Download - Media Institute of Southern Africa
Download - Media Institute of Southern Africa
Download - Media Institute of Southern Africa
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
So This Is Democracy?<br />
Report on the state <strong>of</strong> the<br />
media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
2002<br />
Zimbabwean journalists protest outside the Parliament building<br />
in Harare, Zimbabwe on January 30, 2002 against the repressive<br />
Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill.<br />
The Bill was enacted on March 15, 2002. Photo: AP<br />
PROMOTING MEDIA DIVERSITY•<br />
PLURALISM • SELF SUFFICIENCY<br />
• INDEPENDENCE<br />
Compiled by Zoé Titus • Edited by Graham Hopwood<br />
• Translated by Ricardo Branco, Rui Correia and Jerry dos Santos
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Acknowledgements & Introduction<br />
So This Is Democracy, which is now in its ninth year <strong>of</strong> production,<br />
continues to play a vital role in documenting the numerous media freedom<br />
violations in the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n region. The publication <strong>of</strong> So<br />
This is Democracy is further pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> MISA’s commitment to monitoring the<br />
media freedom environment in order to expose the numerous violations against<br />
media workers in the region. Alerts help turn spotlights from around the world<br />
squarely on those responsible for human rights violations - and this can make<br />
a significant difference, as those who violate human rights <strong>of</strong>ten rely on the<br />
cover <strong>of</strong> darkness.<br />
This edition provides incisive insights into and analysis <strong>of</strong> media freedom<br />
trends within the region and is a testimony to our commitment to continue the<br />
fight for the promotion and safeguarding <strong>of</strong> media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression. For it is MISA’s vision that our region will become a bastion <strong>of</strong><br />
democracy and good governance, <strong>of</strong> which media freedom is a key indicator.<br />
We wish to express sincere appreciation to all partner organisations and donors<br />
who have contributed to this project – in particular contributors to our<br />
basket fund. We also extend appreciation to the International Freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
Expression Exchange (IFEX) in Toronto, Canada, which ensures that violations<br />
recorded by MISA in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> receives maximum exposure in<br />
the international community and in so doing, allows for rapid, world-wide<br />
and coordinated response to press freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression violations.<br />
A special word <strong>of</strong> thanks also to the many independent contributors who wrote<br />
the various overviews for the countries that MISA monitors.<br />
A special word <strong>of</strong> thanks also to those persons who <strong>of</strong>fered technical assistance.<br />
They are:<br />
• Copy editing<br />
Graham Hopwood<br />
• Pro<strong>of</strong> reading<br />
Jo Rogge, Eva Johnsen<br />
• Layout<br />
Johannes Aoxamub<br />
• Translation<br />
Ricardo Branco, Jerry dos Santos, Rui Correia<br />
2002<br />
Kaitira Kandjii<br />
Regional Program Manager: Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression and<br />
Right to Information<br />
2 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
MEDIA INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA<br />
Contents<br />
Notes on classification ....................................................................... 4<br />
Map <strong>of</strong> the SADC Region ................................................................. 7<br />
Addresses <strong>of</strong> Heads <strong>of</strong> State .............................................................. 8<br />
Regional Overview .......................................................................... 10<br />
Country Overview: Angola.............................................................. 23<br />
Country Overview: Botswana ......................................................... 33<br />
Country Overview: Lesotho ............................................................ 44<br />
Country Overview: Malawi ............................................................. 53<br />
Country Overview: Mozambique .................................................... 73<br />
Country Overview: Namibia ........................................................... 87<br />
Country Overview: South <strong>Africa</strong> ..................................................... 99<br />
Country Overview: Swaziland ...................................................... 114<br />
Country Overview: Tanzania ......................................................... 127<br />
Country Overview: Zambia ........................................................... 141<br />
Country Overview: Zimbabwe ...................................................... 168<br />
Selected Press Releases ................................................................. 252<br />
Breakdown <strong>of</strong> incidents by category ............................................. 314<br />
MISA’s Annual Press Freedom Award .......................................... 317<br />
Previous winners <strong>of</strong> the MISA Press Freedom Award .................. 318<br />
How to report an attack on the media ............................................ 322<br />
MISA in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> ............................................................... 328<br />
So This Is Democracy? 3
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Notes on classification<br />
The list and definitions <strong>of</strong> classifications in this year’s So This Is democracy?<br />
- which makes up the bulk <strong>of</strong> the content <strong>of</strong> this book - are assigned to specific<br />
categories. Actual alerts issued by MISA are indicated by the “ALERT”<br />
in the top right hand corner <strong>of</strong> the entry. In all, there are eleven categories:<br />
• Beaten • Legislated<br />
• Bombed • Others<br />
• Censored • Sentenced<br />
• Detained • Threatened<br />
• Expelled • Victory<br />
• Killed<br />
As indicated above, the categories are arranged in alphabetical order. Below<br />
is a description <strong>of</strong> each category. Each category captures a fairly broad range<br />
<strong>of</strong> incidents, and more than just the single word it is represented by. Nevertheless,<br />
each category is an accurate summation <strong>of</strong> incidents that are not too<br />
dissimilar with respect to their nature and the manner in which they affect the<br />
individual media workers and/or the media in general. Except for victory, the<br />
categories make up a list <strong>of</strong> the various types <strong>of</strong> violations media workers can<br />
experience during the course <strong>of</strong> or as a result <strong>of</strong> their work:<br />
KILLED - This tops the list in terms <strong>of</strong> severity, and there is no<br />
need to explain why. Included under this category, however, are<br />
incidents where journalists have been kidnapped or gone missing,<br />
and have disappeared. For the purpose <strong>of</strong> this publication, that<br />
means that any incidents involving the latter will add to the statistics<br />
<strong>of</strong> this category. The statistic given is for the number <strong>of</strong> media<br />
workers involved, as opposed to the number <strong>of</strong> incidents reported.<br />
BEATEN - This includes incidents where journalists are assaulted,<br />
attacked physically, tortured, or wounded during the course <strong>of</strong> their<br />
work. The statistic given is for the number <strong>of</strong> media workers involved.<br />
2002<br />
BOMBED - This includes incidents where a home <strong>of</strong> a journalist<br />
or the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> a media house/outlet/organisation is sabotaged<br />
through bombing, arson, vandalism, theft, or is raided or occupied<br />
forcibly. The statistic given is for the number <strong>of</strong> media workers<br />
or media organisations involved.<br />
4 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
DETAINED - This involves a media worker being put behind<br />
bars. It can be legal or illegal and includes being sentenced to a<br />
jail term or being detained (without charge, incommunicado, preventative,<br />
arrest). The statistic given is for the number <strong>of</strong> media<br />
workers involved.<br />
SENTENCED - This is when a judgement is handed down against<br />
a media worker involving either a prison term or a fine. The statistic<br />
given is for the number <strong>of</strong> media workers involved.<br />
THREATENED - This involves a threat from a public <strong>of</strong>ficial, a<br />
death threat, various forms <strong>of</strong> harassment (such as veiled warnings,<br />
threats <strong>of</strong> action, or interference in editorial processes), or<br />
journalists being questioned or interrogated on their sources. The<br />
statistic given is for the number <strong>of</strong> media workers or media organisations<br />
involved.<br />
EXPELLED - This category relates to the free movement <strong>of</strong> media<br />
workers. It involves incidents where journalists are expelled<br />
from a country, are prevented from entering a country (denying <strong>of</strong><br />
Visas, work papers or accreditation), are prevented from leaving<br />
a country, are barred from travelling into a country or from entering<br />
certain areas, and generally inhibited from moving freely in<br />
order to perform their work. The statistic given is for the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> media workers involved.<br />
CENSORED - This is where information is suppressed or prevented<br />
from being published, or where media workers are somehow or<br />
other prevented from getting their information out. It involves<br />
straight forward censorship such as a banning, a gagging order, order<br />
for excisions, preventing the publication <strong>of</strong> information through<br />
legislative restrictions, e.g. public <strong>of</strong>ficials or the courts, and interdicts,<br />
court orders or civil litigation resulting in the suppression <strong>of</strong><br />
information. It also involves a publication or broadcaster or programme<br />
being shut down or suspended, as well as incidents where<br />
equipment and/or materials are confiscated. The statistic given is<br />
for the number <strong>of</strong> media workers or media organisations involved.<br />
LEGISLATION - This relates to all aspects <strong>of</strong> the legislative process<br />
and the application <strong>of</strong> common law. It includes instances where<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial proposals are made for new laws, legislation is passed, laws<br />
are amended or struck down either in parliament or by the courts,<br />
and civil litigation is instituted against media. This category is not<br />
all about violations, since there can be legislation that enhances<br />
media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. This has been pointed<br />
So This Is Democracy? 5
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
out accordingly through the descriptive terms “threatening legislation<br />
and “positive legislation”. The statistic given is for the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> incidents reported under this category, as opposed to the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> media workers or media organisations involved.<br />
OTHER - These are incidents which do not necessarily involve the<br />
media, but which affect aspects <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression or speech<br />
in general. These can involve cases <strong>of</strong> sedition against a member <strong>of</strong><br />
the public, a general curb on free speech, parliamentary speech or<br />
access to information (e.g. matters involving the internet, pornography,<br />
hate speech, political speech), a violation <strong>of</strong> the right to freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> assembly and protest, or an incident relating to artistic or<br />
academic freedom. Incidents involving the media, which do fall<br />
under this category, involve that <strong>of</strong> media pluralism (a publication<br />
closing down because <strong>of</strong> financial reasons) or incidents involving<br />
access to the public media. The statistic given is for the number <strong>of</strong><br />
incidents reported under this category.<br />
VICTORY - This is self-explanatory in terms <strong>of</strong> its implication<br />
for the media, but involves different types <strong>of</strong> incidents. Some incidents<br />
falling under this category have immediate implications<br />
for individual media workers or media organisations (being released<br />
unconditionally, having charges dropped, winning or avoiding<br />
civil litigation, overturning gagging orders and acquittal on<br />
criminal charges), while others have broad implications that advance<br />
media freedom, access to information or freedom <strong>of</strong> expression<br />
in general (favourable policy statements from public <strong>of</strong>ficials,<br />
the adoption <strong>of</strong> media-friendly laws or policies, favourable<br />
and precedent-setting court judgements, and favourable procedures<br />
and decisions by statutory or other bodies dealing with<br />
matters <strong>of</strong> media content or freedom <strong>of</strong> expression). The statistics<br />
given is for the number <strong>of</strong> incidents reported under this category.<br />
2002<br />
The method <strong>of</strong> classification<br />
Every dated entry in So This Is Democracy? has been assigned a descriptive<br />
term. Every dated entry which is indicated as an ‘ALERT’ falls under that<br />
respective category and thus adds to the statistics in that particular category.<br />
Some entries do not fall within any <strong>of</strong> the listed categories and are merely<br />
included as additional information on media developments in a given country.<br />
These are not indicated as ‘ALERTS’, rather as ‘UPDATES’ which have<br />
already been classified. For the sake <strong>of</strong> statistics, therefore, the assigned category<br />
<strong>of</strong> an entry and/or the number involved, is listed only once and not<br />
repeated in the case <strong>of</strong> another entry relating to the same case.<br />
6 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Map <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> with<br />
MISA’s eleven focus countries<br />
Tanzania<br />
Angola<br />
Zambia<br />
Namibia<br />
Botswana<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
Mozambique<br />
Malawi<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Swaziland<br />
Lesotho<br />
So This Is Democracy? 7
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
List <strong>of</strong> addresses <strong>of</strong> Heads <strong>of</strong> State<br />
2002<br />
ANGOLA<br />
Honourable Eduardo dos Santos<br />
President<br />
Gabinete do Presidente<br />
Futungo Belas<br />
Luanda, Angola<br />
Phone: (244) 2 353 837<br />
Webpage: http://www.angola.org/politics/index.htm<br />
BOTSWANA<br />
Honourable Festus Gontebanye Mogae<br />
President<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the President<br />
Private Bag 001<br />
Gabarone, Botswana<br />
Phone: (267) 350 858/00<br />
Fax: (267) 581 028<br />
Webpage: http://www.gov.bw/home.html<br />
LESOTHO<br />
Honourable Pakalitha Bethuel Mosisili<br />
Prime Minister<br />
c/o The Government Secretary<br />
P O Box 527<br />
Maseru 100, Lesotho<br />
Phone: (266) 311 000<br />
Fax: (266) 310 444<br />
Webpage: http://www.lesotho.gov.ls/<br />
MALAWI<br />
H.E. Dr. Bakili Muluzi<br />
President<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the President and Cabinet<br />
Private Bag 310<br />
Lilongwe 3, Malawi<br />
Phone: (265) 783 044<br />
Fax: (265) 782 095<br />
Webpage: http://www.malawi.gov.mw/<br />
MOZAMBIQUE<br />
His Excellency Joaquim Alberto Chissano<br />
President<br />
Avenida Julius Nyerere 2000<br />
Caixa Postal 285<br />
Maputo, Mozambique<br />
Phone: (258) 49 11 21<br />
Fax: (258) 49 20 68<br />
Webpage: http://www.mozambique.mz/<br />
NAMIBIA<br />
Honourable Sam Nujoma<br />
President<br />
State House, Robert Mugabe Ave.<br />
Private Bag 13339<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Phone: (264) 61 220 010<br />
Fax: (264) 61 221 770<br />
Email page:<br />
Webpage: http://www.grnnet.gov.na/intro.htm<br />
8 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
List <strong>of</strong> addresses <strong>of</strong> Heads <strong>of</strong> State<br />
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
Honourable Thabo Mbeki<br />
President<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the President<br />
Private bag X1000<br />
Union Buildings,<br />
Government Avenue<br />
0001 Pretoria, South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Phone: (27)12 - 3005200<br />
Fax: (27) 12 - 3238246<br />
Email: communications@po.gov.za<br />
Webpage: http://www.gov.za/president<br />
Webpage: http://www.gov.za/president/index.html<br />
SWAZILAND<br />
Honourable Dr. Barnaba Sisbuso<br />
Prime Minister<br />
Hospital Hill<br />
