PIRF September 2005 report

For example, the Windhoek declaration, to which Zimbabwe is state party underlines the importance of freedom of expression through the media by stating that “the establishment, maintenance and fostering of an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and maintenance of democracy in a nation, and for economic development.” The African Charter on Broadcasting also states that freedom of expression “includes the right to communicate and access to means of communication”.

And yet despite being party to these fine declarations there is an obvious contempt for freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. Government has shown a lack of commitment to its international and local constitutional obligations to protect the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. Hence, the campaign for the right to freedom of expression has not yielded any significant victories except that it has kept the issue as a problem that government has to address sooner or later. That is why the issue of the repression of the media has been a source of embarrassment for the government in the various international fora where human rights issues are discussed.

 

It was also precisely because of this kind of unrelenting pressure that on September 30, Media and Information Commission chairman, Dr. Tafataona Mahoso’s letter, MIC not amused on ethics (the Independent) had to respond to the growing campaign for the dissolution of the Commission. The PIRF reiterates its stance that the MIC has done a great disservice to the Zimbabwean citizenry by banning newspapers and selectively applying repressive sections of AIPPA on private media organizations and their employees. Zimbabweans are poorer for lack of alternative sources of information and this retards the potential for economic development and the cultivation of a vibrant participatory democracy.

 

Meanwhile the broadcasting the monopoly of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings (ZBH) still persists. This continued monopoly has a limiting effect on the public’s right to access alternative sources of information and the right of individuals to exercise their right to freedom of expression through media of their choice. The refusal by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) to grant a license to Munhumutapa African Broadcasting Corporation also demonstrate government’s reluctance to allow more players into the broadcasting industry.

The right to information is a fundamental human right and needs to be defended. This can be achieved by pressurizing government to be accountable for its actions by meeting obligations under national and international law.

 

q There was a marked decrease in violations of the right to freedom of assembly and association in the period under review. However, there was one pattern that remains consistent with previous months, that is, that the victims (MDC and WOZA) have been consistent victims every month.

q Violations against freedom of the media remained high and were targeted primarily at private media houses. The continued postponements and delays in decisively dealing with the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) application for an operating license amount to a denial of the proprietors’ right to exercise their freedom of expression through the medium of their choice.

q The acquittal of Kevin Jakachira by the magistrate’s court on charges under AIPPA of practicing journalism without accreditation once again exposed the repressive aspect of the law. It also vindicated calls for the dissolution of the Media and Information Commission (MIC) that has selectively applied this law to destroy the private media. The verdict once again demonstrates that AIPPA has no place in democratic society and vindicates calls for its repeal or extensive amendment.

q Significantly, it also emerged during the trial that the MIC shared a postal box with the President’s Office thus demystifying any notion that the MIC board is autonomous. It also should send a creepy feeling in the journalism fraternity because the MIC accreditation forms require applicants to divulge personal information which apparently is going to the President’s office that houses Central Intelligence Officers. This provides more evidence that the MIC should be dissolved and be replaced with a voluntary media council to regulate the journalism profession.

q The period under review also witnessed a short-lived resurgence of hate speech in the media but whose probable consequences were disastrous for those who fell victim. This was reflected in the racial slur directed at white commercial farmers, which might have inspired the violence that was unleashed against white farmers in Manicaland. PIRF once again calls on the media to censure leaders who use such language as it might encourage the trampling of the human rights of those that such language is targeted at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were a total of nine reported rights violations in the period under review. As shown in the table below the police were the highest perpetrators with four while the rest where implicated once each.

 

 

The significance of the statistics is two-fold; namely that even though there were fewer violations compared to previous months, the police continue to pose the greatest threat to freedom of expression. Secondly, the violations attributed to the Administrative Court and the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe have far reaching consequences for freedom of speech than the figures can show.

 

The Administrative Court deferred the hearing of an appeal by the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) against the MIC decision to deny them an operating license reportedly because of a shortage of assessors. The constant delays by the courts to reach a speedy resolution to this case, which has been dragging in and out of the courts since 2003, is tantamount to a denial of justice to the applicants within a reasonable time. It also amounts to a denial of the public’s right alternative sources of information, which they need in order to make informed choices and decisions.

