Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
The US$1 million defamation trial involving opposition politician Mr Tendai Biti and Augur Investments and its top executives remains in a state of uncertainty following Mr Biti’s attempt to refer constitutional questions to the Constitutional Court.
The plaintiffs, including Mr Kenneth Sharpe and Augur’s chief operations officer, Ms Tatiana Aleshina, accuse Mr Biti of delaying tactics to stall the civil trial, which has already been delayed for over five years.
The defamation lawsuit stems from statements Mr Biti allegedly made in 2020, concerning Mr Sharpe and his company’s business dealings in Zimbabwe.
The plaintiffs are seeking US$500 000 in damages for Augur, US$400 000 for Mr Sharpe and US$100 000 for Ms Aleshina, citing reputational harm caused by these statements, which Biti denies authoring.
Biti’s recent application argues that the case raises constitutional issues, particularly relating to freedom of expression under section 61 of the Constitution, and questions whether corporations like Augur Investments can sue for defamation over matters of public interest.
His legal team contends that the matter deserves constitutional scrutiny as it touches on public discourse.
However, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Advocate Thembinkosi Magwaliba, dismissed the referral bid as frivolous and procedurally defective, accusing Biti of using it as a ploy to further delay the trial. Magwaliba argued that Biti failed to meet procedural requirements, including the provision of agreed facts or evidence to support the constitutional referral.
The plaintiffs also highlighted contradictions in Mr Biti’s defence, pointing out that while he denies authoring the defamatory statements, he simultaneously seeks a constitutional ruling based on their publication.
According to the plaintiffs, this inconsistency undermines his argument and further delays the resolution of the case.
Adv Magwaliba emphasised the need for the trial to proceed, accusing Biti of abusing court processes with repeated objections and interlocutory applications, all of which have been dismissed.
The plaintiffs urged the court to reject the constitutional referral and impose punitive costs on Biti for what they described as vexatious litigation.
With the court reserving judgment on the referral application, the trial remains in limbo, prolonging the plaintiffs’ pursuit of justice. They argue that the continued delays infringe on their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
