Hot FM: Chellah Tukuta K20 Million Defamation Lawsuit in Zambia

• Hot FM and its chairman, Oscar Chavula, have filed a K20 million defamation lawsuit against photographer Cornelius Mulenga Chellah Tukuta in Zambia.
• The lawsuit stems from an August 28 Facebook post by Mr. Tukuta accusing Mr. Chavula of promoting terrorism.
• Plaintiffs allege the post damaged Hot FM's reputation and commercial standing, citing Mr. Chavula's public association with the radio station.
• The claim includes libel by innuendo and malicious falsehood under Zambia's Defamation Act, which allows for pecuniary damage claims without proof of special damage.
• Mr. Tukuta reportedly failed to retract the post or apologize after a demand letter and made a further aggravating statement.

This High Court action underscores the significant legal risks associated with public commentary on social media platforms, particularly when allegations of such gravity are made against individuals and corporate entities.

Hot FM Limited and its chairman, Oscar Chavula, have initiated a High Court defamation lawsuit against photographer Cornelius Mulenga Chellah Tukuta, widely known as Chellah Tukuta. The plaintiffs are seeking substantial damages, amounting to K20 million, in addition to interest and legal costs. This legal action stems from a Facebook post published by Mr. Tukuta on August 28, which allegedly contained defamatory statements concerning Mr. Chavula.

The contentious post, appearing on Mr. Tukuta's public Facebook page, "Chellah Tukuta Studios," accused Mr. Chavula of actively promoting terrorism within Zambia. The allegations drew a direct comparison to radio stations in Rwanda that were implicated in promoting genocide, suggesting a similar level of culpability. The lawsuit was formally filed today, bringing these serious accusations before the Zambian High Court.

The Facebook post in question was accompanied by a prominent photograph of Mr. Chavula, further solidifying the direct association. Court documents indicate the post garnered significant public attention, attracting at least 465 reactions, four shares, and numerous comments from online users. One specific comment, made by Harrison Mumba, directly addressed Mr. Chavula by name, referencing his professionalism and work, which the plaintiffs cite as evidence that at least one audience member clearly understood the post to refer to him.

The plaintiffs assert that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words conveyed that Mr. Chavula had promoted terrorists or terrorism in Zambia, or had supported, encouraged, facilitated, or provided a platform for such activities. They contend that his conduct was presented as comparable in character and seriousness to that of radio stations accused of promoting genocide in Rwanda. Given Mr. Chavula's well-established public profile as a director, shareholder, and chairman of Hot FM—a fact widely reported, including a 2017 Mwebantu article identifying him as the station's chief operating officer and co-founder, and a 2025 News Diggers report naming him chairman during its 20th-anniversary celebration—Hot FM and Mr. Chavula argue that readers would have understood the defamatory statements to also implicate the radio station itself. This alleged publication, they claim, has caused injury to Hot FM's reputation, goodwill, and commercial standing among its diverse stakeholders, including listeners, advertisers, commercial partners, employees, and regulators.

The claim against Hot FM is being pursued on two distinct legal grounds: as libel by innuendo and, alternatively, as malicious falsehood under Zambia's Defamation Act. This Act is particularly relevant as it permits claims for pecuniary damage to a trade or business without requiring explicit proof of special damage. The plaintiffs are seeking aggravated damages, citing the exceptional gravity and inflammatory nature of associating them with terrorists or terrorism. They highlight the defendant's use of emphatic language, including the capitalized word "TERRORISM," and the complete absence of any reasonable factual basis for the allegations as further justification for increased damages.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, Hot FM and Mr. Chavula dispatched a demand letter to Mr. Tukuta via WhatsApp on August 31, 2026. This letter requested the removal of the offending post, a public retraction, an apology, and an undertaking that similar allegations would not be repeated. However, the statement of claim alleges that Mr. Tukuta failed to acknowledge receipt of this communication and has subsequently failed, refused, or neglected to provide the requested retraction, apology, or undertaking. Furthermore, the plaintiffs point to a subsequent post by Mr. Tukuta, published on or about August 31, in which he reportedly declared he was "ready for Mr. Chavula." This statement, according to the plaintiffs, further aggravates the injury and demonstrates an intention to persist in the dispute.

This High Court action underscores the significant legal risks associated with public commentary on social media platforms, particularly when allegations of such gravity are made against individuals and corporate entities. The plaintiffs are seeking a range of remedies beyond monetary compensation, including general damages for libel and aggravated damages. They also request a permanent injunction to restrain Mr. Tukuta from publishing similar allegations in the future, alongside a mandatory injunction compelling him to remove any existing offending publications still under his control. The case highlights the potential for substantial financial penalties and injunctive relief in defamation cases arising from online content in Zambia. Hot FM and Mr. Chavula are being represented in this matter by Mandela and Partners Legal Practitioners.

This case highlights the significant defamation risks associated with social media posts in Zambia, particularly for individuals and corporate entities, and underscores the potential for substantial damages and the application of the Defamation Act regarding malicious falsehood and libel by innuendo. Lawyers should advise clients on prudent social media conduct to mitigate such exposures, while compliance officers should review internal policies on public commentary.

Source: Information derived from recent court filings.