Riumana v Manehugu [2019] SBHC 103; HCSI-CC 195 of 2014 (13 November 2019)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Case name:	Riumana v Manehugu

Citation:

Date of decision:	13 November 2019

Parties:	Selwyn Riumana v Stephen Billy Manehugu, Cecil D Evo and Apolos Manegere, Amina K Bosomata, Anold Hiropuhi, Johnson Leamana, Rev. Richard Sopamana and Ambrose Motui, Dudley Longamei, Hubert Eguni, Lawrence Kuru and Selwyn Mademana, Clement Bube, Alfred Wright, Stephen Lealea, Philimon Ena, Eunice Ella, Levi Tabo, Theophillus Kaemana and Fr. James Order, Augustine puja, Moses Kauku, Zebuli Hageru, Japahet Munai, Edward Vunagi, Hopkins Valai, Wilson Terry, Ambrose Muoui, Primo Ngelea, Andrew Haotu, Christian Nagiro, Raymond Love and Willie Rano, Allan Lenga, Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation, Ati-Corruption Network of Solomon Islands, Solomon Star Limited and Editor of Solomon Newspaper

Date of hearing:	6 March 2018-13 March 2018, 12 August 2018, 13September 2018, 3October 2018

Court file number(s):	195 of 2014

Jurisdiction:	Civil

Place of delivery:

Judge(s):	Kouhota PJ

On appeal from:

Order:	All the allegations and claim against the first to the tenth defendants are dismissed with costs against the claimant to be tax if not agreed

Representation:	Mr. G Suri for the Claimant Mr. D Marahare for 1-5, Defendants No Appearance No Rep. for 6, 7, 9 ,10 Defendants Mr. A Radclyffe for the 8 Defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:	Defamation Act 1952 ,s6, Solomon Islands Consolidated Legislation Schedule 3

Cases cited:	Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234, Polly Peck (Holding) Plc v Trelfor [1986] Q.B 1000, Hartt v Newspaper Publishing Plc

STEPHEN BILLY MANEHUGU, CECIL D EVO AND APOLOS MANEGERE
(all of Hograno Kia Havulei Constituency in Isabel Province)
First Defendants

AMINA K BOSOMATA, ANOLD HIROPUHI, JOHNSON LEAMANA, REV.RICHARD SOPAMANA AND AMBROSE MOTUI
(all kolotubi Ward 15, Hograno District, Isabel Province)
Second Defendants

DUDLEY LONGAMEI, HUBERT EGUNILAWRENCE KURU AND SELWYN MADEMANA
(all of Kolomola Ward 13, Hograno District, Isabel Province)
Third Defendant

CLEMENT BUBE, ALFRED WRIGHT, STEPHEN LEALEA, PHILIMON ENA, EUNICE ELLA, LEVI TABO, THEOPHILLUS KAEMANA, AND FR. JAMES ORDER
(all of Susubona Ward 15, Hograno District, Isabel Province)
Fourth Defendants

AUGUSTINE PUJA, MOSES KAUKU, ZEBULI HAGERU, JAPAHET MUNAI, EDWARD VUNAGI, HOPKINS VALAI, WILSON TERRY
(all of Kia Ward 16, Katova District, Isabel Province)
Fifth Defendants

AMBROSE MUOUI, PRIMO NGELEA, ANDREW HAOTU, CHRISTIAN NAGIRO, RAYMOND LOVE AND WILLIE RANO
(all of Kia Ward 1, Kia District Isabel Province)
Sixth Defendant

ALLAN LENGA
(Of Havulei Ward, Havulei District, Isabel Province)
Seventh Defendant

Date of Hearing: 6 March 2018-13 March 2018, 12 August 2018, 13 September 2018, 3 October 2018
Date of Judgment: 13 November 2019

Mr. G Suri for the Claimant
Mr. D Marahare for the First to Fifth Defendants
No Appearance /No rep. for the 6, 7,9,10 Defendant
Mr. A Radcliffe for the 8 Defendant

The claimant by an Amended claim filed on 30^th June 2017, sued 10 defendants consisting of 35 individuals and three cooperated bodies over 7 publications which he claimed published defamatory statements about him which damage his reputation. He seeks the following reliefs;