P.O. BOX 395<br />
Mbabane, Swaziland<br />
Phone: (268) 40 422 51<br />
Fax: (268) 40 439 43<br />
Email: ppcu@realnet.co.sz<br />
Webpage: http://www.swazi.com/government/<br />
TANZANIA<br />
Honourable Benjamin William Mkapa<br />
President<br />
P O Box 9120<br />
Dar es Salaam,<br />
Tanzania<br />
Phone: (255) 222116539<br />
Fax: (255) 222116898<br />
Webpage: http://www.tanzania.go.tz/<br />
ZAMBIA<br />
Honourable Levy Mwanawasa<br />
President<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the President, State House<br />
P O Box 30135<br />
Lusaka, Zambia<br />
Phone: (260) 1 254 487, 259 486<br />
Fax: (260) 1 221 939<br />
Email: state@zamnet.zm<br />
Webpage: h http://www.state.gov.zm/index.html<br />
ZIMBABWE<br />
His Honourable Cde Robert Mugabe<br />
Executive President<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the President<br />
Munhutapa Building<br />
Private Bag 7700<br />
Causeway, Harare<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
Phone: (263) 4 707 091/7<br />
Fax: (263) 4 708 557<br />
Webpage: http://www.gta.gov.zw/<br />
So This Is Democracy? 9
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Regional Overview<br />
By Kaitira Kandjii<br />
MISA Regional Programme Manager: Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression and Right to<br />
Information<br />
By Zoé Titus<br />
MISA Regional Programme Coordinator: <strong>Media</strong> Freedom Monitoring<br />
The media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression situation in countries in<br />
the SADC region has not deteriorated significantly in the last year<br />
apart from two hotspots – Swaziland and Zimbabwe.<br />
During 2002 MISA issued a total <strong>of</strong> 208 alerts on media freedom violations in<br />
the 11 SADC countries that it monitors compared to a total <strong>of</strong> 207 alerts issued<br />
in the previous year. In stark contrast, MISA has issued only 10 (ten) reports <strong>of</strong><br />
victories in the media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression landscape in those<br />
same countries.<br />
In the two hotspots, in particular in Zimbabwe, there has been a serious regression<br />
in the media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression situation. In Zimbabwe<br />
the government has openly declared war on the private media, while in Swaziland<br />
the government has shown no respect for the rule <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
The <strong>of</strong>ficial position <strong>of</strong> the government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe is to make normal journalistic<br />
practices criminal so that working in the media becomes a dangerous<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ession. The private media was threatened and attacked throughout 2002,<br />
particularly by Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, the Army-General, the<br />
police and President Mugabe, who accused the media <strong>of</strong> “peddling lies, exaggerations<br />
and manufacturing news.” This usually occurred as a result <strong>of</strong> articles<br />
considered detrimental to the authority <strong>of</strong> the ruling party and State organs.<br />
Journalists’ homes were raided and several were barred from or assaulted whilst<br />
covering public events. The violence did not spare public media journalists<br />
who were on some occasions harassed by opposition party supporters and a<br />
ZBC cameraperson was severely beaten by soldiers.<br />
2002<br />
Several foreign journalists were denied accreditation to cover the presidential<br />
elections in March. The Daily News <strong>of</strong>fices and community radio stations Voice<br />
<strong>of</strong> the People (VOP) and Radio Dialogue were raided; documentation and tapes<br />
were illegally removed. Most seriously the Daily News’ Bulawayo <strong>of</strong>fices were<br />
petrol-bombed, as was the printing press <strong>of</strong> a company that produced opposition<br />
campaign material. A bomb destroyed the entire VOP premises in August.<br />
Police have failed to charge a single person for any <strong>of</strong> the attacks.<br />
10 So This Is Democracy?
REGIONAL OVERVIEW<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
During 2002 the private media in Zimbabwe was forced to operate in the<br />
most restrictive legislative environment since independence. The Public Order<br />
and Security Act (POSA) was enacted in January and marked the commencement<br />
<strong>of</strong> a determined assault on constitutional freedoms <strong>of</strong> speech and<br />
association.<br />
Amongst other provisions it criminalises reports undermining the authority <strong>of</strong><br />
the President and publication <strong>of</strong> false statements prejudicial to the State.<br />
The enactment <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act<br />
(AIPPA) in mid-March 2002 dealt the greatest blow to freedom <strong>of</strong> speech and<br />
press freedom. The Act creates an all-powerful government-appointed <strong>Media</strong><br />
and Information Commission (MIC), which is non-representative <strong>of</strong> diverse<br />
journalistic interests. The MIC has quasi-judicial and investigative powers, which<br />
usurp the function <strong>of</strong> the courts and the police respectively, and which allow it<br />
to unjustifiably and unconstitutionally intrude in the affairs <strong>of</strong> media houses<br />
and pr<strong>of</strong>essionals.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> AIPPA, accreditation <strong>of</strong> journalists and registration <strong>of</strong> media houses<br />
is mandatory for the practice <strong>of</strong> journalism, and the spectrum <strong>of</strong> those affected<br />
is so wide that it may encompass advertisers, publishers, non-governmental<br />
organisations (NGOs) and web-related industries. Foreign ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />
media is outlawed and foreign correspondents are only permitted to register for<br />
“a limited period”. Finally, the provisions and penalties relating to false news<br />
and abuse <strong>of</strong> “journalistic privilege” are harsher than those found unconstitutional<br />
by the Supreme Court under the since-repealed Law and Order (Maintenance)<br />
Act.<br />
The enforcement <strong>of</strong> these two Acts have greatly contributed to the increased<br />
assault on the private media and the denial <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and it has<br />
further impeded the free flow <strong>of</strong> information to the public inside and outside<br />
Zimbabwe.<br />
In South <strong>Africa</strong>, hailed as a model for the rest for the region, tension arose when<br />
parliament announced that it would relocate the current press gallery outside<br />
parliament. The media saw the move as an attempt to make parliament inaccessible.<br />
Furthermore, the publication <strong>of</strong> the Broadcasting Amendment Bill raised<br />
serious concerns over the government’s attempt to compromise the independence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) News.<br />
However, good news came in October last year with the announcement <strong>of</strong> a<br />
last-minute amendment to the controversial Broadcasting Amendment Bill<br />
which stated that the SABC board would fall under the control <strong>of</strong> the Independent<br />
Communications Authority <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong> (ICASA) and not the<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Communications as originally proposed.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 11
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
In 2002 one <strong>of</strong> the significant victories for media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression was recorded in Zambia. Years <strong>of</strong> sustained campaigning for media<br />
law reforms, led by the Zambia chapter <strong>of</strong> MISA, appear to be bearing<br />
fruit with the lodging in parliament <strong>of</strong> three private members bills, i.e. the<br />
Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression Bill and the<br />
Broadcasting Bill.<br />
The Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, if passed, would provide for<br />
the establishment <strong>of</strong> an independent broadcast authority that would regulate<br />
the industry and grant licences to prospective broadcasters. Currently, the<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting has the power to unilaterally withdraw<br />
broadcast licences, or reject any application for a licence. If adopted, the<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the authority would be drawn from a cross-section <strong>of</strong> society.<br />
The Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression Act aims to enshrine in the Constitution the freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> the press, while the Broadcast Bill aims to give legal status to broadcasters<br />
other than the state-owned Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZNBC).<br />
But before we give the Zambian government a standing ovation for the media<br />
law reform process, it must be noted that Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Zambian Penal<br />
Code, which creates the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> criminal libel against the president, continues<br />
to be flagrantly applied. The mistreatment <strong>of</strong> journalists by police and<br />
political party cadres continued unabated in 2002 and the government is still<br />
very eager to keep its hold on and control <strong>of</strong> the state<br />
broadcaster.<br />
Section 69 is one <strong>of</strong> the biggest hindrances to free media practice in Zambia.<br />
It was applied against Post Newspaper Editor Fred M’membe, who was charged<br />
with defaming President Mwanawasa in a story that quoted Dipak Patel calling<br />
the President “a cabbage”. The People Newspaper Editor Emmanuel<br />
Chilekwa, too, came face to face with Section 69 when he was charged with<br />
defaming the President in an article, which alleged that President Mwanawasa<br />
was suffering from Parkinson’s Disease.<br />
Throughout the year journalists were threatened, (twice through bomb scares),<br />
physically attacked or verbally abused by overzealous political party cadres,<br />
detained by police even for ‘bailable’ <strong>of</strong>fences as was the case with Chilekwa<br />
and his reporters, and generally despised by government <strong>of</strong>ficials for not supporting<br />
“national development”.<br />
2002<br />
In the rest <strong>of</strong> the region only the names <strong>of</strong> the journalists and the media institutions<br />
targeted may differ, for the attacks suffered were similar, ongoing and<br />
have in some cases intensified specifically because <strong>of</strong> targeted campaigns by<br />
those enemies <strong>of</strong> press freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
12 So This Is Democracy?
REGIONAL OVERVIEW<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
In Lesotho the media freedom situation is littered with legal and financial<br />
hurdles. The media is fearful <strong>of</strong> court settlements or unfavourable rulings<br />
against them, which have contributed to the folding <strong>of</strong> number <strong>of</strong> publications<br />
while crippling others financially.<br />
In Mozambique, the murder <strong>of</strong> Carlos Cardoso on November 20 2000, has<br />
scarred that country’s image irreparably. Earlier this year heavy sentences<br />
were passed – between 24 and 26 years – on the accused. The question remains<br />
whether the president’s son, Nymphine Chissano, who was also implicated,<br />
will eventually be brought to book.<br />
In Malawi the media freedom environment is threatened by the manipulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the state-funded media by the government. Threats and intimidation were<br />
also levelled against independent-minded judges and lawyers who are active<br />
supporters <strong>of</strong> media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. Another threat to<br />
media freedom were the political zealots <strong>of</strong> the ruling United Democratic<br />
Front (UDF) party, who have drawn up a plan to “deal” with selected journalists<br />
who they feel are a threat to their individual and party interests.<br />
These cadres <strong>of</strong> the UDF have targeted BBC correspondent Raphael Tenthani<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Daily Times, Mabvuto Banda, Ackimu Kaingana <strong>of</strong> Malawi News, The<br />
Chronicle newspaper and The Pride magazine team. The reportage <strong>of</strong> these<br />
journalists is regarded as a threat and an embarrassment to the government.<br />
In neighbouring Tanzania the Prime Minister’s Office on August 20 issued a<br />
four-page statement warning newspapers that they can be punished for publishing<br />
material in violation <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional ethics.<br />
In Namibia President Sam Nujoma last year took over the Information and<br />
Broadcasting portfolio, arguing that he needed to play a role in tackling problems<br />
at the NBC and disciplining NBC employees. The President has since<br />
instructed the broadcaster to stop screening foreign films and series that have<br />
a bad influence on the Namibian youth and instead to show films that portray<br />
Namibia in a positive light.<br />
The government maintained its advertising ban against the independent English<br />
daily newspaper, The Namibian. On March 23, 2001, the government<br />
slapped an advertising boycott on the paper, claiming it was too critical <strong>of</strong> its<br />
policies. A few months later President Nujoma extended the ban to include<br />
the purchase <strong>of</strong> The Namibian with state monies.<br />
Not to be outdone, the Government <strong>of</strong> Swaziland banned the print versions <strong>of</strong><br />
the Guardian newspaper and the Nation magazine from circulating in the country<br />
in May 2001. The Guardian’s legal victory on August 31 that year lasted<br />
less than a week when the government appealed against the court ruling that<br />
So This Is Democracy? 13
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
had allowed the Guardian to resume publishing after a four-month ban.<br />
The newspaper has since closed its <strong>of</strong>fices. The delaying tactics employed by<br />
the government – and supported by a demobilised judiciary - have indeed succeeded<br />
in crippling an alternative voice in that country.<br />
It would appear that <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n governments are refining strategies to<br />
stifle free speech and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in the region.<br />
On October 3, 2002, the Swaziland Royal Police, acting on a court order, invaded<br />
Channel S, the only privately-owned television station in the country,<br />
and confiscated a video tape containing a sermon that has been described by the<br />
Swazi government as “threatening the foundations <strong>of</strong> the kingdom.”<br />
On the other side <strong>of</strong> the region, Angolan journalists practice their pr<strong>of</strong>ession in<br />
near impossible circumstances.<br />
Manuel Vieira, a correspondent <strong>of</strong> the Catholic-owned radio station, Radio<br />
Ecclesia, in Lubango (southern Huila province) was summoned by the Office<br />
<strong>of</strong> Criminal Investigations (DNIC) in May last year for questioning about a<br />
report related to the high death toll in Unita “demobilisation camps”.<br />
The peace agreement between the ruling Popular Movement for the Liberation<br />
<strong>of</strong> Angola (MPLA) <strong>of</strong> President Jose Eduardo dos Santos and União Nacional<br />
para a Independência Total de Angola (Unita) was signed on April 4 – some 45<br />
days after the death <strong>of</strong> Unita leader Jonas Savimbi on February 22, 2002. The<br />
peace agreement, which ended nearly 27 years <strong>of</strong> civil war, called for the demobilisation<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 50 000 Unita fighters.<br />
Angolan journalists operate in an environment characterised by government<br />
interference. The work <strong>of</strong> journalists, especially those following an independent<br />
line, is constantly obstructed making it almost impossible for media pr<strong>of</strong>essionals<br />
to adequately cover many issues that provoke public opinion.<br />
As far as journalists working for the state media are concerned, the use <strong>of</strong> drastic<br />
measures are less common, but only because the control mechanisms are<br />
tighter. The strictness practiced in the state media is even more unacceptable in<br />
light <strong>of</strong> the fact that the only daily newspaper in the country – owned by the<br />
state – makes it pages available to writers who hide behind pseudonyms to<br />
conduct an unbridled <strong>of</strong>fensive against the private media.<br />
2002<br />
The signal sent by SADC governments that freedom <strong>of</strong> speech in the region is<br />
in grave danger is quite evident. Every violation <strong>of</strong> that basic human right shows<br />
that dissenting opinion will be punished. And where physical attacks do not put<br />
the lid on the media, the law will be changed to silence dissenting voices.<br />
