In
response
to
Machakaire,
Mahere
said
that
the
Access
to
Information
and
Protection
of
Privacy
Act
(AIPPA),
cited
in
his
legal
demand
for
a
retraction,
was
repealed
five
years
ago.
In
a
follow-up
to
their
initial
letter
of
demand
dated
7
July,
the
law
firm,
acting
on
behalf
of
Machakaire
in
his
personal
capacity,
responded
to
Mahere’s
reply
posted
on
her
X
(formerly
Twitter)
account.
While
acknowledging
her
public
statement,
the
lawyers
argued
that
she
had
not
provided
a
formal
legal
response.The
letter
states:
We
have
taken
note
that
you
have
used
your
handle
to
respond
to
our
letter
mentioned
above.
We
have
not
received
a
formal
response,
which
we
still
anticipate.
Prichard
Attorneys
acknowledged
that
the
Access
to
Information
and
Protection
of
Privacy
Act
(AIPPA),
cited
in
their
initial
letter,
has
been
repealed.
However,
they
revised
their
legal
position
by
invoking
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
[Chapter
10:33],
maintaining
that
Mahere
had
still
not
followed
the
correct
procedures
for
seeking
official
information.
Citing
Section
7
of
the
Act,
the
law
firm
argued
that
requests
for
public
information
must
be
made
in
writing
and
addressed
to
a
designated
information
officer,
not
shared
through
social
media
channels.
Reads
the
letter:
The
exchange
on
the
handle
does
not
follow
due
process
as
required
by
law.
If
your
defamatory
broadcasts
on
X
are
directed
to
our
client
in
his
official
capacity
in
genuine
search
for
accountability,
then
such
must
be
made
in
terms
of
the
law,
law
of
which
you
are
conversant
with.
The
original
online
post,
viewed
tens
of
thousands
of
times,
questioned
the
Minister’s
alleged
involvement
in
an
US$8
million
tax
evasion
case
and
concluded
with
the
statement,
“We
need
new
leaders.”
Machakaire
contends
that
this
remark
impugns
his
character,
prompting
demands
for
a
retraction
and
public
apology.
While
Prichard
Attorneys
acknowledged
that
citizens
have
a
constitutional
right
to
hold
public
officials
accountable,
they
argued
that
such
actions
must
follow
established
legal
procedures,
standards
they
say
Mahere,
as
a
legal
practitioner,
ought
to
be
fully
aware
of.
Reads
the
letter:
Our
client
insists
that
the
broadcast
is
defamatory
as
it
attacks
his
person
and
not
official
public
title.
He
insists
with
his
demand
for
a
retraction
and
demands
that
if
you
indeed
request
information
from
the
Ministry
of
Youth,
you
must
follow
due
process
as
the
process
you
are
engaged
in
is
unlawful.