To everybody who has so far taken care to have an understanding of the background and context of the issues raised by the subject article, it may be easy for them to decipher the gross misrepresentation, deliberate falsity and malicious intent that drives and laces every bit of it. With such a publication made available to the readers, it is important to present an accurate station of most of the grounds peddled so as to effectively make the actual truth known to those that may not be aware.

The article published by Noseweek and Helo Zambia makes a number of gutter allegations some of which constitute tired lies, defamation, libel and slander which will lead to litigation.

Some of the ‘gutter’ allegations made by the article include the reference to Mahtani as a controversial financial backer of the Zambian President Michael Sata. This is obviously one loose allegation that has only been popularized by individuals who out of insincerity and malice opted to construe the reversal of the fraudulent sale of Finance Bank (FBZ) as an action aimed at repaying Mahtani for some imagined funding to the PF. Isn’t it grossly unreasonable and gravely malicious to concoct an allegation born out of a figment of imagination? It is absolutely malicious and ridiculous!

Apart from the foregoing based on pure malice, the said article has the audacity to delve into matters that are Subjudice particularly when it posits the allegation of forging of the share transfer certificates in Zambezi Portland Cement Limited. It is ironic that someone would opt to handle a matter that is by and large Subjudice under Cause No. 2008/HPC/0366. This allegation is here and is categorically unfounded and untrue and not worth the space it was given on the mentioned news platforms.

It is also very interesting to note that in writing the subject article, the publishers and authors either do not have basic information about Mahtani and Finance Bank or they have deliberately decided to ignore the facts so as to satisfy the culprits’ (Sakwiba Sikota, Ventriglias, Ody Mendenakis, Mohamed Salama, RB and clan) insatiable appetite for malice against Mahtani.

It is difficult to understand how the said article would want to hold that FNB legitimately owned FBZ, granted all the machinations already in the public domain of how a number of unscrupulous businessmen wanted the Bank to collapse so as to save them from settling their liabilities and the odds that Mahtani had to face to fight for his hard earned investments. It is cardinal to note that after the point of the reversal of a proposed sale of FBZ a great sense of national consensus obtained about the need to give back the Bank to the legitimate owners and to ensure that rule of law and justice prevails.

One thing that is obviously evident about the article is the fact of FBZ being bigger than Mahtani owing to its penetration and the number of Zambians that the bank employs. In a nutshell, FBZ is more about Zambia than Mahtani.
Further it is of necessity to note that issues relating FNB and First Rand are strictly Subjudice owing to the fact that Mahtani has commenced proceedings against these institutions for ‘conspiracy misfeasance’ in the sum of $350 million. (three hundred and fifty million dollars)

The evident malice of the article is equally evidenced in fabricating allegations that are subject of settled court cases. The article argues that Mahtani has been embroiled in several running court cases in Britain and Zambia involving the sale of a luxury motor car which is unbelievably outrageous as the matter occurred in 1987 and satisfactorily concluded by the Zambian courts.

As for the Carlington case of 1996, the argument made by the article is obviously not serious as they have conveniently opted to ignore the fact that Mahtani has beyond any reasonable doubt proved through the Cours of Law that he was not involved. The cases of the Italian mafias are in the public domain and Subjudice and not worth any serious consideration by the readers.

As for the allegation over Industrial Development Corporation, it is cardinal to place facts on record and put matters to rest and the article opted to peddle nothing but false representations. This is because the businessman Steven Singleton is merely aggrieved over a request of USD 70,000 (seventy thousand dollars) compassionate loan which was turned down and he has engaged in ascribing allegations to blackmail and extort money from Mahtani. Singleton now faces a defamation action for $10 million issued by Mahtani

The publishers of the said article should be aware of the possibility of being sued so that truth and journalism of integrity prevail.