and that the documentary could harm Chinese business and investment. The media opposed the interdict, noting that it would raise a defence of justification in the public interest to any claim of defamation. The Court confirmed that the business association had not demonstrated any defamation and accepted, combined with the existence of the media’s defence, that there were no grounds for an interdict.

Facts

On May 20, 2025, News Diggers, a Zambian media house, posted a trailer of an upcoming documentary on their Facebook page. The documentary was titled, “The Chinese Investment in Zambia: The good, the bad and the dangerous”, and the trailer included a voiceover noting that there had been Chinese investment in infrastructure and culture in Zambia, resulting in a “face lift to our country” but that “they also brought something else”. [para. 1.2] The trailer carried images and video footage of “practices of labour abuse, pollution of water and national resources, industrial accidents, arrests of Chinese people and various other unflattering and illegal and unsavory practices” and an image of a News Diggers publication titled “Blood Copper – How the sensele rescue turned into a mining operation financed by the Chinese protected by politicians”. [para. 1.3 and 1.5] The Facebook post noted that the documentary would be aired on May 23.

The Chinese Chamber of Commerce (CCCZ) brought an application to interdict the broadcast of the documentary. The CCCZ believed that the airing of the documentary would cause irreparable damage to the “Chinese Business and Investment Community” in Zambia” and would damage their reputation in Zambia and internationally. [para. 1.8]

After an ex parte (without News Diggers) hearing, the interdict was granted on May 22, 2025.

The matter was then heard interpartes (with both sides present) on June 25, 2025.

Decision Overview

Judge Elita Phiri Mwikisa delivered the judgment of the High Court in Lusaka. The central issue for the court’s determination was whether the interim interdict should stand.

The CCCZ argued that none of its member businesses or individuals had been approached by News Diggers and that, particularly given that there was no input from the CCCZ, the documentary “presents an image that is deliberately calculated to discrediting the good standing image of the Chinese Businesses in Zambia without regard to fair and responsible journalism”. [para. 1.7] It submitted that the “justification of fair comment in public interest” was negated because News Diggers had not provided the CCCZ with an opportunity to be heard, prior to publication. The CCCZ submitted that the interim injunction should be maintained “even if only to afford [the CCCZ] an opportunity to be heard”. [para. 2.6]

News Diggers argued that the CCCZ had not demonstrated a cause of action as it had not identified any specific statements that were defamatory or any specific individuals who were defamed by the documentary. It submitted that it had a defence of justification to any allegations of defamation and that an interim injunction cannot be granted when there is such a defence present. News Diggers argued that an interim injunction would infringe its right to freedom of expression.

The Court referred to the British case of Fraser v. Evans and noted that “it is trite law that Courts will not generally grant an injunction to restrain publication of defamatory statements” particularly where the media defendant does intend to raise the defence that it was justified in publishing the information as it is in the public interest. [para. 2.7] It also referred to the Zambian case of Shamwana v. Mwanawasa which had held that “it is vitally important for the plaintiff to show some evidence of the defendant’s intention to repeat the words that would legally be objectionable and actionable”. [para. 2.8]

The Court held that News Diggers had demonstrated that it intended to plead a defence of justification and that the CCCZ was “not necessarily the group of individuals allegedly defamed” by the preview or documentary.

Accordingly, the Court held that the CCCZ had not established a cause of action and set aside the interim injunction.