 

The refusal by the BAZ to grant Munhumutapa African Broadcasting Corporation (MABC) a license in the period under review also denied the public the right to exercise their freedom of expression through media of their choice and at the same time prolonged the monopoly of the state controlled ZBH. Also notable was the decrease rights violations arising from political tensions between rival political parties perhaps because of lack of political activity in the country.

 

 

The operating environment for the media in the period under review was hostile. The incidents outlined below demonstrate that media institutions are operating under duress and face unreasonable restrictions in violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. For example:

On September 13: The Chronicle reported that on the September12 five journalists were barred from attending the Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) annual general meeting at the Queens Sports Club in Bulawayo. According to cricinfo thatalso reported on the matter on September 12, ZC communications and media manager, Lovemore Banda, with the assistance of two police officers barred five and told them that they would have to wait for an official press conference later in the afternoon. When the five refused to budge the two police officers were called to escort them out of the building. According to the Chronicle, the journalists included the paper’s senior sports reporter Wellington Toni, Sunday News sports editor Phatisani Moyo, sports reporter Mehluli Sibanda also from The Sunday News, Tawanda Juru of New Ziana and AFP correspondent John Kelley.

 

On September 16: The Zimbabwe Independent reported that Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) had refused to issue a commercial television license to MABC. The BAZ alleged that the MABC application was not granted because the applicant had failed to demonstrate that it had the financial resources to operate a television license and that it owed the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) an undisclosed amount of money. Although MABC had indicated that it would source funds from the Diaspora through Homelink, BAZ denied MABC the license saying this demonstrated that they were not dealing with “the real prospective licensee yet” because the people who were going to fund the project were non-existent.

 

On September 22: The Financial Gazette reported that the Administrative Court deferred a hearing of an appeal by the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ), publishers of The Daily News and The Daily News on Sunday “because of a shortage of assessors”. SW Radio Africa also reported on the matter on September 21. The weekly paper quoted court officials as having said; “We advised both parties that the matter has been struck of the roll because of a technical problem. However, it will be heard soon”. SW Radio Africa quoted Mordekai Mahlangu, the lawyer representing ANZ in the case, as having said the Media and Information Commission (MIC) objected to two assessors in the case because they were the same who helped Justice Michael Majuru1 in 2003. Both sources did not seek comment from the MIC.

 

On September 30: the Zimbabwe Independent reported that the Central Intelligence Organisation had tightened its grip in the control of the Zimbabwe Mirror Group Newspapers by forcing out the group’s CEO and editor-in-chief Ibbo Mandaza. The paper quoted unnamed CIO sources as saying, “Mandaza is expected to quit on December 31 after he lost the struggle for the Mirror papers”.

On September 30: the Zimbabwe Independent reported the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) has denied Zimind, publishers of the Zimbabwe Independent and The Standard newspapers access to a satellite dish and accessories provided by Reuters for newsgathering. The paper quoted a letter by Zimra regional controller, Eric Maguranyanga to the manager of the clearing agency that showed evidence of CIO involvement. Maguranyanga was quoted as having written: “You are … required to make an application for a registration license from [Post and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe] Portraz for the issuance. A copy of your application should be sent to the President’s Office, P.O. Box 2373, Harare.” The paper added that Portraz and BAZ had given leave for the release of the equipment but Zimra, apparently on order from police commissioner, Augustine Chihuri has refused to release the satellite dish. The Independent also quoted Reuters manager for media accounts in Africa, Jocelyn Muhutu-Remy as saying the Financial Gazette and Zimbabwe Newspapers had the satellite receiver equipment.

The incidents against the MABC and Zimind Publishers demonstrate government’s entrenched cynicism against freedom of expression or the need to cultivate a diversity of independent media sources to enhance the public’s right to information. This is in contravention to the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting Independent and Pluralistic Media to which Zimbabwe is state party. According to the declaration, “independent press” means “a press independent from government, political or economic control or from control of materials and infrastructure essentials for the production and dissemination of newspapers, magazines and periodicals”. Government appears determined not to allow the growth of such media.

