Zimbabwe’s Constitution guarantees basic rights and freedoms enjoyed in most democracies in the world, and in particular section 20 entrenches freedom of expression. This notwithstanding, journalists are routinely detained, assaulted, tortured and denied basic rights by government agents, for merely carrying out their activities. It is impossible for journalists to obtain prosecution because the perpetrators of these heinous acts are usually the police or government sponsored agents (1).
One may then ask: If the Constitution entrenches most of the basic political rights, such as the right to protection of the law (2), why are journalists unable to enforce their rights by legally compelling the police to investigate and prosecute complaints?
Tortured by the army in 1999, journalists Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto when faced with police prosecution inaction made a court application compelling the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute those responsible (3).
Despite a Court order, no prosecution has been initiated by the State. The government simply refuses to uphold the law, or recognise court judgments, most of which it ignores with contempt. This case illustrates that (a) victims do not automatically obtain protection of the law, (b) that they must be willing to challenge the system, and (c) they must have sufficient financial resources to initiate litigation. With the Zimbabwean economy imploding, very few journalists will have sufficient resources to challenge the system.
Moreover, there is empirical proof that with the judiciary substantially compromised by the government, politically contentious cases are given to a select few and mostly recently appointed judges, who in the majority of cases cause inexplicable delays in passing judgments. Judgement in Capital Radio’s (4) application challenging the constitutionality of the Broadcasting Services Act, filed in 2000 is yet to be passed. With ZANU PF commanding a majority in parliament, all three pillars of State militate against journalists enforcing their rights under the Constitution.
Government Control of the Media
Through AIPPA and the BSA the government created a system through which it controls content of publications, the practice and employment of journalists. On pain of criminal sanction, journalists are required to register with, are disciplined by, and deregistered at the instance of a Media Commission; which Commission is set up and enjoys tenure of office at the instance of the Minister of Information in the President’s Office. Publishing inaccurate information, referred to in the Act as peddling falsehoods, constitutes a criminal offence. The government is the only entity permitted to create and operate broadcasting stations.
It is illegal for journalists to comment on political issues, particularly in a manner that questions, satirises, or ridicules the President, or public figures; or in a manner, which, according to the government is deemed to cause alarm and despondency.
Supporting organisations
In such an environment, even associations of journalists are rendered inane. Under POSA it is illegal to petition the government or parliament for amendments to media repressive laws. This is considered unlawful and many journalists have been detained while protesting. But it must be noted that the several journalists’ organisations that exist in Zimbabwe lack a collective sense of purpose, and as a result have buckled easily under pressure, with some associations aligning themselves with the government.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) attempts to rally all journalists and associations to common themes and issues, often assisting in recording data on media repression, a crucial role for information dissemination and for history’s sake. The Media Defence Fund, created under the auspices of MISA assists journalists with financial and legal resources to challenge arrests of journalists and legislation, prosecuting cases in both civil and criminal courts. This has been by far the most practical assistance that Non-Governmental Organisations have given to Zimbabwe’s strife-stricken journalism community.
Conclusion
Unless and until media repressive laws are challenged and struck out by the Supreme Court on the basis of their unconstitutionality, or the government has a change of heart and causes the amendment if not complete repeal of the legislation, journalism in Zimbabwe will remain the forbidden vocation.
Footnotes
1 Agents such as the Central Intelligence Officers, Youth Trained Militia, War Veterans, or ZANU PF Supporters, usually perpetrate these offences.
2 Refer to Article 18(1) of the Constitution.
3 Chavunduka and Another v.Minister of Home Affairs and Another, SC/36/2000
4 Capital Radio is a private company that has sought to set up a private radio station in competition to that of the government, to no avail.
T. Hondora, Compulsory Accreditation of Journalists: An opinion 17 June 2002:
Article by Tawanda Hondora hondst@hotmail.com A Zimbabwe registered Legal Practitioner specialising in Constitutional and Human Rights Law. Presently studying for an LL.M in International Economic Law at the University of Warwick. United Kingdom.