14 So This Is Democracy?
REGIONAL OVERVIEW<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
So why are the governments in the SADC region so hell bent on silencing the<br />
media? Our governments don’t seem content with running the affairs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
state and providing their people with the necessities <strong>of</strong> life. They would also<br />
want to run the very lives and control the thinking <strong>of</strong> the citizens they govern.<br />
That was the cornerstone <strong>of</strong> colonial oppression – to smash any deviant thinking<br />
<strong>of</strong> the natives.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the most effective ways in which our governments have achieved this<br />
has been through blackmail and suppression <strong>of</strong> all criticism and information<br />
designed to expose the fallacy <strong>of</strong> their policies and, in some cases, the crimes<br />
<strong>of</strong> their elite. All critics are crushed because very few <strong>of</strong> our leaders can differentiate<br />
between a critic and a traitor. There is no regard for the patriotism<br />
<strong>of</strong> critics because our ruling political parties consider themselves as the government.<br />
The SADC Culture, Sport and Information Protocol, signed in August 2001,<br />
in many respects falls short <strong>of</strong> what MISA stands for, which is primarily the<br />
promotion <strong>of</strong> media freedom in the region through the repealing or amendment<br />
<strong>of</strong> anti-media legislation, including criminal defamation, the promotion<br />
<strong>of</strong> vibrant and independent media, the establishment <strong>of</strong> and sustainable management<br />
<strong>of</strong> community media, and the promotion <strong>of</strong> legislation that guarantees<br />
access to information.<br />
The Protocol is silent on broadcasting issues, including regulatory aspects<br />
and community broadcasting. Furthermore, critical issues <strong>of</strong> media ownership<br />
and editorial independence <strong>of</strong> both the public and private media do not<br />
feature in the Protocol. In some cases where these phrases are mentioned the<br />
discussion is sub-standard and vague, to say the least.<br />
Since these countries are signatories to a multitude <strong>of</strong> international charters<br />
and conventions - including the Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights, the<br />
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the AU Charter on Human and<br />
Peoples’ Rights, the Fourth Lome Convention, UNESCO-Windhoek Declaration<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1991 and the SADC Declaration on the Role <strong>of</strong> Information and<br />
Communication in Building the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community<br />
– one would hope to be able to paint a different picture <strong>of</strong> the press freedom<br />
situation in the region. But it remains to be seen to what extent SADC governments<br />
will observe their responsibility to press freedom.<br />
There certainly are grounds to question the sincerity <strong>of</strong> the SADC governments’<br />
commitment to media freedom, pluralism and the growth <strong>of</strong> a truly<br />
diverse media.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 15
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Panorâmica geral sobre a liberdade<br />
da imprensa na região.<br />
Por: Kaitira Kandjii.<br />
Coordenador de Programa Regional do MISA: Liberdade de Expressão e o<br />
direito à Informação.<br />
Por: Zoé Titus.<br />
Coordenadora de Programa Regional do MISA: Monitoramento da Liberdade<br />
de Expressão.<br />
Aconjuntura da liberdade da imprensa e de expressão nos países da<br />
região da <strong>Africa</strong> Austral (SADC) continua estabilizando-se, não ob<br />
stante os dois países ainda em turbulência – Suazilândia e Zimbabué.<br />
Durante o ano de 2002, o MISA emitiu 208 alertas sobre a violação da liberdade<br />
da imprensa registados nos onze (11) países da região que monitora, esta figura<br />
não constitui uma subida significativa se se comparar com o total de 207<br />
alertas emitidas no ano passado. Num contraste tenaz, o MISA emitiu somente<br />
10 relatórios sobre as vitórias conquistadas no campo da liberdade de imprensa<br />
e de expressão nestes mesmos países da região da SADC.<br />
Nos dois países em turbulência e em particular o Zimbabué, registou-se uma<br />
regressão total na esfera da liberdade de imprensa e de expressão – tendo o<br />
governo declarado abertamente guerra contra a imprensa privada, enquanto<br />
que na Suazilândia, o governo não demonstrou qualquer indícios de respeito<br />
à justiça.<br />
A posição <strong>of</strong>icial do governo Zimbabueano em relação a imprensa é tornar o<br />
jornalismo uma pr<strong>of</strong>issão criminosa, perigosa e proibida. A imprensa privada<br />
s<strong>of</strong>reu ameaças e ataques durante o ano todo de 2002, particularmente pelo<br />
Ministro da Informação, o catedrático Jonathan Moyo, um general das Forças<br />
Armadas Zimbabueanas, da policia e até mesmo do presidente Robert Mugabe,<br />
cujo acusou a imprensa de “vender mentiras, exageros e de fabricar noticiais”.<br />
Isto ocorreu sempre como resultado dos artigos considerados prejudiciais a<br />
respeitabilidade e autoridade do partido no poder e os órgãos do Estado.<br />
2002<br />
As residências de jornalistas foram vítimas de ataques súbitos; alguns foram<br />
impedidos, ou atacados quando faziam cobertura de eventos públicos. Estes<br />
ataques não pouparam os jornalistas da imprensa pública, que em algumas<br />
ocasiões eram hostilizados por simpatizantes do partido da oposição. O<br />
operador cinematográfico da Televisão Publica do Zimbabué (ZBC) foi<br />
16 So This Is Democracy?
REGIONAL OVERVIEW<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
severamente espancado por soldados.<br />
Foi rejeitada a acreditação dos jornalistas estrangeiros que pretendiam fazer<br />
cobertura das eleições gerais realizada em Março de 2002. Os escritórios do<br />
diário “The Daily News” da rádio Comunitária “Voice <strong>of</strong> the People” (VOP)<br />
e da rádio “Dialogue” foram assaltados; documentos e cassetes foram levados<br />
ilegalmente. E o mais grave ainda foi o que ocorreu nos escritório do “The<br />
Daily News” em Bulawayo [a segunda maior cidade do Zimbabué] que foram<br />
alvos de uma bomba assim como a impressora da empresa que produzia os<br />
materiais de campanha para o partido da oposição. Uma bomba destruiu na<br />
sua totalidade os escritórios da VOP em Agosto. A polícia não conseguiu<br />
identificar nenhum culpado destes ataques.<br />
Durante o ano de 2002, a imprensa privada no Zimbabué foi forçada a operar<br />
num ambiente legislativo mas rígido desde a sua independência. O acto para<br />
a ordem e segurança pública (POSA) entrou em vigor em Janeiro e marcou o<br />
início do assalto determinado contra as liberdades constitucionais de expressão<br />
e de associação.<br />
Dentre outras provisões, ela criminaliza os relatórios que arruínam<br />
insidiosamente a autoridade do presidente Robert Mugabe e publicações com<br />
declarações falsas prejudiciais ao estado.<br />
A promulgação do acto do acesso à informação e Protecção da Privacidade<br />
(AIPPA) em meados de Março, teve o maior impacto contra a liberdade da<br />
imprensa e de expressão. O acto decreta a criação de uma poderosa Comissão<br />
de Imprensa e Informação (MIC), nomeada pelo governo que não representa<br />
os diversos interesses dos jornalísticos. MIC tem poderes quase judiciais e de<br />
investigação, que usurpam as funções dos tribunais e da policia<br />
respectivamente, e que permitam o MIC a interferir-se inconstitucionalmente<br />
e injustificadamente nos assuntos internos da imprensa e dos jornalistas.<br />
Em termos do AIPPA, a acreditação dos jornalistas e o registo das publicações<br />
é obrigatório para a pratica do jornalismo, e o espectro daqueles afectados é<br />
tão amplo que pode até conter anunciantes, publicadores, organizações não<br />
governamentais (ONG) e industrias relacionadas com a Internet. É proibida a<br />
possessão de publicações/jornais a proprietários estrangeiros é proibida por<br />
lei, e os correspondentes estrangeiros só são permitidos a registar-se por um<br />
“período de tempo limitado”. Finalmente as provisões e sentenças para as<br />
informações falsas e “abusos do privilegio jornalístico” são mais duras do<br />
que aquelas que o tribunal supremo determinou com sendo não constitucionais<br />
sob o então acto repelido da lei e ordem.<br />
A aplicação destes dois actos, contribuíram grandemente no aumento de ataques<br />
contra a imprensa privada e na rejeição da liberdade de expressão e impediu<br />
So This Is Democracy? 17
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ainda mais a disseminação de informação ao público dentro e fora do<br />
Zimbabué.<br />
Na <strong>Africa</strong> do sul, gloriada como o modelo para o resto dos países da região,<br />
registou-se a subida de tensão entre a imprensa e o parlamento, quando o<br />
parlamento anunciou de que havia de estacionar a actual galeria de informação<br />
fora dos edifícios do parlamento. A imprensa interpretou esta iniciativa como<br />
forma de tornar o parlamento inacessível. Mas adiante, a publicação do<br />
projecto-lei para de emenda da lei da Radiodifusão criou serias preocupações<br />
pela tentativa do governo em comprometer a independência da Corporação<br />
da Radiodifusão Sul-africana (SABC) os desafios que apresentava a liberdade<br />
de expressão do difusor.<br />
Porém, as boas novas chegaram em Outubro do ano passado, com o anúncio<br />
sobre das emendas feitas nos minutos derradeiros no acto controverso da<br />
Radiodifusão que declarava que o conselho da SABC estaria sob o controlo<br />
das Autoridades Independente para as comunicações Sul africanas (ICASA),<br />
e não sob o ministro das comunicações como inicialmente proposto.<br />
Registou-se ainda em 2002, uma das vitórias significativas a favor da liberdade<br />
da imprensa e de expressão na Zâmbia. Os vários anos de campanhas que<br />
pressionavam para a reforma da lei imprensa, liderada pelo delegação do<br />
Instituto dos Média na <strong>Africa</strong> Austral (MISA) aparenta gerar frutos com a<br />
inserção de três projectos-leis privados no parlamento, exemplo o projectolei<br />
para uma Autoridade Independente para a Radiodifusão, o projecto-lei<br />
para a liberdade de expressão assim como para a Radiodifusão.<br />
Caso seja aprovado o acto para a Autoridade Independente da Radiodifusão,<br />
providenciará o estabelecimento de uma autoridade independente para a<br />
radiodifusão que regulará a indústria e emitirá licenças para prospectivos<br />
difusores. Actualmente o ministro da Informação e Radiodifusão tem o poder<br />
de retirar unilateralmente licenças de difusores, ou rejeitar qualquer aplicação<br />
a pedido de licença. Caso seja adoptado, os membros desta autoridade seriam<br />
indicados a partir dos vários sectores da sociedade.<br />
O acto para a liberdade de expressão tem como objectivo proteger na<br />
constituição a liberdade da imprensa, enquanto o acto para a radiodifusão tem<br />
como objectivo passar estatutos legais aos difusores/publicadores que não<br />
sejam da Radiodifusão Nacional da Zâmbia (ZNBC).<br />
2002<br />
Mas antes de outorgarmos uma aclamação honrosa ao processo de reforma de<br />
leis da imprensa, deve-se notar de que a secção 69 do código penal da Zâmbia,<br />
que cria a <strong>of</strong>ensa de calúnia criminal contra o presidente continua a ser aplicado<br />
flagrantemente. Os maus-tratos levados a cabo pelos agentes da polícia e<br />
simpatizantes de partidos políticos contra os jornalistas continuaram impunes<br />