With regard to the Progressive Report, the cruz of the claimant’s allegations was that, the first defendants, with deliberate intent to injure the good reputation of the claimant and with ill motive to cause or instigate criminal prosecution of the claimant, carried out several media and public defamatory attacks on the good reputation of the claimant by alleging falsely that the Claimant mis-used Constituency funds. The claimant alleged the First Defendants produced or caused to be produced a report styled Progress Report on Inquiry, dated 22^nd February 2013, and obtained signatures of the Second to Seventh Defendants, that report contained serious defamatory statements or imputation against the Claimant. Particulars of the defamatory statements or imputations as specifically pleaded and submitted by the claimant were as follows;

It was implied derogatorily or disparagingly by questions posed to the public that the beneficiaries of the MRD Constituencies were false and that the revolving funds established were unlawful.

It was implied derogatorily disparagingly that the claimant used tourism funds in Rock Haven for his own benefit as a shareholder of Rock Haven.

It was implied derogatorily or disparagingly by questions posed to the public that the following funds were misused by Claimant:

It was stated expressly that the Claimant, Michael Kahamana and Patterson Mane used constituency funds to buy Uta shipping themselves.

The report contains a resolution for referral of a complaint to the leadership Code Commission and police for further investigation.

The onus is on the claimant to prove his claim on the balance of probabilities thus the claimant must prove that the defendants intent to injure his good reputation by malice or ill motive when they made the publications.

For purposes of the assessment and to determine whether the progressive report contained defamatory statements or imputation I set out the progressive report in full, it reads as follows;

The purpose of the inquiries is not a “witch Hunt” against our leader but merely to ensure that development funding’s earmarked for the people of HKKH Constituency is distributed fairly and justly to all the people of HKKH, without singling out any groups or denying others.

From those of us who carry out this enquiry we would humbly ask all the people of HKKH to help us help ourselves make HKKH a better place for all of us to live together as a family and work together for the betterment of society.

Our ultimate aim in all things is improvement of the quality of life for the people of HKKH Constituency.

There are number of activities that our leader, Hon Selwyn Riumana has undertaken that genuinely require some explanation to us the beneficiaries of the constituency development funds. These include but not exhaustively the following:

007314INV-104826		V001397	0.00	MRD/SSCD/14/12/C
050587		V001397	0.00	MRD/RLF/453/12
050596INV-133143	Havulei Ward Revolving fund	V007342	150,000.00	MRD/RLF/453/12A
05060INV-133142	Hograno/Katova/Kia/Havulei Project	V007341	550,000.00	MRD/RLF/453/2012A
050601INV-133144	Kia Ward revolving fund	V007343	76,000.00	MRD/RLF/453/2012B
05063INV-133145	Katova Ward Revolving Fund	V007344	150.000.00	MRD/RLF/2012C
05064INV-133146	Hograno People Association	V007345	500,000.00	MRD/RLF/453/2012D

The first to seventh defendants did not deny producing the progressive report but pleaded public interest and the report contains no defamatory statements or imputations, they denied liability.

The authors of the report make it plain from the start what is the purpose or intention of the report. While in a publication of a defamatory matter the intention of the defendant is irrelevant, in the present case since malice and ill motive was specifically pleaded, the onus is on the claimant to prove malice on part of the defendants as specifically pleaded in his claim.

I had read the report and found as a matter of fact the statements in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the report reflect the true records of funds received for Hograno, Kia, and Katova Havulei constituency. These funds including the RCDF are public money allocated to Mr Riumana as a members of parliament. These same funds are also given to all other members of parliament. The members of parliament have a lot to do with the management of the funds, use, and distribution of the funds. They are required to account for how the money is used so naturally members of parliament will always be questioned about how the money is distributed. In that regard these are questions of public interest which a member of parliament including Mr Riumana are obliged to answer if raised by their constituents. In this respect I take note Mr. Radclyffe submission that the court can take judicial notice of the fact there are frequent stories in the media concerning the way MPs spend the constituency funds and other public funds.

In the present case the progressive report was in fact questions seeking clarification on how the RCDF and other public funds have been distributed and used in Mr Riumana’s constituency. Most of the content of the report are true records of the funds distribution hence a defence of public interest and fair comments raised by the defendants would succeed by virtue of section 6 of the Defamation Act, 1952, UK, an Act which is applicable in Solomon Islands by virtue of Schedule 3 to the Constitution.

