Mbabazi's UK libel case win depicts lazy journalism of Daily Mail

By Obed K Katureebe

The Court in the United Kingdom on July 30, 2013 ruled that the Daily Mail published a false and defamatory story on Uganda’s Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi.

Court  heard that on October 31, 2012, the Daily Mail published an article headed “£10m foreign aid went to cronies of Ugandan PM” and on the same day, MailOnline published an article headed “Britain and Ireland  suspend aid to Uganda after £10m of funding ends up in Prime Minister’s  account”.

 Andrew Stephenson, solicitor for the Prime Minister, told the court that the Auditor General in Uganda had produced a report which had revealed irregularities, fraud and forgery on the part of staff working within the Office of the Prime Minister.

He further noted that “There was no suggestion in the report that the Prime Minister was responsible for, or benefitted from, the theft of the money.”

As a result, the court ruled in Mbabazi’s favour. Not only has the Daily Mail apologised to PM Mbabazi it has also committed itself to compensate him rather handsomely for the damage caused.  

Quite shocking for the Daily Mail, like the counsel representing the Prime Minister observed, there is nowhere in the Auditor General’s report where it implicates Amama Mbabazi to have benefited from the reported  financial fraud.

One wonders, therefore, if the reporter or the editors at the Daily Mail ever bothered to read the Auditor General’s report at all. Such reports are public documents here in Uganda free for everybody to access.  This was indeed a clear case of lazy journalism. 

If such a mistake had been committed by these third world publications, one would have been tempted to somehow exonerate them because most times they are not exposed to world class training institutions. However, for the Daily Mail to make such a howler is so embarrassing on their part.

Professionally, this is so embarrassing to the corporate image the Daily Mail has built over the decades. The Mail must be feeling embarrassed that such an amateurish reporting was by one of their own.

The writer must be a very sluggish journalist, unprofessional and highly opinionated. Otherwise, how possible is it to publish a story quoting the Auditor General’s report minus reading and internalising the very details he or she was quoting. 

The reporter must have relied on the Kampala narratives usually churned out by the malcontent and uninformed groups who love sensationalised stories.

What is so shocking though is that such a malicious and unfounded story was carried in a highly respected paper like the Daily Mail. The assumption is that it employs highly professional people who carry out due diligence on their stories before putting them on print. 

Finally, the most effective penalty for telling lies and untruths is loss of credibility.  The Daily Mail should not take the pleasure of apologising and end there. Such unethical reporters should take personal responsibility for their reporting.

Otherwise such unprofessional misdemeanors threaten to discredit the otherwise great profession of journalism.

The writer works with Uganda Media Centre