 

There was a marked decrease in violations of the right to freedom of assembly and association, which could perhaps be attributed to a lull in political activities compared to March 2005, which coincided with the general election. The few incidents recorded in the period under review were as follows:

 

On September 13: SW Radio Africa reported on September 12 four unidentified men tried to break into the MDC regional offices in Bulawayo at night but were disturbed by an alert security guard raised the alarm by screaming for help and several guards stationed at nearby shops came to the rescue. SW Radio Africa quoted an MDC activist as having said the government vehicle that was used for the attempted raid had been spotted during the day monitoring activities at the office. The private radio station said the security guards tried to call police to intervene but the phone numbers at Central police station went unanswered. There was no evidence that the station sought police comment.

 

On September 21: SW Radio Africa reported that 12 MDC youths were taken to the court on allegations of breaching the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) after allegedly barricading a major road in Harare during the March 2003 mass stay away called by the MDC. The first hearing in the case was on Tuesday September 20. SW Radio Africa quoted the youths’ defence lawyers as saying they had told the trial magistrate that the youths were nowhere near the scene of the alleged crime and that in fact police accompanied by ZANU PF supporters moved around picking up known MDC activists on the night in question.

 

On September 21: The Daily Mirror reported that riot police dispersed demonstrators from Women Of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) and the Combined Harare Residents Association (CHRA) who were marching to mark International Day of Peace. According to SW Radio Africa, which also reported on the incident, there were two demonstrations, one in Bulawayo and the other in Harare. According to the radio station five women were assaulted in Harare while 15 were arrested in Bulawayo after police violently broke up a demonstration by the pressure group WOZA. The Mirror quoted Harare police spokesperson Loveless Rupere as saying no arrests were made and gave a warning that people wanting to demonstrate should seek clearance before marching to avoid arrest. However, it was not clear whether she was commenting on the two demonstrations or just the Harare demonstration.

 

While it is notable that the frequency of such violations decreased, it is very significant that the MDC and the civic organization WOZA were the only targets. Therefore, despite the fewer violations the permanent feature of these violations is that organizations perceived to be anti-government were targeted for harassment and intimidation.

 

 

After a long period of few instances of hate speech, it resurfaced in the period under review. On September 18, The Standard quoted Minister of State Security, Land Reform and Resettlement, Didymas Mutasa as having made inflammatory remarks targeted at the remaining white commercial farmers who still own farms.

 

“Operation Murambatsvina should also be applied to the land reform programme to clean the commercial farms that are still in the hands of the whites. White commercial farmers are dirty and should be cleaned out. The government will not hesitate to take their farms to resettle black people who failed to get land during the redistribution exercise. … They [whites] are similar to the filth that was in the streets before Operation Murambatsvina”.

 

Except in very obvious cases, it is difficult to determine a direct cause-and-effect relationship between hate speech and acts of violence, threats or intimidation. However, sometimes it is instructive to observe events that happen after such inflammatory remarks particularly by powerful individuals in society. For example, two weeks after Mutasa’s utterances, The Standard issue of September 25 reported that armed gangs led by state security agents and other government officials had seized farms in Chipinge and Nyazura after brutally assaulting farm workers and harassing the owners. In one incident, the paper reported, Ashanti Farm manager Allen Warner was severely assaulted after a failed attempt by a senior official of the Central Intelligence Organisation, Joseph Chiminya, to shoot him with an “Uzi light machine gun”.  

In another case, a senior official from the Zimbabwe Embassy in London allegedly invaded Brackenridge Farm with “12 police officers in tow” and instructed the owner to “vacate the farm at night”. Four of the police officers were reportedly armed with AK 47 automatic rifles. The Standard presented the violence as being linked to National Security and Land Reform Minister Didymus Mutasa’s incitement against white commercial farmers during his address to the Masvingo land audit committee two weeks ago.

 

PIRF’s position is that the media should not only censor such remarks but also subject them to censure because in a volatile socio-political and economic environment like the one obtaining in Zimbabwe they can be a cause for harm on those to whom such language is targeted. People holding key and powerful positions in society should desist from making such utterances because excitable elements and groups in society can take them as justification for acts of intimidation or worse still, violence.

 

PIRF hails the acquittal of former Daily News bureau chief, Kevin Jakachira on charges under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) of practicing without accreditation as yet another demonstration that AIPPA has no place in democratic society and that it has been selectively applied by the biased government appointed Media and Information Commission (MIC).