In any event on the materials before the court, I find the 1^st to 7^th defendants’ publication of the progressive report raises no imputation of the claimant. I also found no evidence of any ulterior motive, malice or smear campaign in producing the report as alleged by the claimant. The allegation of defamation against the 1^st to 7^th defendant is dismissed.

The third allegation was the alleged defamatory publication by slander of statement/comments by Stephen Bill Manehugu, broadcast by the Eight Defendant (SIBC) on 1^st March 2013 on SIBC news. The words broadcast over the SIBC news were as follows;

In the SIBC broadcast Mr Stephen Billy Manehugu was not making statement of fact but merely asking question for Mr. Riumana to answers and the reasons for the question were a result of rumors that were going around. Mr Manehugu stated that the claimant would not allow them to see him to raises these questions personally with him hence the reasons why they have resorted to using the public media. The manner in which the question were put, in my view were not defamatory unless the claimant prove malice or ill motive by the defendants. I am not satisfied on the balance of probilities that the claimant had prove malice or ill motive hence the allegation must be dismissed.

The fourth Allegation was the lodgement of criminal complainant by Stepehen Manehugu and Cecil Evo by letter dated 21^stFebruary 2013, to the Commissioner of Police.

Read alone those words would be defamatory but one has to read the whole letter to get the meaning of the letter or make sense of what the defendants were saying. When that is done it would be more difficult to find any imputation as alleged by the claimant. One would instead find that the content of the body of the letter from paragraphs 1 to 11 were true.

One just cannot read the heading and claim the content of the letter was defamatory. It is from the body of the letter that what the defendants intend to say would come out. In the present case the body of the letter does not alleged that the claimant steals or misuses the constituency funds. All that it did was put questions for clarification to the claimant.

It was stated that a defendant entitled to use the whole publication to provide the context of the words complained of when the jury is considering the meaning and that the plaintiff is not permitted to use a blue pencil on words published of him to change their meaning and then prevent the defendant from justifying the words in their unexpurgated form^[1] In Lewis v Daily Telegraph^[2] the defendant published a paragraph in their newspaper stating that Officers of the City of London Fraud Squad were investigating the affairs of the plaintiff company and the plaintiffs alleged that these words carried the meaning that the company’s affairs were conducted fraudulently or dishonestly. By a majority the House of Lords decided that the words capable of bearing that meaning. In the present case I am satisfied a reasonable reader having read the full content of the letter will conclude that introductory words were not defamatory. Having consider the full content of the leter I also come to the same conclusion.

I also found that there was no proof of malice or ill motive on part of the defendants in writing to the Commissioner of Police rather the defendants were raising matters in which there was a common interest on part of the defendants and the Commissioner of Police. The Common interest lies in the defendants as members of the Hograno, Kia, Katova Havulei Constituency and citizens of Solomon Islands who are obliged to report any reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed by any person to the Police and on the part of the Commissioner of Police as the Head of the Police Force who has the authority to deal with such reports. In law it is not necessary that a person must be sure that a person actually committed an offence before he report to the police, reasonable suspicion would suffice. This is a matter of public policy without which the liberty to report offences to the Police and our criminal justice system would be in jeopardy.

The fifth allegation was by publication of defamatory article by the 9^th defendant in Solomon Star on Wednesday 14^th August 2013. The ninth defendant is the Anti-Corruption Network of Solomon Islands. There is no evidence that the ninth defendant still exist or is a legal entity capable of suing and being sued in its own name. The allegation against the ninth defendant would fall on that basis and is dismissed.

The sixth allegation was by publication of defamatory letter in Solomon Star by Cecil Evo on Wednesday 15^th January 2014. The letter complained of was under the heading “Sale of Rock Haven Shares” The letter goes on to state that some chiefs of Hograno district of Isabel Province are calling for an immediate forensic audit into the financial affairs of the Hograno Peoples Association (HPA) to determine the status of HPA, how it is funded and how its funds were used and whether it holds any shares in Rock Haven Inn.

I cannot see what is defamatory in those words or that any imputation can be made on content of the letter. The letter basically raises question about the Hograno Peoples Association status in Rock Haven Inn, nothing about Mr Riumana’s character. I will dismiss the allegations against Mr. Evo and 10^th defendants on that basis.