18 So This Is Democracy?
REGIONAL OVERVIEW<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
durante o ano de 2002 e o governo continua ansioso em manter esta pratica e<br />
a manter controlo sob ZNBC.<br />
A secção 69 constitui um dos principais impasses a pratica de uma imprensa<br />
livre na Zâmbia, foi aplicado contra o antigo editor do diário “The Post” Fred<br />
M’membe que foi acusado de ter difamado o presidente Levy Mwanawasa<br />
num artigo que citava Dipak Patel ter chamado o presidente de “pateta”.<br />
O editor do jornal “The People Newspaper” Emmanuel Chilekwa também<br />
viu-se face a face com a secção 69, quando foi acusado de ter difamado o<br />
presidente num artigo, que alegava o presidente Mwanawasa de estar a s<strong>of</strong>rer<br />
de paralisia agitante.<br />
Durante o ano, os jornalistas forram ameaçados (duas vezes com bombas),<br />
atacados fisicamente ou abusados verbalmente por zelosos simpatizantes de<br />
partidos políticos, detidos pela policia até mesmo por <strong>of</strong>ensas que permitem a<br />
“caução” como foi o caso do Chlilekwa na companhia dos seus repórteres e de<br />
uma forma geral desprezados pelos <strong>of</strong>iciais do governo por não apoiarem o<br />
“desenvolvimento nacional”.<br />
No resto da região só os nomes dos jornalistas e das publicações se diferem<br />
porque os ataques s<strong>of</strong>ridos continuam sendo da mesma natureza, e contínuas<br />
e nalguns casos intensificaram-se por causa das campanhas alvejadas pelos<br />
inimigos da liberdade da imprensa e de expressão.<br />
No Lesoto a situação sobre a liberdade de imprensa ficou poluída com<br />
obstáculos legais e financeiros. A imprensa receia pôr fim dos casos no tribunal<br />
e as decisões não favoráveis ou seja contra os mesmos que contribuíram<br />
pelo cruzamento dos braços de algumas publicações e pela delapidação<br />
financeira de outras.<br />
Em Moçambique, o assassinato do jornalista Carlos Cardoso em Novembro de<br />
2000, cicatrizou a imagem daquele país irreparavelmente. No início deste ano,<br />
passaram-se sentenças pesadas – entre 24 e 26 anos de cadeia – para os acusados.<br />
Mas a questão sobre o envolvimento do filho do presidente Nymphine Chissano<br />
que também esteve implicado permanece no ar caso também será julgado.<br />
No Malawi, a esfera da comunicação social é ameaçada com a manipulação<br />
das publicações financiadas pelo governo. Ameaças e intimidações também<br />
são feitas contra os advogados de natureza independente, que são apoiantes<br />
activos da causa da liberdade de imprensa e de expressão. Uma outra ameaça<br />
contra a imprensa é o fanatismo politico do partido no poder a Frente<br />
Democrática Unida (UDF) que criou um plano com vista a seleccionar os<br />
jornalistas no país cujos acham que constituem ameaças aos interesses do<br />
seus partidos.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 19
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Estes elementos da UDF alvejaram o correspondente da BBC Raphael<br />
Tenthani do “Daily Times” Mabvuto Banda, Ackimu Kaingana do “Malawi<br />
News”, o Jornal “The Chronicle” e a equipe do “The Pride”. As reportagens<br />
destes jornalistas são tidas como ameaça e um embaraço ao governo.<br />
Na vizinha República da Tanzânia, o gabinete do primeiro-ministro emitiu no<br />
dia 20 de Agosto uma declaração de quatro páginas advertindo os jornais de<br />
que poderiam ser punidos por publicar materiais que violassem a ética<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>issional.<br />
Na Namíbia o presidente Sam Nujoma no ano passado assumiu o reinado da<br />
pasta de Informação e Radiodifusão dizendo que era uma iniciativa que visava<br />
sanar os problemas que abalavam a NBC e, prometeu disciplina por parte dos<br />
trabalhadores da NBC. Sam Nujoma instruiu os funcionários da NBC a deixar<br />
de apresentar filmes e séries estrangeiras que só eram de má influencia a<br />
juventude Namibiana e a apresentar filmes que retratassem a Namíbia de uma<br />
forma positiva.<br />
Nujoma perpetuou o banimento de publicidades no diário “The Namibian”.<br />
No dia 30 de Março de 2001, Nujoma arruinou o jornal com uma publicidade<br />
de boicote clamando que o jornal era bastante critico contra as suas politicas.<br />
Poucos meses mais tarde o presidente Sam Nujoma estendeu o banimento<br />
que passou a incluir a ordem para não se fazer a aquisição do jornal com<br />
dinheiro do estado.<br />
Ainda na mesma índole, em Maio de 2001, o governo da Suazilândia baniu a<br />
circulação a nível do país das versões da impressão do jornal “The Guardian”<br />
e o “The Nation Magazine”. A vitória legal do “The Guardian” no dia 31 de<br />
Agosto durou menos de uma semana, depois do governo ter apelado contra a<br />
decisão do tribunal que permitiu o “The Guardian” a retomar as suas actividades<br />
normais depois de quatro meses banido.<br />
Os escritórios estavam encerrados. As tácticas de atraso aplicadas pelo governo<br />
– e apoiadas pelo sistema de justiça desmoralizado – na verdade sucederam<br />
em enfraquecer a voz alternativa no país.<br />
Parece que os governos da <strong>Africa</strong> Austral estão a refinar as estratégias com<br />
vista a asfixiar a liberdade de imprensa e de expressão na região.<br />
No dia 03 de Outubro de 2002, a policia real da Suazilândia agindo sob as<br />
ordens do tribunal invadiu o canal S, o único canal televisivo privado naquele<br />
país, e confiscou uma cassete de vídeo que continha um sermão que foi<br />
caracterizado pelo governo Swazi como “ameaça as fundações do reino”.<br />
2002<br />
No outro lado da região, os jornalistas Angolanos praticam a sua pr<strong>of</strong>issão<br />
20 So This Is Democracy?
REGIONAL OVERVIEW<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
sob circunstâncias impossíveis.<br />
Manuel Vieira, correspondente da “Rádio Ecclesia” no Lubango (parte sul de<br />
Angola) propriedade da igreja católica, foi intimado judicialmente pelo<br />
gabinete de investigação criminal (DNIC) em Maio do ano passado, onde foi<br />
interrogado sobre o artigo relacionado com o elevado número de mortes nos<br />
campos de desmobilização da UNITA.<br />
A CMM é o órgão que implementa as resoluções do acordo de paz de 04 de<br />
Abril entre o partido no poder o Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola<br />
(MPLA) do presidente José Eduardo dos Santos e o movimento rebelde da<br />
UNITA, assinado 45 dias depois da morte em combate do líder Jonas Sidónio<br />
Malheiro Savimbi, ocorrido no dia 22 de Fevereiro de 2002. O acordo de paz<br />
que pôs fim a guerra que durou quase 27 anos também proveu a desmobilização<br />
de aproximadamente 50, 000 soldados da UNITA.<br />
Os jornalistas angolanos operam num ambiente caracterizado como de<br />
interferência por parte do governo. O trabalho dos jornalistas especialmente<br />
aqueles que embarcaram na imprensa independente, é constantemente<br />
obstruído tornando-o quase impossível para eles cobrirem as várias matérias<br />
que incitam a opinião pública.<br />
Em relação aos jornalistas que trabalham para a imprensa controlada pelo<br />
estado, o uso de medidas drásticas é menos comum, mas só porque os<br />
mecanismos de controlo são rígidos. A rigorosidade praticada na imprensa<br />
controlada pelo estado é uma menos aceitável na vista do facto de que o<br />
único diário no país – propriedade do estado – tornam as suas páginas<br />
disponíveis a escritores que se escondem por detrás de pseudónimos para<br />
conduzir uma <strong>of</strong>ensiva não controlada contra a imprensa privada.<br />
Tendências? O sinal feito pelos governos da SADC de que a liberdade de<br />
expressão estava num estado grave era de facto evidente. Toda a violação<br />
daquele direito básico humano indica que a opinião discordante será punida.<br />
E onde os ataques físicos não ditam a liderança da imprensa, a lei será mudada<br />
para silenciar as vozes discordantes.<br />
Mas então porque é que os governos da SADC estão tão arregaçados a silenciar<br />
a imprensa? Os nossos governos não aparentam contentar-se com o<br />
manuseamento das actividades do estado e providenciar ao seu povo as<br />
necessidades básicas da vida. O governo pretende ainda manusear as próprias<br />
vidas e controlar o pensamento dos cidadãos que governam. Este foi o principal<br />
cajado da opressão colonial – esmagar qualquer pensamento não aceitável<br />
dos nativos.<br />
Aas formas mais efectivas através das quais os nossos governos atingiram<br />
isto, foi através das chantagens e a supressão de todo criticismo e informação<br />
So This Is Democracy? 21
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
designada a expor a falácia das suas politicas e nalguns casos os crimes da sua<br />
liga. Todas as criticais são esmagadas porque um número bastante reduzido<br />
dos nossos líderes podem não conseguem fazer a diferença entre a crítica e o<br />
traidor. Não existe qualquer reconhecimento pelo patriotismo de criticas porque<br />
os nossos partidos políticos no poder se consideram como o governo e o<br />
governo o estado.<br />
O protocolo para a Cultura e Informação assinado em Agosto de 2001, é em<br />
vários aspectos limitado em relação o penhor do MISA que é primariamente a<br />
promoção da liberdade da imprensa na região através da repelência ou emenda<br />
da legislação anti-média, incluindo a difamação criminal, promoção de uma<br />
imprensa vibrante e independente, o estabelecimento de uma imprensa<br />
comunitária sustentável e a promoção da legislação que garante o acesso a<br />
informação.<br />
O protocolo é estupefacto correlação os aspectos da radiodifusão, incluindo<br />
os aspectos reguladores e aspectos sobre a radiodifusão comunitária. Mas<br />
adiante, o assunto crítico da possessão da média e editoriais independente<br />
tanto da imprensa privada como pública não se afiguraram no protocolo.<br />
Nalguns casos onde estas frases são mencionadas, a discussão é vã e sem<br />
padrão para dizer o mínimo.<br />
Como signatário de uma série de alvarás e convenções - incluindo a<br />
Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, o Convénio das Nações Unidas<br />
sobre os Direitos Civis e Políticos, o Alvará da União <strong>Africa</strong>na sobre os Direitos<br />
Humanos das Pessoas, a quarta Convenção de Lomé, UNESCO – Declaração<br />
de Windhoek de 1991, e a Declaração da SADC sobre o Papel da Informação<br />
e Comunicação na Construção da Comunidade de Desenvolvimento da <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Austral – espera-se que possa pintar uma imagem diferente sobre a situação<br />
da liberdade da imprensa na região.<br />
Mas resta ser visto a que ponto é que os governos da SADC observarão as<br />
suas responsabilidades para a com a liberdade de expressão.<br />
De facto ainda existe lacunas que nos forçam a questionar a sinceridade da<br />
dedicação dos governos da SADC para com a liberdade da imprensa,<br />
pluralismo e crescimento de uma imprensa verdadeiramente pluralística.<br />
2002<br />
22 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Angola<br />
By: Maria da Imaculada Melo, lawyer amd analyst <strong>of</strong> post-war Angola<br />
The relationship between the government and the media in Angola, in<br />
the year 2002, was not one <strong>of</strong> the most troubled, compared to previous<br />
years, although the tiresome battle <strong>of</strong> the media to achieve a dignified<br />
momentum has remained hazardous.<br />
Within the current circumstances in Angola where the government <strong>of</strong> the day -<br />
MPLA - holds the overwhelming power, the private media is the only instrument<br />
that wastes no efforts in staging a fierce battle against the government.<br />
The battle is remarkably fought by the private media and is said to be a battle in<br />
two dimensions. The first is fought on the level <strong>of</strong> freedom, while the second is<br />
staged on a material level. Undoubtedly, the financial and material constraints<br />
that the private media face undermine their efforts at all levels.<br />
The review <strong>of</strong> the Constitutional Law (conducted only at the Parliament level)<br />
has not produced facts that deserve special attention to this matter and the same<br />
can be said for legislative initiatives, be they from the National Assembly or the<br />
Government.<br />
A pr<strong>of</strong>ound discussion over the issue <strong>of</strong> conflicting interests regarding the rights<br />
protected by the Constitutional Law, as well as the adequate treatment <strong>of</strong> defamation<br />
and libel by the press in accordance with the guidelines <strong>of</strong> the Democratic<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Rights, remain postponed.<br />
The access to public information was peaceful, as long as it remained within the<br />
boundaries <strong>of</strong> the convenience <strong>of</strong> the regime. Sensitive governing issues, however,<br />
were in a no-go zone. This is the case due to the lack <strong>of</strong> judicial instruments<br />
that would allow the exercise <strong>of</strong> direct participation <strong>of</strong> the citizens, as<br />
established in the article 3 <strong>of</strong> the Angolan Constitution.<br />
Concerning the media/judiciary relations, the attention was drawn to Radio<br />
Ecclesia, which stood out both for the way it treated its journalistic material<br />
and for the criticism it received against its editorial stand and against its pretension<br />
to broadcast within the whole national territory, although it thereby improved<br />
its services as a public broadcaster.<br />
Regarding conflicts in the media, the weekly “Angolense” distinguished itself<br />
by presenting the best production quality, while being tied up in a court case.<br />
Nevertheless it is important to note the appearance <strong>of</strong> two new private newspapers.<br />
A local biweekly called “A Capital” and a weekly “A Palavra” which<br />
So This Is Democracy? 23
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
has undertaken the same editorial line as the existing weeklies.<br />
The important media reports <strong>of</strong> the course <strong>of</strong> history in Angola in 2002 merit<br />
and continue to merit special attention. It was the year in which on February<br />
22, Dr. Jonas Malheiro Sidonio Savimbi, leader <strong>of</strong> the rebel movement UNITA,<br />
was killed in combat, and soon after, on the April 04, the ceasefire was signed.<br />
There was a wide range <strong>of</strong> news coverage and the dignified way the government<br />
and the ruling party used in dealing with the disgrace befallen on the<br />
political adversary set a public example.<br />
In general the media took up a pluralistic posture beneficial to the <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
positioning. For the first time in the history <strong>of</strong> the country since the second<br />
Republic, the state and the media revealed maturity in the democratic culture<br />
far from the usual arrogance and triumphals.<br />
Excepting itself from this situation was the daily “Jornal de Angola”, the only<br />
public and national periodical that chose to embrace a negative reporting on<br />
certain political parties and organizations <strong>of</strong> civil society in a mercenary way.<br />
However, the ceasefire between government and the rebel UNITA movement<br />
on April 04 hypothetically raised the opportunity for UNITA party - <strong>of</strong> a warlike<br />
tendency - to reorganise itself and embrace diversity in a peaceful way<br />
which allows it to contribute positively and democratically to the consolidation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the presupposed reconstruction and national reconciliation.<br />
It is a positive fact that the relation between the media and government in that<br />
period <strong>of</strong> time was peaceful, as was the position taken by the government<br />
with the different media houses.<br />
Thus, we can say that in 2002 we experienced the dawning <strong>of</strong> a new era for<br />
the Angolans. It gave space for a new environment for the media, mainly the<br />
private media, who strengthened its challenge by abolishing borders <strong>of</strong> fear<br />
and <strong>of</strong> silence to reaffirm itself as a powerful and capable tool to contribute in<br />
the changes <strong>of</strong>ten threatened by the powerful. Along this line, it is important<br />
to mention the intensification <strong>of</strong> the public debate on outstanding issues related<br />
to mal-governance and the Democratic State <strong>of</strong> Rights, the increase in<br />
public denunciation and the increase in the circulation <strong>of</strong> information. It is<br />
just to distinguish in this process the dynamism <strong>of</strong> Radio Ecclesia.<br />
2002<br />
As a consequence <strong>of</strong> this dynamism, new media facts were registered such as<br />
the introduction <strong>of</strong> a phone-in program on the public debate in the Angolan<br />
Public Television (which is the only television broadcaster in the country),<br />
allowing the direct telephonic participation <strong>of</strong> citizens. The new data in this<br />
