IREX
International Research & Exchanges Board

MSI Africa 2006-2007

E-mail this pageE-mail this page

ZimBabwe

Introduction

Overall Country Score:  1.27

In theory, Zimbabwe’s major media legislation and constitutional provisions—although not guaranteeing absolute free speech and press freedom—should be able to provide for a reasonably free media. In practice the situation is quite different. In 2002, the government of Zimbabwe introduced the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which makes the practice of journalism a criminal offense if done without a license. The law, ostensibly meant to regulate the media industry, is, to the contrary, a pernicious control law. It has been responsible for the closure of at least four publications since its inception, the deportation of several foreign correspondents, and the impoverishment of many journalists who found themselves jobless with the attendant suffering of their families. The law is selectively applied against the private media and their reporters.

While selective application of draconian legislation has been the chief means of violating media freedoms and the right to free expression, extra-legal attacks on these rights has also been commonplace. Violations have taken the form of assaults, raids on journalists’ offices and homes, and bombings of offices and printing facilities belonging to independent media outlets, among other tactics. Tight government controls, a stifling political environment, hostility toward opposition views, and government criticism of the private media have all contributed to a Zimbabwe where journalists are always at risk: they can be arrested or physically assaulted, and the perpetrators will go unpunished.

An environment wholly non-conducive to free expression persists in Zimbabwe under the control of a government that enforces policies seemingly calculated to severely limit fundamental liberties. Therefore, it is not surprising that Objective 1, freedom of speech, scored poorly, at 0.78. Even worse was Objective 3, plurality of news, which scored 0.68. One of the key tactics the present government uses to maintain political control is domination of the media at the expense of other sources of information that might challenge its hegemony. However, vestiges of the stronger media sector of old linger on, albeit having suffered. Objectives 4 and 5, business management and supporting institutions, scored much higher, each at 1.94.

Objective 1: Freedom of Speech

Score: 0.78

Most indicators scored close to the rather dismal average. Only Indicators 8 and 9, media access to international news sources and free entry into the journalism profession, exceeded a score of 1; the latter was more than a point above the average. Indicator 2, media licensing, received the lowest score, barely breaking 0.

Freedom of expression, historically fragile in Zimbabwe, has been increasingly restricted in recent years. This right, as protected by Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and domestically guaranteed under Section 20 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, has been chiefly violated by the promulgation of legislation and later amendments that heavily curtail media freedom and the free flow of information. Such legislation includes:

  • The Broadcasting Services Act of 2001 (BSA), Chapter 12:06
  • The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act of 2002 (AIPPA), Chapter 10:27
  • The Public Order and Security Act of 2002 (POSA), Chapter 11:17
  • The Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act of 2006, Chapter 9:23

Mathew Takaona, president of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, said the existence of free-expression guarantees in the constitution is in itself laudable, although the laws take away the guarantees. He said, “We then subtract all the marks we could have awarded because of these laws.” Chris Chinaka, Reuters’ chief correspondent in Zimbabwe, contended that justice and freedom are not just a commitment, but a practice. He said that in terms of practice, Zimbabwe is one of the hardest places in which any journalist could work. He said the zero rating he gave was arrived at as punishment for not enforcing what is provided for in the constitution. There are worse places, said Chinaka, but they do not make any pretenses about having in theory a free press. In Zimbabwe’s case, he said, there is a commitment on one hand and heavy doses of laws that take it away on the other.

Lack of judicial independence in cases involving media freedom was also pointed to as a cause for concern. Media lawyer Rangu Nyamurundira gave the example of the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe case, where the courts proved bias on the part of the Media and Information Commission (MIC) but to date have failed to take action against the MIC to compel it to license the banned publishing house. Muchadei Masunda, chairman of the Media Council of Zimbabwe (MCZ), also lamented the deterioration of the judicial system. Whereas in the past judges used to actively protect rights, today they hand down partisan judgments, in some cases, he said, “because of blissful ignorance” on the part of judges involved. Most judges in Zimbabwe have not practiced law.

Masunda also said Zimbabweans value freedom of expression and the press. They used to get outraged when these rights were violated, but now there is no outlet to express themselves. The Daily News, the only independent daily paper that used to carry people’s opinions, has been closed, and demonstrations are outlawed. This unfortunately creates the impression that Zimbabweans are not moved by the violations.

All panelists agreed that licensing of broadcast media is political and not transparent or competitive. The media regulatory and licensing bodies, MIC and the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ), impose stringent license application conditions. BAZ is not an independent body; it was established by the government, which appoints its members. Staff appointments at BAZ and MIC are political. BAZ has rejected applications for licenses in some instances, while failing to process applications it had called for on other occasions. The powers vested in the BAZ to issue calls for applications, instead of potential broadcasters just applying, has been used to delay the licensing of new broadcasters.

