First to be returned were the two vehicles that court officials had taken. SOICO lawyer Abdul Gani pointed out that, by agreeing to return the vehicles, judge Pedro Chambal was effectively overruling his own decision of last Friday.
Then Gani had submitted an urgent request for the release of the vehicles. But instead of granting that request, Chambal had, at the insistence of the supposedly injured party, Flavia dos Santos, ordered the seizure of yet more SOICO assets.
So on Friday afternoon, zealous court officials had seized 18 computers and a variety of other equipment from the SOICO newsroom. This threatened the operations of the SOICO television station, STV, and its radio station FSM, as well as of "O Pais".
Tuesday saw Chambal sign two release orders - first for the vehicles, and later for the computer equipment, which was returned to SOICO shortly after 19.00.
To achieve this release, SOICO had to provide a bank guarantee - even though the company insists it has nothing to do with the demand for compensation from Flavia dos Santos, who was never a SOICO employee.
Tuesday was also marked by an extraordinary interview given by the presiding judge of the City Court, Augusto Paulino, to Radio Mozambique, in which he claimed that the court had notified STV that the debt to dos Santos must be paid in February, but STV remained "indifferent", and had ignored the court ruling.
Paulino's source for the supposed notification was not any legal document, but a report in the latest issue of the Sunday paper "Domingo" - and "Domingo" simply got the story wrong.
Joao Ribeiro, of the SOICO management, interviewed on STV on Tuesday night, noted that Paulino had admitted to not studying the case. For the court made no notification, either to SOICO or to STV, neither of whom are party to the dispute involving Flavia dos Santos.
It was not SOICO or STV whom dos Santos sued, but "O Pais" and Antonio Correia Paulo, who headed the company "Editores Associados", the former owner of "O Pais" before the paper was sold to SOICO in May 2005.
SOICO stresses that it knew of no court case until court officials turned up on its doorstep to seize the vehicles on 20 December.
If anyone was told to pay the debt in February, it could only have been Correia Paulo, the person named in the suit.
SOICO points out that suing "O Pais" would be impossible, since the paper is not a legally recognised company, but merely a trade mark, a distinction which seemed lost on the Ninth Section of the City Court.
Paulino had also accused SOICO of "bad faith" in handing over two vehicles, which were not its own property, but which were on long leases from car rental companies.
Gani rejects this accusation. He says it was SOICO itself that pointed out the true ownership of the vehicles in its request to the court delivered on Friday. SOICO had never pretended that the vehicles were its property.
Paulino also said that STV was trying "to turn a judicial decision into a political one". In reality, STV and SOICO had immediately launched a campaign to recover the seized assets and had mobilised public opinion. Over the past five days a vast range of opinion has come out in support of SOICO and condemning the court seizure.
Those who have expressed their solidarity with SOICO include the Catholic Church, the Christian Council of Mozambique (the umbrella body for the main protestant churches), the Islamic Council of Mozambique, the Human Rights League, the Confederation of Mozambican Businesses (CTA), the Mozambican chapter of the regional press freedom body MISA (Media Institute of Southern Africa), opposition political parties, and large numbers of ordinary citizens who sent messages of solidarity and indignation to STV.
Apart from Paulino, nobody at all has spoken publicly to defend, or excuse, the court's behaviour.
The computers may be back in the SOICO newsroom, but the battle is far from over. SOICO must now convince the court that neither it nor STV are party to the dispute involving Flavia dos Santos' claim for compensation. SOICO has made it clear that it will take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
SOURCE: AIM