program implemented by the Angolan Public Television, and pioneered by<br />
24 So This Is Democracy?
ANGOLA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Radio Ecclesia, has the potential to allow the demystification <strong>of</strong> the open<br />
debate <strong>of</strong> certain issues <strong>of</strong> public interest and the direct participation <strong>of</strong> citizens<br />
which, apart from constituting an effective collective form <strong>of</strong> reflection,<br />
is also a strong instrument to manifest <strong>of</strong> free thinking, and can contribute to<br />
the construction <strong>of</strong> a collective and critical consciousness. It is important to<br />
bear in mind that the Television that for many years transmitted only in Luanda<br />
has extended its work to other provinces and to two channels.<br />
Besides the peace, another matter which dominated the media industry in<br />
2002 was the special attention paid to the judiciary, marked by two important<br />
events, both <strong>of</strong> which in some way relied on the aid <strong>of</strong> the media.<br />
The first event was the sacking <strong>of</strong> the Prosecutor General Dr. Domingos Culolo,<br />
replaced with a seasoned judge <strong>of</strong> the defunct Popular revolutionary tribunal<br />
(court), an exceptional court which in the first Republic was part <strong>of</strong> the supporting<br />
basis <strong>of</strong> the ideological repression <strong>of</strong> the day.<br />
The media intensified its criticisms against the functioning <strong>of</strong> the judiciary<br />
and with special tenacity on the inoperation and position <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Prosecutor General as an organ <strong>of</strong> control and surveillance <strong>of</strong> legality, bearing<br />
in mind the various public denunciations <strong>of</strong> human rights violation in the<br />
national prisons, excess <strong>of</strong> preventive prisons and abuse <strong>of</strong> authority. It was a<br />
pressure originating both from the media industry and from the civic organizations<br />
which met other moments equally important and which were at the<br />
base <strong>of</strong> the dismissal <strong>of</strong> the Malanje province governor Flavio Fernandes (one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the eighteen provinces <strong>of</strong> Angola).<br />
The first public act which the Prosecutor General executed was a forum with<br />
the public media with the aim to create a healthy partnership in the relationship<br />
between the media, the government and the judiciary system. During the<br />
forum the new Prosecutor General did not let go unnoticed his total commitment<br />
to undertake a new dynamic in correcting the various distortions registered<br />
within the judicial system, as well as requesting the collaboration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
media as intervention from a body that manages a positive and responsible<br />
spirit in its noble mission <strong>of</strong> informing. With this the new Prosecutor General<br />
did throw the seed for the moment which later legitimised the intervention <strong>of</strong><br />
the civil society in defending the public interest.<br />
The action alerts compiled in 2002 with legal implications are related to the<br />
case <strong>of</strong> Gilberto Neto. Neto is still awaiting the prosecution <strong>of</strong> the case he<br />
submitted in the Supreme Court against the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Home Affairs. The<br />
second case is related to a correspondent Manuel Vieira <strong>of</strong> Radio Ecclesia in<br />
Huila province who was called in for interrogation by the Criminal Investigation<br />
Office for having written an article telling <strong>of</strong> the huge number <strong>of</strong><br />
deaths registered in the UNITA camps <strong>of</strong> demobilisation.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 25
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Being so, it is wise to mention that the situation <strong>of</strong> the various correspondents<br />
within the various media houses in the provinces has not improved to the same<br />
level registered in the capital. Generally, the correspondents <strong>of</strong> Radio Ecclesia<br />
in the provinces experienced shocks in dealing with the local governments. It<br />
is important to underline that the openness to the freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in the<br />
country is manifesting itself with some slowness and while the speed applied<br />
in the capital is more likely daring and also has more palpable results, this<br />
situation is far from desirable, as it is certain that the situation in the provinces<br />
tend to harden precisely to avoid that the governors and other responsible<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers go by the riddle <strong>of</strong> the media and consequently become vulnerable<br />
and subjected to sanctions and to individual accountability.<br />
However, the most critical point <strong>of</strong> the reaction against the media was put<br />
forward by the judiciary. The judiciary reacted through a public declaration<br />
broadcasted by the state controlled media and other media because <strong>of</strong> a programme<br />
<strong>of</strong> judicial, political and social analyses broadcasted weekly by Radio<br />
Ecclesia, at a time when the power <strong>of</strong> the judiciary was being analysed.<br />
The Ecclesia Radio station organised a radio phonic forum with the direct<br />
participation <strong>of</strong> the citizens about the situation <strong>of</strong> the judicial power in Angola<br />
and the result was a negative judgement and denounciation beyond expectations.<br />
On the other hand, although there has not been a judicial proceeding, the truth<br />
is that for the first time, in the middle <strong>of</strong> 2002, a pronouncement by INACOM,<br />
Angolan <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Communications put in question the judicial statutes <strong>of</strong><br />
the Radio Ecclesia, allegedly for broadcasting to some areas <strong>of</strong> the country<br />
without holding a permit for it. In question is a comprehension diametrically<br />
opposed by the existing tools <strong>of</strong> the judiciary, in which Radio Ecclesia is seen<br />
as untrustworthy and as lending itself to its owners the Catholic Church and<br />
more specifically the Episcopal Conference <strong>of</strong> Angola and Sao Tome.<br />
With regard to the legislative production related to the media, the Technical<br />
Commission created by the President <strong>of</strong> the Republic is still preparing the<br />
future Press Law which mandates the elaboration <strong>of</strong> the succession <strong>of</strong> a rejected<br />
bill presented by the Government, two years ago, which was not approved<br />
due to the pressure and energetic efforts <strong>of</strong> the journalists <strong>of</strong> the private<br />
media and the civil society.<br />
2002<br />
Besides, a law <strong>of</strong> State Secrecy was approved almost without opposition. Although<br />
only the press was summoned to discuss this law (while it was a bill)<br />
it was absent. Later, after the approval <strong>of</strong> the law, some parties tried to question<br />
its compliance with the Constitutional Law. It is still expected that the<br />
Supreme Court (which decides on matters <strong>of</strong> this nature, due to non-existence<br />
26 So This Is Democracy?
ANGOLA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
<strong>of</strong> a Constitutional Court in Angola) pronounces itself about the non-constitutionality<br />
or not <strong>of</strong> the law <strong>of</strong> State Secrecy.<br />
We can conclude that there was a slight improvement in the attitude towards<br />
the state media which has become more open to the pluralist debate, with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> the Jornal de Angola that is completely out <strong>of</strong> step with the rest<br />
who strived to enter into the competition <strong>of</strong> creating matters <strong>of</strong> public interest<br />
and <strong>of</strong> reference for the population. Without a doubt the Jornal de Angola<br />
revealed itself to be the most manipulated means <strong>of</strong> communication with a<br />
pro-regime policy and as such it became an effective means <strong>of</strong> counter information<br />
and <strong>of</strong> propaganda whether by its omissions about essentials issues <strong>of</strong><br />
public interest or by other ways in which it shaped the information and the<br />
public opinion.<br />
With regard to the private media, a certain precipitation in distributing news<br />
sometimes reveal poor work <strong>of</strong> investigation and dubious sources, which is<br />
delicate in the sense that it could benefit agent provocateurs to create an adequate<br />
environment <strong>of</strong> fraud <strong>of</strong> information and as such discredit the private<br />
press in the public, national and foreign opinion.<br />
In my understanding the way forward demands the constant search <strong>of</strong> a point<br />
<strong>of</strong> equilibrium and compromise <strong>of</strong> the truth at the service <strong>of</strong> the collective<br />
public interest legitimated by the democratic principles. The media, the journalists,<br />
must not be mere silhouettes <strong>of</strong> the powers that be. Independently<br />
from being politically active it is necessary to maintain the necessary distance,<br />
to any established power with the distinctive image <strong>of</strong> a man that informs.<br />
However, on this road there will not necessarily be a fatal conflict and<br />
permanent opposition between government and the media.<br />
Journalists should not see themselves confronting this dilemma and since media<br />
work does not constitute in its genesis a pure individual act, with an individual<br />
and for an individual, it is always impregnated with values and references<br />
that society gives to it, it needed in the defence <strong>of</strong> this work be noted the<br />
trace <strong>of</strong> free thinking, because it is this that confer the media with the assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the fourth power.<br />
In this context, the year <strong>of</strong> 2002, with events more or less important, was still<br />
not the determining year. Besides, the battle <strong>of</strong> the media in Angola is not<br />
dissociated from the whole socio-political context wherein the recently born<br />
democracy takes excessively slow steps and sometimes confused steps.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 27
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Angola<br />
Por Maria da Imaculada Melo (Advogada)<br />
Orelacionamento entre o governo e os mídia em 2002 não foi dos mais<br />
conturbados relativamente aos anos anteriores, embora se tenham<br />
mantido os riscos da luta desgastante dos mídia ocuparem um espaço<br />
digno. Obviamente que nas actuais circunstâncias de Angola, cujo peso do partido<br />
da situação (MPLA) é devorador, essa luta é marcadamente levada pelos<br />
órgãos da comunicação social privados. E diga-se que se trata de uma luta com<br />
uma dupla dimensão. A primeira trava-se no plano das liberdades e a segunda<br />
no plano material. Sem dúvida que as dificuldades de ordem financeira e material<br />
dos mídia privados prejudicam o seu desempenho a todos os níveis.<br />
A fase de revisão da Lei Constitucional que decorre apenas a nível do Parlamento,<br />
não tem produzido factos que mereçam alguma atenção especial nesta matéria<br />
e o mesmo se diz em relação à iniciativa legislativa quer da Assembleia Nacional<br />
quer do Governo. Continua adiada a discussão mais pr<strong>of</strong>unda sobre as questões de<br />
conflitos de interesses perante direitos protegidos igualmente pela Lei Constitucional<br />
assim como o tratamento adequado da difamação e injúrias por parte da imprensa,<br />
consentânea com os pressupostos do Estado Democrático de Direito.<br />
O acesso à informação de interesse público foi pacífico à medida das<br />
conveniências do regime, mantendo-se como zona interdita as questões sensíveis<br />
da governação. Isto verifica-se devido a inexistência de mecanismos jurídicos<br />
que permitam o exercício da participação directa do cidadãos, consagrado no<br />
artigo 3º da Constituição angolana.<br />
Na relação justiça/mídia o grande destaque vai para a Rádio Ecclésia, que se<br />
destacou quer pelo tratamento diferenciado da matéria quer nas criticas que de<br />
que foi alvo devido a sua linha editorial e pretensão de difusão por todo o território<br />
nacional, marcando por isso uma melhoraria do seu serviço de servidor público.<br />
Em termos de conflitos entre ao mídia destaca-se o interno do semanário<br />
Angolense que se encontra em Tribunal, sendo também este o jornal que<br />
apresentou uma melhor qualidade.<br />
É de realçar, no entanto, a criação de mais dois jornais privados. Um bissemanal<br />
de âmbito local denominado a Capital e outro semanário intitulado a Palavra,<br />
cujas linhas editoriais enquadram-se nas demais já existentes.<br />
2002<br />
O ano de 2002 merece e continuará a merecer a nível da história de Angola e<br />
dos relatos importantes do mídia uma atenção especial. Trata-se do ano em que<br />