 

Jakachira was acquitted Harare Magistrate Priscilla Chigumba in a case that could be used as a test case for 45 other journalists from the banned Daily News who are facing similar charges. The magistrate noted that Jakachira had applied for accreditation but had received no response from the government-appointed Media and Information Commission and that under the law the former Daily News reporter was entitled to work while awaiting the outcome of his application. Magistrate Chigumba also found that the “state witness’ testimony … was at times vague, at times confused and in any event found not to be credible by the court”. (Judgment by Magistrate Priscilla Chigumba, August 31 2005).

 

The same court case also provided irrefutable evidence of the Media and Information Commission’s hitherto surreptitious links to the office of the President. Previous PIRF reports have demonstrated the Commission’s impartiality in the manner in which it has selectively administered repressive sections of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act against the private media.

 

Evidence of the link was inadvertently made public in the trial of Jakachira when it emerged that the Commission’s old Causeway mailbag, Private Bag 7700, which it used for official correspondence, including journalists’ applications for accreditation, belonged to the Office of the President.  MIC chairman Dr. Tafataona Mahoso could not answer questions on the link between the Commission and the President’s Office. The Zimbabwe Independent of September 9 quoted Jakachira’s lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa as having said, “Mahoso refused to answer the question and why an independent body would use a number used by the President’s Office.”

 

While the MIC has in the past vehemently denied allegations of its partiality purporting that it was an independent regulatory authority, this revelation casts a dark shadow on the operations of the Commission. PIRF reiterates its position that public bodies such as the MIC should be appointed transparently and in the public eye. PIRF stands guided in this conviction by the generally accepted norms on the operation of such public bodies and in particular the recommendation made by the African UnionReport of the Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe: 24^th to 28^th June 2002 that “Any legislation that requires registration of journalists, or any mechanism that regulates access to broadcast media by an authority that is not accountable to the public, creates a system of control and political patronage”.  

 

The MIC’s apparent link to the President’s office makes it a highly compromised body, which cannot be entrusted with regulating the operations of the media and protect the interests of journalists in the public interest. It is precisely on this basis that PIRF has always called the dissolution of the MIC and its replacement with a voluntary media council run by journalists and publishers, as is the norm with other professions.

 

 

The monopoly of the state controlled Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings (ZBH appears set to persist for the unforeseeable future after the only short listed applicant for a commercial national free-to-air television broadcasting license was denied the license by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ).

 

The Zimbabwe Independent of September 16 reported that the government-appointed broadcasting regulatory authority had rejected MABC’s application on the grounds that the aspiring broadcaster had allegedly failed to “demonstrate that it had the financial resources to operate a television station” and cited as an “aggravating factor” the “undisclosed amount of money” the applicant allegedly owes ZBC. MABC reportedly accrued the debt when it rented broadcasting space from ZBC in the late 1990s.

 

This development condemns Zimbabweans to the incessant government propaganda in the now dominant official media. Commenting on the denial of the license to MABC, Deputy Minister of Information and Publicity, Bright Matonga was quoted as saying his ministry was willing to change BSA if it was too restrictive3. “We want to emphasise that we need more players in the broadcasting sector. We cannot continue to have a situation where ZTV is the only television station…it would be hypocritical for us to say we want more players when the regulations are too restrictive,” Matonga said.

 

This was well said but PIRF challenges the Deputy Minister and the ministry responsible to demonstrate the political will to follow up on this statement and facilitate for the licensing of new players in the broadcasting sector without delay. However, the ministry also needs to work on the technical capacity of the country’s broadcasting infrastructure to meet the requirements for broadcasting liberalization. This comes in the wake of comments attributed to Transmedia chief executive, Alfred Mandere, that Zimbabwe does not have the technical infrastructure to accommodate one more national television television. He was quoted as saying, “The current telecommunications network has got a narrow bandwidth in terms of ... broadcasting applications like television…(there cannot be) two or more television channels in Zimbabwe (because) the microwave system, which belongs to Tel*One can only support one channel.”4

 

PIRF therefore calls the ministry to do more than just amending the BSA to ensure that the conditions necessary for the liberalization of the broadcasting sector are in place. For example, it would have been futile to grant MABC a licence when there was no capacity to allow them to start operating.

 

Ends//

---