Nyamurundira noted that there are no private broadcasters despite a law that, on paper, should facilitate their entry. Those who have applied, such as Voice of the People radio, have been denied the licenses because, according to John Masuku, Voice of the People’s executive director, “they are not the people that they [BAZ] expected to apply.”

In the past, newspapers just registered with the General Post Office to publish. Now, however, they must register with MIC, which routinely threatens to shutter newspapers that criticize the government.

Regarding taxation of the media, Raphael Khumalo, chief executive officer of the Zimbabwe Independent and The Standard newspapers, said those levied by the MIC were too high when added to the corporate tax and the cost of running a publishing house. He also noted that tax is charged on gross profits without taking into account overhead expenses. There is a fine for late payment of fees to the MIC that adds to other expenses the media encounter.

Generally, journalists are very insecure in Zimbabwe, the panel agreed, because many crimes are committed against journalists. The crimes include unlawful arrests, illegal detention, harassment, assault, intimidation, and closure of media houses. Offenders are rarely prosecuted, the majority go unpunished, and a culture of impunity pervades society, making journalists afraid to execute their duties despite a constitutional right to gather and disseminate information. For example, arrests have yet to be made in connection with the bombings of offices belonging to The Daily News in 2000 and 2002, of The Daily News printing press in January 2001, and of the premises of the private radio station Voice of the People in August 2002.

A de facto monopoly of broadcast media persists in the country despite a Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that declared this monopoly unconstitutional. The BSA was subsequently enacted, ostensibly to provide a framework for the regulation of a diverse broadcast media. However, these regulations extend far beyond the mere administrative regulation of the airwaves, providing government with the means to control applications and their review, as well as the content of aspirant broadcasters.

There is preferential treatment for state media. Among other things, this is illustrated by the fact that state media can write or air whatever stories they want without consequence, while independent media would be dragged to court for similar stories.

Libel is treated as a criminal offense, punishable by prison sentences and fines. Worse, citizens who utter statements that may be construed as insulting the president or undermining his authority—even if they are not published in the press—are vulnerable to prosecution and may be fined or imprisoned under POSA or the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. Several such cases have occurred since POSA became law.

Public information is not easily accessible to all journalists. AIPPA governs access to public information, but the law makes it difficult for journalists and the public to access information. There is no law precluding certain media from access to public information, but, in practice, AIPPA does exactly that. Independent media journalists know how to get public information, by “hook and crook,” said Masunda. But they are blocked, and sometimes false information is deliberately delivered and the journalists end up trapped and in trouble with the law.

On paper, the government does not restrict entry into the journalism profession. In reality entry is restricted: you must register under AIPPA first. The government imposes licensing for journalists overseen by the MIC. Masunda said that, while government does not directly control entrance to journalism schools, “they go on to let their loyalists head schools of journalism.” Abigail Gamanya, coordinator for the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe, said entry might be restricted as a result of the proposed national service training before one had the chance to enroll in a training institution.

Objective 2: Professional Journalism

Score: 1.02

Most indicators scored close to the overall average, with two exceptions. Indicator 5, pay levels for journalists, scored extremely low, near 0. Indicator 6, balance of entertainment and news, scored much better, approaching a score of 2.

Journalism in Zimbabwe does not meet professional standards of quality, said the panelists. The reasons were multifaceted, ranging from fear, to lack of training, to the prevailing socio-political and economic environment, to restrictive media laws and self-censorship, to lack of equipment and vehicles to cover events. As Angus Shaw, correspondent for the Associated Press, put it, “there is no professional pride among journalists because doing what is necessary to survive is greater than ethics.”

Rashweat Mukundu, director of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)-Zimbabwe, argued that journalists do not meet standards because of fear—leading to self-censorship—and bias. He pointed out that many journalists concentrate on particular figures as newsmakers and on particular stories despite the fact that there are a number of other issues that deserve space in the media. The Ministry of Information’s interference in the state media also leads journalists there to censor themselves. Chinaka noted that polarization has undermined the media. Panel participants agreed that political reporting is biased. Further, politicians set the agenda for the media, and the media ignore key events and issues such as industrial strikes, HIV/AIDS, and poverty.