foi morto em combate o Dr. Jonas Malheiro Savimbi, presidente da União<br />
28 So This Is Democracy?
ANGOLA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola, UNITA, a 22 de Fevereiro,<br />
seguido da assinatura do cessar fogo a 4 de Abril.<br />
A cobertura foi total e a forma digna como o governo e o partido no poder<br />
lidaram com a desgraça que se abateu sobre o adversário político foi notório.<br />
De uma maneira geral os mídia assumiram uma postura pluralista fruto do<br />
posicionamento <strong>of</strong>icial. Pela primeira vez na história do país, desde a II<br />
República, o poder e os órgãos de comunicação social públicos revelaram um<br />
amadurecimento na cultura democrática distante da habitual postura de<br />
arrogância e de triunfalismo. Exceptuou-se desta postura geral dos mídia o jornal<br />
de Angola, o único periódico público nacional e diário, que nesta ocasião se<br />
destacou pela negativa comentando as posições de certos partidos políticos e<br />
organizações da sociedade civil de forma venal.<br />
A assinatura do cessar fogo por parte do governo e da UNITA, a 4 de Abril, em<br />
hipótese, abriu uma oportunidade daquele partido de pendor bélico de se<br />
reorganizar e pacificar, possibilitando o ensaio no seu seio de uma<br />
heterogeneidade que lhe permita coabitar e contribuir positiva e<br />
democraticamente na consolidação dos pressupostos da reconstrução e<br />
reconciliação nacionais.<br />
Trata-se de um dado positivo e por esta razão foi pacifico o relacionamento<br />
entre o governo e os mídia neste período, assim como o posicionamento assumido<br />
entre os diversos órgãos da comunicação social.<br />
Podemos assim dizer que em 2002 verificou-se o abrir de uma nova etapa para<br />
os angolanos e consequentemente deu lugar a uma nova actualidade nos mídia,<br />
sobretudo os privados, que reforçaram o desafio de abolir as suas fronteiras do<br />
medo e do silêncio para se reafirmar como um poder forte capaz de contribuir<br />
para a mudança muitas vezes ameaçada pelos poderosos. Nesta senda importa<br />
referir a intensificação do debate público sobre questões candentes ligadas à má<br />
- governação, ao Estado Democrático e de Direito, o aumento da denúncia pública<br />
e uma maior circulação da informação, sendo justo que se destaque neste processo<br />
o dinamismo da Rádio Ecclésia.<br />
Como consequência disso registaram-se factos novos nos mídia como o caso da<br />
Televisão Pública angolana que é, a única no país, ter inserido no programa de<br />
debate público a participação directa do cidadão por via telefónica. O dado<br />
novo neste tipo de debates que a Televisão Pública de Angola inseriu na sua<br />
programação, de que é pioneira a Rádio Ecclésia, tem o condão de permitir a<br />
desmistificação do debate aberto de certos assuntos de interesse público e a<br />
participação directa do cidadão, o que para além de constituir um meio de reflexão<br />
colectiva eficaz, é um forte instrumento de manifestação do livre pensamento,<br />
sendo certo que também contribui para a construção de uma consciência colectiva<br />
So This Is Democracy? 29
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
crítica. É preciso ter em conta que a Televisão que durante muitos anos transmitiu<br />
apenas em Luanda estendeu o trabalho a outras províncias do país e com dois<br />
canais.<br />
Para além da paz, um outro domínio que também dominou o espaço dos mídias<br />
no ano de 2002 prende-se com a maior atenção que foi prestada ao sistema<br />
judicial, marcado por dois acontecimentos importantes e que de algum modo<br />
contaram com o concurso da força da comunicação social.<br />
O primeiro tem a ver com a exoneração do Procurador Geral da República, Dr.<br />
Domingos Culolo, tendo em sua substituição sido nomeado um juiz de carreira<br />
do extinto tribunal popular revolucionário, um tribunal de excepção que durante<br />
a 1ª República foi uma das bases de apoio da repressão ideológica então<br />
reinante.<br />
Os mídias intensificaram as criticas ao funcionamento do sistema judicial e<br />
com particular acuidade para a inoperância e postura da Procuradoria Geral da<br />
República, enquanto órgão de controlo e fiscalizador da legalidade, tendo em<br />
conta as muitas denúncias públicas de violação dos direitos humanos nas cadeias<br />
e províncias, excesso de prisão preventiva e abuso de autoridade. Tratou-se de<br />
uma pressão oriunda tanto dos meios de comunicação social como de<br />
organizações cívicas que conheceu outros momentos igualmente importantes e<br />
que estão na base da exoneração do então Governador da província de Malanje,<br />
( uma das 18 províncias em que Angola se encontra dividida), Flávio Fernandes.<br />
O primeiro acto público que o novo Procurador desenvolveu foi um fórum<br />
com a imprensa pública e privada com vista a criar-se uma parceria sadia no<br />
relacionamento entre a imprensa, o governo e a justiça. Durante este fórum não<br />
passou despercebido o facto do novo Procurador Geral da República ter<br />
manifestado a sua disponibilidade total na assunção de uma nova dinâmica<br />
susceptível de corrigir as muitas distorções que se verificam a nível do sistema<br />
judicial e com intercepção com o órgão que dirige, assim como pediu aos mídia<br />
colaboração, espirito positivo e responsável na sua nobre missão de informar.<br />
Com isso o novo Procurador Geral da República lançou a semente para um<br />
espaço que legitimou mais tarde a intervenção da sociedade civil na defesa do<br />
interesse público.<br />
2002<br />
Os alertas surgidos de Angola no ano de 2002 com implicações judiciais estão<br />
relacionados com o caso do jornalista Gilberto Neto. Este jornalista continua a<br />
aguardar pelo prosseguimento da acção que interpôs no Tribunal Supremo contra<br />
o Ministério do Interior. O segundo caso está relacionado com o<br />
correspondente da Rádio Ecclésia, Emissora Católica de Angola, na província<br />
da Huíla, Manuel Vieira, que foi chamado à Investigação Criminal devido a um<br />
artigo que relatava a morte de um elevado número de cidadãos nos campos dos<br />
desmobilizados da UNITA.<br />
30 So This Is Democracy?
ANGOLA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
A este propósito é mister referir que a situação dos correspondentes dos diversos<br />
órgãos de comunicação social nas províncias não melhorou na mesma proporção<br />
que os da capital do país. De uma maneira geral os correspondentes da Rádio<br />
Ecclésia nas províncias tiveram, numa proporção maior ou menor, choques com<br />
os governos locais. É preciso sublinhar que a abertura à liberdade de expressão<br />
no país está a ser feita com uma certa lentidão e, à medida que na capital do país<br />
se avança de forma mais ousada e com resultados também mais palpáveis, esta<br />
situação está muito aquém do desejável, sendo certo que nas províncias o<br />
processo tende a endurecer justamente para evitar que os governadores e outros<br />
responsáveis passem pelo crivo dos mídia e consequentemente se tornem<br />
vulneráveis, sujeitos a sanções e a responsabilização individual.<br />
Mas, o ponto mais critico da reacção contra os mídia partiu do poder judicial<br />
que reagiu com um comunicado público amplamente difundido na imprensa<br />
estatal e noutros meios, a um programa de análise política, social e jurídica que<br />
semanalmente a Rádio Ecclésia difundia, numa ocasião em que esteve em análise<br />
o poder judicial.<br />
Os magistrados sentiram-se atingidos e reagiram mal, sobretudo contra os<br />
analistas.<br />
A seguir a Rádio Ecclésia organizou um fórum radi<strong>of</strong>ónico com a participação<br />
directa dos cidadãos sobre a situação do poder judicial em Angola e o resultado<br />
foi uma apreciação negativa e com denúncias que ultrapassaram as expectativas.<br />
Por outro lado, embora não tivesse havido um processo judicial, a verdade é<br />
que houve pela primeira vez em meados do ano transacto um pronunciamento<br />
da INACOM, Instituto Angolano de Comunicações, a pôr em causa o estatuto<br />
jurídico da Rádio Ecclésia, alegadamente por estar emitir em algumas dioceses<br />
do país sem o respectivo licenciamento e alvará. Trata-se de um entendimento<br />
diametralmente oposto dos instrumentos jurídicos existentes nos quais se dá<br />
como desconfiscada a Rádio Ecclésia e se entrega ao seu proprietário, a Igreja<br />
Católica, concretamente à Conferência Episcopal de Angola e São Tóme.<br />
Quanto a produção legislativa relacionada com os mídia, continua em preparação<br />
pela Comissão Técnica criada pelo presidente da República a futura Lei de<br />
Imprensa, mandada elaborar na sequência da rejeição de um ante projecto de<br />
Lei apresentado pelo Governo, há dois anos atrás, que não chegou a ser aprovado<br />
graças a pressão e dinamismo dos jornalistas dos órgãos de comunicação privados<br />
e da sociedade civil.<br />
Para além disso, foi aprovada a Lei do Segredo de Estado quase que sem<br />
contestação. Apesar da imprensa ter sido a única convocada para discutir esta<br />
lei ( enquanto ante-projecto) esteve ausente. Mas tarde, depois de aprovada a<br />
So This Is Democracy? 31
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Lei, alguns partidos tentaram questionar a sua conformidade com a Lei<br />
Constitucional. Espera-se, ainda, que o Tribunal Supremo ( que decide sobre<br />
matéria desta natureza, em virtude da inexistência de um Tribunal Constitucional<br />
em Angola), se pronuncie sobre a inconstitucionalidade ou não da Lei do Segredo<br />
de Estado.<br />
Podemos concluir que houve uma ligeira melhoria na atitude dos meios de<br />
comunicação estatal, que se tornaram mais abertos ao debate pluralista, com<br />
excepção do jornal de Angola, completamente em contrapasso dos demais que<br />
se esforçam em entrar para a competição, criando motivos de interesse público<br />
e de referência para a população. O jornal de Angola sem dúvida que se revelou<br />
o mais manipulado meio de comunicação com uma política pró- regime e com<br />
isso tornou-se num instrumento eficaz da contra-informação e propaganda quer<br />
pelas suas omissões sobre questões essências e de interesse público, quer na<br />
forma como trabalhou a informação e a opinião pública.<br />
Quanto aos meios de comunicação privados verifica-se uma certa precipitação<br />
na divulgação da notícias algumas vezes revelando um fraco trabalho de<br />
investigação e de fontes dúbias, o que é delicado na medida em que pode ser<br />
aproveitado pelos agentes provocadores para criarem um ambiente propício de<br />
fraude na informação e com isso desencadear-se um processo de desacreditar a<br />
imprensa privada no seio opinião pública nacional e estrangeira<br />
Em meu entender o caminho a percorrer exige a busca constante de um ponto<br />
de equilibro e compromisso com a verdade ao serviço do interesse público<br />
colectivo legitimado pelos pressupostos democráticos. Os mídia, os jornalistas,<br />
não devem ser puras silhuetas do poder. Independentemente de se ser<br />
politicamente activo é necessário manter o distanciamento necessário, a qualquer<br />
poder estabelecido como a imagem de marca do homem que informa. Por outro<br />
lado, não tem que haver nesta caminhada necessariamente a fatal conflitualidade<br />
e a permanente oposição entre os mídia e o governo.<br />
O jornalista não deve se confrontar com este dilema e, como o trabalho da<br />
comunicação social não constitui na sua génese um acto individual puro, com o<br />
indivíduo e para o indivíduo, está sempre impregnado dos valores e referências<br />
que a sociedade lhe outorga, é preciso que na defesa deste trabalho se note o<br />
traço de livre- pensador, pois é isto que confere aos mídia a avaliação de quarto<br />
poder.<br />
Neste contexto, o ano de 2002, com acontecimentos mais ou menos importantes,<br />
ainda não foi o ano determinante. De resto a luta dos mídia em Angola não está<br />
dissociada de todo contexto sócio - político, cuja democracia nascente marca<br />
passos demasiado lentos e algumas vezes confusos.<br />
2002<br />
32 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Botswana<br />
By Mmualefe Raditladi<br />
Botswana – home to the SADC Headquarters, member <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth<br />
and the <strong>Africa</strong>n Union (AU) - is <strong>of</strong>ten hailed as a shining<br />
example <strong>of</strong> democracy in <strong>Africa</strong> because <strong>of</strong> its stable political atmosphere<br />
and economy. This, glorious tribute, however, is given in comparison to<br />
other countries. However it has, as a plus, the fact that there has not been<br />
either an attempted coup d’etat or any uprising against the state, real or implied.<br />
This has earned her the title ‘peace-loving’, possibly because <strong>of</strong> an<br />
innate cultural obedience to authority, stemming from the archaic institution<br />
<strong>of</strong> chieftainship where royals are almost deified.<br />
Nonetheless, like other countries, Botswana is undergoing economic, political<br />
and social transformation and the old order is gradually yielding to the<br />
new one. The younger generation’s conception <strong>of</strong> basic freedoms and the need<br />
for change exert pressure on the old guard to be more conscious <strong>of</strong> the turn <strong>of</strong><br />
events in a changing world. One <strong>of</strong> these freedoms is freedom <strong>of</strong> expression,<br />
as enshrined in the Constitution <strong>of</strong> Botswana, because the so-called underlings,<br />
even though they may not have a ‘cultural’ right to say ‘No’, at least<br />
they have a ‘constitutional’ right to do so.<br />
This ‘right’ has been respected by the authorities over the years but has not<br />
been honoured to its logical conclusion.<br />
Constitutionally there is press freedom in Botswana but the freedom is not<br />
absolute. Although there are no definite incidents <strong>of</strong> Government passing legislation<br />
