LUSAKA — HOT FM Limited and its director and shareholder, Oscar Chavula, have sued photographer and social media commentator Cornelius Mulenga, popularly known as Chellah Tukuta, for alleged defamation over a Facebook publication.
The plaintiffs have asked the High Court of Zambia to award damages, restrain Tukuta from repeating the alleged defamatory statements and order him to remove the publication from his social media platforms.
According to a Statement of Claim filed at the High Court’s Principal Registry in Lusaka, Tukuta allegedly published the statement on August 28, 2026, through his Facebook page, Chellah Tukuta Studios.
The publication, which was accompanied by a photograph of Chavula, stated:
“Radio stations in Rwanda promoted the genocide just like Chavula promoted terrorists in Zambia. Zambia is loved by God and there is no room for terrorism.”
Chavula, HOT FM Deny Allegations
Chavula and HOT FM contend that the statement falsely portrayed them as having promoted, supported or facilitated terrorists or terrorism in Zambia.
They further argue that the comparison between Chavula and radio stations accused of promoting the 1994 Rwandan genocide was highly damaging to Chavula’s reputation.
The plaintiffs claim the Facebook publication generated significant public engagement, including at least 465 reactions and four shares, alongside comments and replies.
Chavula is seeking general damages for libel, while HOT FM is seeking general damages for libel by innuendo.
The radio station has also pleaded, in the alternative, a claim for malicious falsehood, arguing that the publication concerned its broadcasting business and was calculated to cause financial or pecuniary damage.
Plaintiffs Say Publication Was Presented as Fact
The plaintiffs maintain that Tukuta’s allegations were presented to the public as statements of fact rather than opinion and had no lawful or factual basis.
They argue that the alleged publication was particularly damaging because Chavula is a director and shareholder of a broadcasting company, making his professional reputation important to listeners, employees, advertisers, business partners, regulators and other stakeholders.
The plaintiffs further allege that Tukuta failed to retract the publication or apologise after receiving a demand letter dated August 31, 2026.
According to the Statement of Claim, the letter demanded that Tukuta remove the publication, issue a retraction and public apology, undertake not to repeat the allegations and preserve relevant evidence.
Further Facebook Post Cited
The plaintiffs also allege that Tukuta published another post on or around August 31, 2026, in which he stated that he was “ready for the First Plaintiff.”
HOT FM and Chavula contend that the additional publication, together with the alleged refusal to retract the original statement, creates a continuing risk that similar allegations could be repeated.
They argue that this could cause further damage to their reputations and commercial interests.
What HOT FM and Chavula Want From Court
Among the remedies being sought are:
- General damages for libel;
- General damages for libel by innuendo;
- Damages for malicious falsehood, in the alternative;
- A permanent injunction preventing Tukuta from publishing or republishing the allegations;
- An order compelling the removal of any offending publication under his control;
- Interest on any damages awarded; and
- Costs of the proceedings.
The plaintiffs have also stated that, for purposes of Order 15 Rule 2 of the High Court Rules, the aggregate monetary relief they are seeking will not exceed K20 million, excluding subsequent interest and costs.
The case is now before the High Court.
The allegations contained in the Statement of Claim are claims made by the plaintiffs and have not yet been tested or determined by the court. Tukuta’s response to the lawsuit will be important as the matter progresses.