Masunda said Zimbabwean journalists are not as well-read as they should be, and that manifests itself in the way they cover news. He also identified lack of mentoring by seasoned journalists as one of the problems compromising the quality of news coverage by Zimbabwean journalists. He said journalists are not tenacious enough, that they “cut corners,” and that they do not consult a wide variety of relevant sources. The majority of stories claim that the relevant sources were not available for comment when journalists sometimes make no effort to consult them at all. Nyamurundira said journalists now rely on third parties for news, which compromises objectivity. To clarify his point, he said journalists no longer attend court hearings but call lawyers after court hearings to get the outcomes.

Gamanya hailed the promulgation of the Code of Conduct for journalists by the MCZ. Zimbabwean media outlets also have in-house codes of ethics. She lamented the poor salaries of journalists, which has resulted in the flight of skilled and experienced journalists from Zimbabwe.

Stenford Matenda, a university lecturer, said the prevailing political economy makes it a challenge for journalists to be fair and effective, adding that the MCZ has a lot of work to do in terms of ethics to improve journalism. Khumalo agreed, saying it was difficult to be ethical under the current political and economic environment. Another example of unethical behavior pertained to entertainment and sports reporting. This is characterized by patronage: certain journalists write about certain personalities.

Khumalo said journalists practice self-censorship, although they deny it. He added that the substitution of words is one example of censorship: when the president diverts a plane, some journalists will not use the word “hijacked.” Chinaka bemoaned self-censorship that he said is practiced criminally: editors choose events that can be covered while ignoring others.

Besides the economic environment, Khumalo pointed to journalists as part of the problem of pay levels. He accused journalists of stringing for online publications and depriving local publications of quality stories that may sell the papers and guarantee higher incomes. Gamanya agreed with this point, going as far as to say that some journalists save their best stories for online sources. Chinaka described journalists’ salaries as scandalously low and suggested it was better to have a small staff and pay decently. Maureen Kademaunga, gender- and human-rights officer for the Zimbabwe National Students Union, agreed, saying poor salaries lead to compromised ethics. She also said journalists “cook up” stories to make them appealing and use file photos in their stories. The exodus of seasoned journalists, she added, has resulted in inexperienced personnel staffing newsrooms, thus decreasing the quality of news reports.

Objective 3: Plurality of News

Score: 0.68

None of the indicators in this objective scored well; panelists gave their lowest score to this objective. All scores but one were relatively close to the average; Indicator 5, private broadcast media produce their own news, scored near 0.

The Zimbabwe media industry has shrunk into a very small sector in the past seven years as a result of the government’s closure of several private newspapers. The government-controlled newspapers are openly biased against those believed to be government opponents or critics. Faith Ndlovu, a journalism student at the National University of Science and Technology, said rural areas have limited access to media compared with urban centers. She also pointed out that those who have access to the Internet use it more for communication than as a news source. Further, Internet access is available only to a few urban people because of its high costs and is unavailable beyond urban centers.

The government has refused to license private broadcasters and has, over the years, maintained a campaign against journalists working for foreign-based stations such as Voice of the People, Studio 7, and Shortwave Radio Africa. In addition to Zimbabweans having no access to alternative electronic media, the government continues to abuse the state broadcaster, ZBC. They use it as a propaganda tool for the ruling party, and ZBC Radio and ZBC TV are openly biased against those believed to be government opponents or critics. Government officials have been accused of directly interfering with the editorial independence of the public broadcaster. This situation compromises the public’s ability to access fair, balanced, and accurate information.

Chinaka emphasized that poverty plays a big role in accessing media. He felt that media consumption becomes secondary to basic necessities in rural areas, which he said have “gone back to the stone age” in terms of communication.

While there is no law prohibiting the receipt of international news, the cost involved makes this an option for few. Only the elite can afford access to subscription television. Rangu said the government is blocking access to the news, international and domestic, and pointed to the government’s blocking of the distribution of radios to rural areas as an example. Kademaunga said news on the Internet is not easily accessible because of the slow speed and difficulties involved in downloading. John Masuku lamented the jamming of foreign radio stations by the government.

Panel participants said international news agencies are doing a great job. Although international news agencies such as Reuters, AP, and AFP have bureaus in Harare, other agencies, including BBC and CNN, have either been banned from setting up offices in the country or are routinely denied permits to send in journalists.

The lack of transparency on political affiliation and business interests of media owners also contributed to the low rating in this objective and concerned panelists. Panelists discussed the examples of the Financial Gazette and the now-defunct Mirror group of newspapers, where state agents are suspected to be involved in the ownership.

The government’s effort to dedicate radio stations, such as National FM and Radio Zimbabwe, to local languages was commended by Walter Vengesai, media studies lecturer at Midlands State University. However, Khumalo said his low score in this indicator reflected the one-party government policy that had spread to all aspects of society, resulting in a lack of development and diversity in terms of languages used in the media.