that gags the press, public statements have been made by cabinet ministers<br />
including the Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration,<br />
Daniel Kwelagobe and State President Festus Mogae, himself, especially<br />
when abroad, against the private media, print or electronic.<br />
One instance that is worth noting, though it did not constitute a press gag per<br />
se, was the programme ‘Hot Potato’ on private radio station, GABZ-fm. On<br />
this programme the presenters Lettie Gaelesiwe and Solomon Monyame<br />
opened the doors for people to speak their minds loud and clear on a variety<br />
<strong>of</strong> topical issues affecting facets <strong>of</strong> life in Botswana. A lawsuit against one <strong>of</strong><br />
the presenters was brewing, instituted by Botsalo Ntuane, Executive Secretary<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ruling Botswana Democratic Party. The two journalists did not<br />
have their contracts renewed as the station claimed it could no longer pay<br />
their salaries. There were allegations that the radio station had run into financial<br />
problems and the manager argued they were on a restructuring exercise<br />
to address the situation.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 33
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
The relationship between media organisations, over the year under review,<br />
was cordial but not without pinpricks and provocations. Ruling party Executive<br />
Secretary, Botsalo Ntuane, on returning from a Masters, programme in<br />
the United Kingdom, stirred a ‘storm in a tea cup’ by criticising Mmegi-The<br />
Reporter for owning a printing press, claiming this was a monopoly that was<br />
not appropriate in Botswana’s fledgling press industry. He was given the opportunity<br />
to talk to his thesis at an open meeting in the Museum Little Theatre<br />
in Gaborone. He defended his allegations, and the storm was cleared up by<br />
Mmegi Managing Editor Titus Mbuya’s explanation <strong>of</strong> some pertinent points.<br />
With the paper’s board members, now and then, throwing light on some crucial<br />
issues, the meeting ended with both parties understanding one another’s<br />
point <strong>of</strong> view.<br />
The spirit <strong>of</strong> oneness among the media fraternity was not ordinarily observed<br />
in media houses throughout the year. This is because <strong>of</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> our population<br />
and the dearth <strong>of</strong> news - therefore there was nothing much to warrant<br />
frequent meetings. But, in contrast, May 3 every year is a day <strong>of</strong> excitement<br />
for everybody who has anything to do with media. The marchers demonstrating<br />
on the day provided an unforgettable picture in 2002.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> Control Bill was like a siren sounded by government to remind the<br />
private press <strong>of</strong> government’s muscle. In the past year, the news had it that the<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> External Affairs, Lieutenant General Mompati Merafhe, wanted<br />
the Bill passed ‘now’ while the Minister <strong>of</strong> Communications Science and<br />
Technology, Boyce Sebetela, wanted it ‘later’ and the year ended without its<br />
enactment into law. The bottom line is that government is anxious to enact<br />
legislation that would put the press under tighter control but dithers because it<br />
has its ‘democracy’ to nurse.<br />
Our observation here is that even though the press is assumed to be the Fourth<br />
Realm <strong>of</strong> the Estate in true democracies, after the Executive, Legislature and<br />
the Judiciary, it is not seen as such in Botswana. The press exposed certain<br />
atrocities but the state machinery seemed complacent about these reports,<br />
whereas, in a true democracy, government would have seen fit to respond to<br />
such issues and come out openly about what it was doing to address them.<br />
2002<br />
Asked if they were aware <strong>of</strong> any opposition by themselves or their colleagues<br />
to any infringement <strong>of</strong> the constitutional rights <strong>of</strong> the media, the Botswana<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Consultative Council responded, “Yes, the media fraternity - more<br />
especially MISA, BMCC and editors in the private press were outspoken on<br />
such issues.” The Editor <strong>of</strong> Mokgosi, the only local vernacular newspaper in<br />
Botswana, responded thus, “Yes. MISA (Botswana) and other stakeholders<br />
continued to put pressure on government to scrap the <strong>Media</strong> Bill and end<br />
interference at the Department <strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting and at Botswana<br />
Television.”<br />
34 So This Is Democracy?
BOTSWANA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
On whether there was ample support <strong>of</strong> attempts by the media to access information<br />
from government, Mokgosi goes on: “Generally there is improvement<br />
in accessing information from government. There is still a major problem <strong>of</strong><br />
departments and ministries not adhering to timeframes and addressing pertinent<br />
questions adequately.”<br />
There is a tendency to let sleeping dogs lie and bygones be bygones, which<br />
seriously erodes rectitude. As a parting shot let us take two excerpts from<br />
Mmegi Monitor March 10 2003 in an article headed ‘Zim Saves Bots At C/<br />
wealth Meet’: (i) “Together with Pakistan and Western Samoa, Botswana was<br />
in line for the guillotine at the CPU meeting for trying to muzzle the press…”<br />
(ii) “Botswana had been blacklisted at an earlier Editors Forum, which felt<br />
that there was need to pressurise the government to stop its intentions to promulgate<br />
the much-criticised Mass <strong>Media</strong> bill.”<br />
So This Is Democracy? 35
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Botswana<br />
Por Mmualefe Raditladi<br />
OBotswana – o país anfitrião da Sede da SADC, membro da Com<br />
monwealth e da União <strong>Africa</strong>na (UA) – muitas vezes aclamado como<br />
um brilhante exemplo de democracia em África devido à sua atmosfera<br />
política e economia estáveis. Contudo, esta gloriosa homenagem é feita em<br />
comparação com outros países. Uma vantagem é o facto de nunca se ter<br />
registado nem efectivamente nem na forma de tentativas um golpe de estado,<br />
nem qualquer rebelião contra o estado. Isto fez com que o Bostswana fosse<br />
considerado um país “amante da paz”, possivelmente por causa da obediência<br />
natural e cultural pela autoridade demonstrada pelo seu povo, originária da<br />
arcaica instituição da chefia onde os monarcas são quase deificados.<br />
Apesar disso, como os outros países, o Botswana está a atravessar um período<br />
de transformação económica, política e social e a velha ordem está<br />
gradualmente a ceder e a permitir a implementação da nova. A concepção por<br />
parte das novas gerações de liberdades básicas bem como a necessidade de<br />
mudança exercem pressão sobre a velha guarda para que seja mais consciente<br />
dos acontecimentos, num mundo em alteração. Uma destas liberdades é a<br />
liberdade de expressão, como definida pela Constituição do Botswana, por<br />
causa dos chamados subordinados, que apesar de não terem o direito “cultural”<br />
de dizer que “Não”, pelo menos têm o direito “constitucional” de o<br />
fazer.<br />
Este direito tem sido respeitado pelas autoridades com o decorrer dos anos<br />
mas não tem sido cumprido até à sua conclusão lógica.<br />
De acordo com a constituição existe a liberdade de imprensa no Botswana<br />
mas a liberdade não é absoluta. Apesar de não haver incidentes específicos do<br />
governo aprovar legislação que amordace a imprensa, afirmações públicas<br />
foram já feitas contra a comunicação social privada, a imprensa escrita ou<br />
electrónica, por membros do gabinete incluindo o Ministro de Assuntos<br />
Presidenciais e Administração Pública, Daniel Kwelagobe e até pelo próprio<br />
Presidente da República, Festus Mogae, especialmente quando estão no<br />
estrangeiro.<br />
2002<br />
Uma situação digna de ser mencionada, apesar de não se poder considerar só<br />
por si, como uma tentativa de amordaçar a informação, é a do programa “Batata<br />
Quente” na estação de rádio privada GABZ-fm, onde os apresentadores Lettie<br />
Gaelesiwe e Solomon Monyame “abriram as portas” do estúdio para que os<br />
ouvintes pudessem expressar-se livremente sobre uma variedade de temas<br />
importantes que afectam as diferentes facetas da vida no Botswana. Como<br />
36 So This Is Democracy?
BOTSWANA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
resultado, uma acção nos tribunais contra um dos apresentadores começou a ser<br />
preparada, instituído por Botsalo Ntuane, Secretário Executivo do Partido<br />
Democrático do Botswana no poder. Os dois apresentadores não conseguiram<br />
que os seus contractos fossem renovados uma vez que a estação, como viria a<br />
afirmar, não podia continuar a pagar os seus salários. Houve alegações de que a<br />
estação de rádio teve problemas financeiros e o gestor anunciou que a estação<br />
estava a envolvida num exercício de restruturação para superar as dificuldades.<br />
O relacionamento entre as organizações da comunicação social durante o período<br />
em revista, foi cordial apesar de se terem registado certas contrariedades e<br />
provocações. O Secretário Executivo do partido no poder, Botsalo Ntuane, ao<br />
regressar de um programa de licenciatura nos Reino Unido, criou “uma<br />
tempestade num copo de água” quando criticou “Mmegi-The Reporter” por até<br />
ser proprietário de uma impressora, que segundo ele, representava um monopólio<br />
que não era digno da indústria da imprensa no Botswana que era ainda muito<br />
inexperiente. Deram-lhe a oportunidade de defender a sua tese numa reunião<br />
pública no “Museum Little Theatre” em Gaborone. Defendeu as suas alegações,<br />
e a tempestade acabou por ser resolvida pela explicação dada pelo Chefe da<br />
Redacção de “Mmegi” Titus Mbuya em relação a certos pontos pertinentes.<br />
Depois de membros do Conselho de Direcção do jornal fazerem mais<br />
esclarecimentos atempados sobre alguns assuntos cruciais, a reunião terminou<br />
com ambas as partes a compreenderem os pontos de vista de cada uma.<br />
Durante todo o ano, o espírito de unidade na fraternidade da comunicação social<br />
não foi observado de forma normal nas empresas de comunicação social.<br />
Isto deve-se ao tamanho da nossa população e à escassez de notícias – e portanto,<br />
nada aconteceu que obrigasse à realização de reuniões frequentes. Mas, em<br />
contraste, o dia 3 de Maio, todos os anos é um dia excitante para todas as<br />
pessoas que estão envolvidas, por mais insignificante que seja, com a<br />
comunicação social. Os manifestantes que marcharam neste dia, proporcionaram<br />
uma imagem inesquecível em 2002.<br />
O projecto de Lei de Controlo da Comunicação Social foi como uma sirene<br />
ligada pelo governo, para fazer lembrar aos meios de comunicação privada os<br />
músculos que o governo possui. No último ano correram notícias de que o<br />
Ministro dos Negócios Externos, Tenente General Mompati Merafhe, queria<br />
que o projecto de lei aprovado “agora” enquanto que o Ministro das<br />
Comunicações, Ciência e Tecnologia, Boyce Sebetela, pretendia que isso<br />
acontecesse “mais tarde” e o ano terminou sem que o projecto fosse aprovado.<br />
A realidade é que o governo está ansioso por aprovar legislação que coloque a<br />
imprensa sob um controlo mais apertado mas estremece porque tem que<br />
desenvolver a sua “democracia”.<br />
A nossa observação em relação a isto é que, apesar de nas democracias<br />
verdadeiras a imprensa ser considerada como a Quarta Esfera do Estado, depois<br />
So This Is Democracy? 37
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
do Executivo, da Legislatura e do poder Judiciário, no Botswana não é<br />
considerada como tal. A imprensa expôs certas atrocidades mas a maquinaria<br />
do estado parece transigente em relação a estas informações, quando afinal,<br />
numa verdadeira democracia, o governo ver-se-ia na obrigação de responder<br />
a tais assuntos e ser totalmente aberto sobre que acções está a tomar para os<br />
resolver.<br />
Quando perguntaram se sabia se havia alguma oposição a qualquer violação<br />
aos direitos constitucionais da comunicação social da sua parte ou da dos seus<br />
colegas, o Conselho Consultivo para a Comunicação Social do Botswana<br />
disse: “Sim, a fraternidade da comunicação social - sobretudo a MISA, o<br />
BMCC e os chefes de redacção da imprensa privada são muito sinceros em<br />
relação a tais assuntos.” O Chefe de Redacção do “Mokgosi”, o único jornal<br />
em língua vernácula no Botswana, respondeu que: “Sim. O MISA (Botswana)<br />
e outras partes interessadas continuam a colocar pressão sobre o governo para<br />
pôr de parte o projecto de Lei da Comunicação Social e pôr termo à<br />
interferência no Departamento de Informação e Radiodifusão e na Televisão<br />
do Botswana.”<br />
Sobre se havia um apoio intenso das tentativas da comunicação social de<br />
conseguir informação do governo, o ”Mokgosi” acrescenta: “Duma forma<br />
geral há uma melhoria no acesso à informação do governo. Há ainda um grande<br />
problema devido aos departamentos e ministérios não terem aderido aos<br />
respectivos períodos e não terem tratado adequadamente das questões<br />
pertinentes.”<br />
Há uma tendência de deixar que os cães continuem a dormir e esquecer o que<br />
se passou, o que afecta gravemente a rectidão. Como ponto de partida devemos<br />
retirar dois excertos do artigo chamado “O Zimbabwe salva o Botswana na<br />
Reunião da Commonwealth” publicado no “Mmegi Monitor” de 10 de Março<br />
de 2002: (1) “Juntamente com o Paquistão e com a Somoa Ocidental, o Botswana<br />
