KAMPALA.The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a defamation suit filed by former Inspector General of Government (IGG) Beti Kamya against former Ethics Minister Miria Matembe, ruling that the impugned statements constituted protected political commentary rather than actionable defamation.
In a judgment delivered on May 11, Justice Bonny Isaac Teko of the Civil Division held that Matembe’s description of Kamya as a “political prostitute” was a metaphorical expression used within the context of political discourse and criticism.
“The Court accepts the defendant’s submission that the phrase was used politically rather than sexually. Within political discourse, the phrase commonly refers to political opportunism, ideological inconsistency, or repeated party switching for perceived personal advantage,” Justice Teko ruled.
The judge noted that Matembe had demonstrated that Kamya had belonged to different political formations over time, sharply criticized the ruling government before later joining it, and changed political alignments on several occasions.
“Whether one agrees with that characterization is immaterial. The question is whether the phrase constituted protected political opinion. In the Court’s view, it did,” he added.
Kamya sued Matembe in 2022, alleging that statements made during television appearances on NTV Uganda on July 16, 2021, and NBS Television on December 9, 2021, respectively, were defamatory and had damaged her reputation.
She contended that Matembe portrayed her as dishonest, corrupt, immoral, and unfit to hold the constitutional office of Inspector General of Government.
The former Lands minister sought declarations that the statements were defamatory, a permanent injunction restraining Matembe from repeating them, an apology and retraction, as well as general, punitive and exemplary damages.
However, Matembe denied liability and argued that the statements were fair political comment on matters of public interest concerning the conduct and suitability of a public official.
She further maintained that the remarks were protected by Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and formed part of legitimate democratic discourse regarding public accountability.
Justice Teko agreed that the phrase “political prostitute” would ordinarily be understood by viewers as criticism of perceived political opportunism rather than a literal allegation.
“The ordinary viewer would understand the expression as criticism directed at perceived political opportunism or shifting political alliances,” he ruled.
The court also found that Kamya had failed to prove that her reputation was lowered in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
While Kamya testified that she received calls from concerned individuals following the broadcasts, the judge noted that she did not call any independent witnesses to demonstrate that the statements caused reputational harm.
“The plaintiff merely gave self-serving testimony about being offended and emotionally distressed but failed to call any independent witnesses from society to prove reputational injury,” the court observed.
Matembe’s defence relied on previous court decisions which held that reputation is determined by what other people think about a person, rather than what the individual thinks about themselves.
Justice Teko emphasized that courts should be cautious about transforming political “disagreements” into “defamation claims”.
“The defendant’s criticism was undoubtedly harsh. It may even have been offensive. Yet offensiveness alone does not create liability,” he said.
He added that issues relating to integrity, suitability and moral fitness for constitutional office are matters on which reasonable people may legitimately hold differing opinions.
In dismissing the suit, the court held that the impugned statements substantially amounted to protected political commentary and expressions of opinion on matters of public interest.
“Consequently, this suit is dismissed. The court finds that the impugned statements substantially constituted protected political commentary and expressions of opinion on matters of public interest,” Justice Teko ruled.
Following the decision, Matembe’s lawyer, Mr Adolf Akugizibwe, on Monday, welcomed the judgment, describing it as an important affirmation of freedom of expression and democratic debate.
“Beyond the immediate victory for Dr Matembe, the judgment sends a broader message that courts will be reluctant to use defamation law to silence political criticism where the subject matter concerns governance, integrity in public office, expenditure of public funds and accountability of public leaders,” he said.
Given the public interest and constitutional dimensions involved in the matter, the judge ordered each party to bear its own costs.