The seven allegation is publication of defamatory letter dated 15^th August 2014 by Johnson Leamana, Stephen Billy Manegere, Edward Vunagi, Dudley Longamei, Apollos Manegere, Luke Eta and Hazel Silverion by the Ninth Defendant in Solomon Star newspaper published on Wednesday 14^th August 2013.

The National parliament Election of 2014 was held on 19^th November 2014 and the letter was written only three weeks away from the dissolution of Parliament. Taking judicial notice of how payments are process at the Treasury division in the Ministry of Finance it may be that by time funds were paid out, Parliament would have dissolved so the defendants have a genuine concern and a public interest to inform the right authority as they did. I find no evidence of malice on part of the defendants in doing so. Those funds are to be given to members of parliament and Mr. Riumana at that time in three weeks’ time will no longer be a member of parliament and has no right to get the funds.

In defamation the usual question would be, did the statements published brought the claimant into hatred, contempt or ridicule by others? So the question is, did the published statement lowered the plaintiff in esteem of right-thinking members of the public. There was no evidence of this.

It was said that “In assessing the standard of right-thinking member of the public, the court will rule out, on one hand, persons who are so lax or cynical that they would think none of the worse of a man whatever was imputed to him, and on the hand those that are so censorious as to regard even the trivial (accusations (if they were true) lowering another’s reputation, or who so hastily as to infer the worst meaning from any ambiguous statement... The ordinary citizen is neither unusually naïve, and he does not always interpret the meaning of words as would a lawyer, for he is not inhibited by knowledge of rules of construction”^[3]

In determining the whether the publications were defamatory I took into account that “what may be defamatory in one society will not necessary be so in another, and as time passes and social attitude changes, words may cease to become defamatory, as the case may be”^[4] In Hartt v Newspaper Publishing plc^[5] it was said that the approach that should be adopted is that of the hypothetical reasonable reader who was neither ‘naïve’ nor unduly suspicious’ but who might read in an implication more readily than a lawyer, and might indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking. On the other hand, the hypothetical ordinary reader was not someone who was avid for scandal’ and he was not someone who selected one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meaning are available.

In the present case I consider Mr Riumana’s case fall within what is not a hypothetical reasonable reader. There is no evidence from any member of the public to support the alleged imputations alleged by Mr. Riumana apart from the pleadings and content of final submission of the counsel for the claimant. Unfortunately the content of the final submission is not evidence.

It is also said that “different generations have different views of things and in modern society there is not a single accepted view on all such issues. It is necessary to ask yourself of each alleged defamation how a judge today would rule”^[6]

In this respect when considering any allegation of defamation against a member of parliament in Solomon Islands it is pertinent to take into account the status and responsibilities of a member of Parliament in Solomon Islands today. I take judicial notice of the fact that in Solomon Islands a member of parliament is not only a legislator but they are also perceived as and given names such as project coordinators, bankers, Sea fare payers, school fee payers, walking ATMs, and the list goes on. The reason for this is they received from the government and hold on behalf of their constituencies millions of dollars every year and people are aware of this. They have a lot do with the administration of those money hence attract a lot of public interest from their constituencies. This makes them susceptible to be questioned and queried and critised. However, whatever is said or questions asked of them must be considered in the light of the public perception. Members of parliament attract a lot public interest in how they manage and distribute those public funds hence whatever was said and questions asked of Mr. Riumana in the circumstances were matters of public interest and fair comments.

On the materials before the court and in the absence of any evidence of ill motive or malice on part of the defendants I am satisfied the claimant has not proved the allegations in his claim. All the allegations and claim against the first to the tenth defendants are dismissed with cost against the claimant to be tax if not agreed.

^[1] Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelfor [1986] Q.B.1000
^[2][1964] AC 234
^[3] Winfield and Jolwics pp 313-4; Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 at 258, per Lord Reid
^[4] Gatley, Libel and Slander (8^th ed) para 47
^[5] [1989] The Independent, 27 October, CLY 1989, 2246.
^[6] Stephen Ofei ,1997 “ Law of torts in the South Pacific” IJAL, USP,p306

High Court of Solomon Islands

Riumana v Manehugu [2019] SBHC 103; HCSI-CC 195 of 2014 (13 November 2019)