Objective 4: Business Management

Score: 1.94

Panelists rated five of the seven indicators near the average. Indicator 5, government subsidies for private media, scored more than one and a half points above the average. Panelists scored indicator 6, market research, noticeably lower than the average.

Independent newspapers are run as successful business enterprises, relying on sale of copies and advertising revenue for sustenance. They receive no government subsidies, as the government does not offer any financial aid to the private press. State media benefit from such privileges as cheap fuel and loans from the central bank, according to Khumalo. Matenda said it is a miracle that the private press is still operational given how the operational environment is skewed against them. Generally all government departments, universities, municipalities, and rural district councils will not advertise in the independent newspapers, although there is no law stopping them from doing so. They all opt to use government-controlled newspapers.

In view of Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown, managers in the private media have worked extremely hard to maintain their operations. “Galloping inflation has made printing a very big challenge, planning a nightmare, and survival a miracle,” said Chinaka. Advertising agencies have hit hard times, as commerce and industry have been ravaged by the economic crisis.

Research and market surveys are largely unscientific, and their work and findings are disputed across the board. The Zimbabwe All Media Products Survey (ZAMPS) was acknowledged, but as Mukundu observed, its findings are more quantitative than qualitative. Khumalo expressed reservations about the accuracy of the ZAMPS survey, which he said is politicized.

Objective 5: Supporting Institutions

Score: 1.94

Other than two indicators, panelists’ scores placed the indicators very near to the average. Indicator 3, nongovernmental organization (NGO) advocacy of media issues, rated very well and came in more than a point ahead of the average. However, panelists decried the politicization of media distribution and therefore rated Indicator 7 three-quarters of a point lower than the average.

The Advertising Media Association represents all publishers. According to publisher Khumalo, the association is generally weak because of government interference, and it hardly serves members’ interests.

Professional associations and unions, including the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, have worked hard to protect the interests of journalists and to promote the good of journalism. Media NGOs MISA-Zimbabwe and Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe have also been staunch supporters of the professional development and legal rights of the media industry. Under the umbrella of the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe, all three organizations campaigned for, and sponsored the establishment of, the MCZ, a voluntary council dedicated to upholding high media standards and ethical reporting. Panelists commended the role played by other civil-society organizations, such as the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, which advocates for free speech and provides legal representation to journalists whose rights are violated.

Journalism degree programs are good in theory, but they do not address practical issues needed to prepare journalists for their profession, said the panelists. In addition, quality of training for journalists, whether at the universities or polytechnic, has been severely compromised by the departure of lecturers, limited media outlets in the country, and the existence of harsh media laws. Training institutions are also poorly equipped.

Khumalo encouraged training institutions to support the private press by placing advertisements with them and not only with the state press. Matenda said he and his colleagues generally want to help, but it is not in their jurisdiction to determine which publication a university places its advertisements with. This is at the discretion of the vice chancellor, who is a political appointee.

There is no fallback position in the event of a breakdown of the printing press used by the private press. The only other available printing press is owned by the state, which is unwilling to work with the private press.

Shaw said intimidation in the distribution of private publications has become a characteristic of Zimbabwe. Although distribution channels are in private hands, in small towns distribution is often politicized, thereby endangering those distributing papers not seen as favorable to the ruling party. Certain areas, mainly rural and suburban, are often declared no-go areas for the private press.

Panel Participants

  • Chris Chinaka, chief correspondent, Reuters Zimbabwe, Harare
  • John Masuku, executive director, Radio Voice of the People, Harare
  • Angus Shaw, correspondent, Assosciated Press, Harare
  • Raphael Khumalo, chief executive officer, Zimbabwe Independent and the Standard Newspapers, Harare
  • Walter Vengesai, media studies lecturer, Midlands State University, Gweru
  • Mathew Takaona, president, Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, Harare
  • Rashweat Mukundu, director, Media Institute of Southern Africa- Zimbabwe, Harare
  • Faith Ndlovu, media student, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo
  • Rangu Nyamurundira, media lawyer, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Harare
  • Stanford Matenda, chairperson, Media Studies Department, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo
  • Maureen Kademaunga, gender and human rights officer, Zimbabwe National Students Union, Harare
  • Abigail Gamanya, coordinator, Media Alliance of Zimbabwe, Harare
  • Muchadei Masunda, chairman, Media Council of Zimbabwe, Harare

Moderator
Abel Chikomo, advocacy coordinator, Media Monitoring Project (Zimbabwe), Harare

Observer
Andrew Moyse, project coordinator, Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe, Harare

The Zimbabwe study was coordinated by, and conducted in partnership with, Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe, Harare.