Dear Editor – I refer to the above.
I act for Jennings Movobule whose case was reported by your paper on the issue yesterday, bearing the heading stated on the above subject.
While we appreciate freedom of press, we are deeply appalled in how your reporter deliberately reported on some facts that are not true and not part of the proceedings.
We objected to statements starting from the second paragraph which says that the incident was related to the national general elections and other statements regarding same.
In actual fact, the facts of the case never mentioned anything as relating to the previous general elections.
The victim was a nephew to Mr Movobule and not a voter as stated in your reporting. The circumstances as to how our client committed the crime was a personal one and not related to the previous elections.
Advise that the victim of this case is a close associate to the respondent of the petition case lodged by Mr Movobule and it is fitting that your paper should vet any information coming from him or his associates as they would try to use the media and other avenues to disrepute Mr Movobule which may have a big impact on his election petition case.
The medical report was also not accepted by the court as fabricating and have no water to sustain the injuries alleged by the victim as mentioned in your article.
Advise that your reporter never attended the court proceedings and we are surprised as to where he got his information from. Our client was not even consulted to get his side of the story.
Further advise that it has come to our attention that some of your reporters usually write on court news without attending court to get first hand information and as a result reporting on unconfirmed and inaccurate news.
We would be very grateful if you could correct your article on your next issue and we hope your reporter will endeavor to be responsible in the future.
Thank you for your understanding and looking forward to your positive response.
Ronald Dive
Light Lawyers
