contention that Section 69 of the Penal Code violated Articles 20 and 23 of the Constitution. 257. The Court held interlaid that: (i) no one could seriously dispute that side by side with the freedom of speech was the equally very important public interest in the maintenance of the public character of public men for the proper conduct of public affairs which requires that they be protected from destructive attacks upon their honour and character. When the public person was the Head of State the public interest was even more self-evident; (ii) there was nothing in Article 20 which immunized defamation: a law met the test of the being reasonably required if it had as its aim at least one of the interests or purposes listed in Article 20 (3); (iii) Section 69 of the Penal Code was not unconstitutional and ordered that the trials proceed before the Subordinate Courts. 258. In the Case of Zambia Daily Mail Limited Vs Charles Banda, SCZ Judgement No. 35 of 1999. The appellant Newspaper published an advertisement and article, both based upon press conferences, which implied that the respondent, a radio journalist, took money from the Zambia Independent Monitoring Team (ZIMT) to broadcast information favourable to ZIMT’s position. The advertisement was captioned, “Betrayal of a Nation. Press statement by Isaac Zimba – Vice President ZIMT”. Following publication, the respondent was suspended from his job and his case was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission. He was subsequently acquitted of the allegations and thereafter sought for an apology from Zambia Daily Mail, which was refused. 109