estava na fila para a guilhotina na reunião da CPU tentar amordaçar a<br />
imprensa…” (2) “O Botswana foi colocado na lista negra no Fórum dos Chefes<br />
de Redacção que se realizou antes, que decidiu que havia necessidade de<br />
colocar pressão sobre o governo do Botswana para pôr termo à sua intenção<br />
de promulgar o tão criticado Projecto de Lei da Comunicação Social.”<br />
2002<br />
38 So This Is Democracy?
BOTSWANA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-06<br />
PERSON(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Botswana<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Presidential Affairs and<br />
Public Administration Daniel<br />
Kwelagobe recently lambasted reporters<br />
from state-owned Botswana<br />
Television (BTV) for airing what he<br />
termed “insults” uttered by Neo<br />
Mothlabane, leader <strong>of</strong> the opposition<br />
Botswana People’s Party, at the<br />
“kgotla” (traditional court) in the<br />
town <strong>of</strong> Molepolole.<br />
The minister explained that the reporters<br />
should have edited out the <strong>of</strong>fending<br />
parts <strong>of</strong> the tape. He urged<br />
them to sanitise what they report to<br />
the public and added that the words<br />
“denigrated the person <strong>of</strong> President<br />
Festus Mogae.”<br />
Kwelagobe’s sentiments over BTV<br />
reporters was condemned by some<br />
sectors <strong>of</strong> civil society, including<br />
MISA-Botswana, which believes the<br />
minister was interfering with the media.<br />
MISA-Botswana National Director<br />
Modise Maphanyane told a news<br />
team from Gabz FM radio that his<br />
organisation does not condone the<br />
interference from the minister and<br />
urged Kwelagobe to allow the media<br />
to work independently.<br />
However, Kwelagobe launched another<br />
scathing attack on the private<br />
media in Parliament, for what he<br />
called “sensationalism and lack <strong>of</strong> indepth<br />
reporting on the ongoing tribal<br />
debate.” The minister was responding<br />
to comments by members <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
about the Revised Draft Government<br />
White Paper on the Presidential<br />
Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry into the<br />
Constitution <strong>of</strong> Botswana.<br />
The minister expressed his belief<br />
that the scope <strong>of</strong> news coverage for<br />
state media and the private press is<br />
not the same. He said state media act<br />
as “a tool for nation building” while<br />
private media outlets are “driven by<br />
business motives.”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-06<br />
PERSON(S): Radio Botswana,<br />
Modise Maphanyane<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On Monday April 22, 2002, thousands<br />
<strong>of</strong> Radio Botswana listeners were<br />
shocked to learn that the much-advertised<br />
“Live-Line” programme would<br />
not be aired. The popular talk show,<br />
which features discussions on topical<br />
issues, was called <strong>of</strong>f only 30 minutes<br />
before its scheduled time. The<br />
station ran an apology instead, to the<br />
effect that it could not air the programme<br />
due to circumstances beyond<br />
its control.<br />
The weekly “Mmegi Monitor” reported<br />
that that day’s scheduled programme<br />
was to feature a discussion<br />
about the scope <strong>of</strong> the reporting expected<br />
from public service media outlets.<br />
When questioned about the cancellation<br />
<strong>of</strong> his programme, the producer<br />
refused to comment and instead<br />
directed the “Mmegi Monitor” to the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the Director <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Broadcasting.<br />
MISA-Botswana National Director<br />
Modise Maphanyane was scheduled<br />
as a panelist on the cancelled programme.<br />
His views on press freedom,<br />
especially concerning the independence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the editorial process in light<br />
<strong>of</strong> recent calls by members <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
to sanitise the public broadcast-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 39
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
er’s content, are well known.<br />
Director <strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting<br />
Andrew Sesinyi declined to<br />
comment on the issue.<br />
MISA-Botswana reports that over<br />
the last few months, it has witnessed<br />
a hunt <strong>of</strong> persons within the media<br />
who seemingly do not tolerate governmental<br />
interference in a specific<br />
media outlet’s editorial policies.<br />
The general manager <strong>of</strong> Botswana<br />
Television (BTV) recently resigned,<br />
apparently on personal grounds. He<br />
is the second general manager to have<br />
resigned in recent months.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-24<br />
PERSON(S): Stryker Motlaloso<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten, threatened<br />
On Saturday May 19, 2002, Stryker<br />
Motlaloso, news editor from the<br />
weekly newspaper “Mmegi”, was assaulted<br />
by opposition Botswana National<br />
Front (BNF) politician David<br />
Mhiemang at a political rally held at<br />
the Botswana Building Society Mall.<br />
In an interview with MISA-Botswana,<br />
Motlaloso said he had gone<br />
to cover the rally when Mhiemang<br />
approached him and accused him <strong>of</strong><br />
reporting negatively about BNF party<br />
activities. Mhiemang then punched<br />
Motlaloso’s right eye and insulted<br />
him in the presence <strong>of</strong> his fellow journalists<br />
and other people who were attending<br />
the rally. The opposition politician<br />
later threatened to stab the journalist<br />
with a knife, which he took out<br />
<strong>of</strong> his pocket.<br />
Motlaloso did not retaliate, but decided<br />
to walk away from the scene.<br />
On Monday, May 20, the journalist<br />
40 So This Is Democracy?<br />
pressed charges against the politician<br />
at the Broadhurst Police Station. Police<br />
Public Relations Officer Chris<br />
Mbulawa confirmed the charge in a<br />
telephone interview with MISA-Botswana,<br />
and said the police were looking<br />
for Mhiemang, who lives in the<br />
town <strong>of</strong> Molepolole, about 50 kilometres<br />
from the capital, Gaborone.<br />
The BNF is the country’s main opposition<br />
party. The party is currently<br />
reeling from factional fighting.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-07-04<br />
PERSON(S): Solomon Monyame<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
Popular Gabz FM radio presenter and<br />
MISA-Botswana Chairperson Solomon<br />
Monyame and Gabz FM management<br />
have been jointly sued for<br />
the sum <strong>of</strong> Botswana Pula 1.7 million<br />
(approx. US$279,330) in damages<br />
over announcements broadcast on the<br />
station’s breakfast show on 6 June<br />
2002.<br />
On June 6, Monyame announced<br />
between 06h45 and 06h55 that he<br />
would interview Radio Botswana 2<br />
(RB2) announcer Gloria Kgosi on allegations<br />
that she was harassed by<br />
Botsalo Ntuane, executive secretary<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ruling Botswana Democratic<br />
Party (BDP), on RB2’s premises, thus<br />
delaying the airing <strong>of</strong> the national<br />
news by seven minutes.<br />
The pre-arranged telephone interview<br />
did not take place as Kgosi was<br />
not available to comment on the matter.<br />
Nonetheless, “Gabz FM” callers<br />
continued to comment on the matter<br />
the next day.<br />
Reacting to the announcement,<br />
Ntuane instructed his attorney, Isaac
BOTSWANA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Seleko, to have the radio broadcasts<br />
stopped immediately, and threatened<br />
to otherwise cite the station for defamation.<br />
The following day, Seleko<br />
wrote a letter to “Gabz FM” management<br />
in which he complained about<br />
the broadcast, which he alluded to<br />
“have lowered [his] client in the estimation<br />
<strong>of</strong> right thinking men and<br />
women” and thus jeopardising his<br />
client’s pr<strong>of</strong>ession.<br />
“The sum <strong>of</strong> Pula 750,000 [approx.<br />
US$122,936] being amande pr<strong>of</strong>itable,<br />
which we hereby demand within<br />
30 days from the date here<strong>of</strong>, failing<br />
which we shall institute defamation<br />
proceedings without any further reference<br />
to you, the ensuing costs<br />
where<strong>of</strong> shall be for your account,”<br />
the lawyer’s letter stated in part.<br />
Another letter followed, demanding<br />
Pula 1.7 million in damages,<br />
which, the attorney claimed, was<br />
caused by comments from callers to<br />
“Gabz FM” the day after the broadcast<br />
aired on the radio station.<br />
“Gabz FM” is a private commercial<br />
radio station which covers a radius<br />
<strong>of</strong> 70 kilometres. It broadcasts<br />
from the Botswana capital,<br />
Gaborone, and is co-owned by Tari<br />
Investments (Pty) Ltd and Hakona<br />
Investments, a South <strong>Africa</strong>n-based<br />
company.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-07-09<br />
PERSON(S): Monkagedi<br />
Gaotlhobogwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On July 7, 2002, “Botswana Gazette”<br />
sports reporter Monkagedi<br />
Gaotlhobogwe was assaulted at the<br />
newspaper’s <strong>of</strong>fices by prominent<br />
Botswana national soccer team player<br />
Seabo Gabanakgosi.<br />
The incident followed the publication<br />
in the newspaper <strong>of</strong> an article<br />
penned by the reporter. The article<br />
entitled “Is Seabo born again?” appeared<br />
in the March 13 edition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
“Botswana Gazette”. It raised questions<br />
about Gabanakgosi’s physical<br />
and tactical fitness ahead <strong>of</strong> a big<br />
match between Botswana’s national<br />
team, the Zebras, and South <strong>Africa</strong>’s<br />
national team, Bafana Bafana.<br />
According to Gaotlhobogwe, he<br />
was in the newsroom when he was<br />
informed that he had a visitor waiting<br />
in the reception area.<br />
Gaotlhobogwe told MISA-Botswana<br />
that he immediately left his desk to<br />
attend to the visitor, whereupon he<br />
met Gabanakgosi by the main entrance<br />
<strong>of</strong> the “Boswana Gazette” <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
Recognising the visitor, Gaotlhobogwe<br />
said he then greeted Gabanakgosi,<br />
whose first words in reply were, “Ke<br />
eng o kwala masepa ka nna?” (“Why<br />
do you write shit about me?”). The reporter<br />
said that before he had a chance<br />
to respond, Gabanakgosi continued,<br />
“You first wrote shit about me when I<br />
was coming back from the [United<br />
States] for the national team and again<br />
after the match.” The reporter said<br />
Gabanakgosi then started hitting him<br />
in the face with his fists, in full view<br />
<strong>of</strong> several “Botswana Gazette” staff<br />
members.<br />
The marketing and promotions<br />
manager <strong>of</strong> the “Botswana Gazette”,<br />
Moganetsi Mabe, intervened and<br />
managed to restrain Gabanakgosi.<br />
Mabe said that after the incident, he<br />
called Gabanakgosi into his <strong>of</strong>fice to<br />
talk to him. “When I told<br />
So This Is Democracy? 41
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Gabanakgosi he had just committed<br />
a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence and that his behaviour<br />
was unjustifiable, he told me he<br />
acted that way to ‘prove to<br />
Gaotlhobogwe that because he had<br />
been playing dirty by writing shit<br />
about me I could equally become<br />
dirty’.”<br />
Commenting on the incident, “Botswana<br />
Gazette” Editor Abraham<br />
Motsokono said, “I cannot imagine a<br />
clearer demonstration <strong>of</strong> violation <strong>of</strong><br />
a journalist’s right [to] freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression. What Seabo did is totally<br />
unacceptable, especially by a person<br />
[with] his public pr<strong>of</strong>ile. We are certainly<br />
not taking the matter lightly.”<br />
The incident has been reported to<br />
the authorities and MISA-Botswana<br />
is awaiting a response from the police<br />
in this criminal matter.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-17<br />
PERSON(S): Alice Banda<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Alice Banda, a reporter from the privately-owned<br />
weekly newspaper<br />
“The Voice”, has received numerous<br />
threatening telephone calls following<br />
the publication <strong>of</strong> an investigative<br />
article in her newspaper’s October 4,<br />
2002 edition. The controversial article<br />
reported on illegal abortions carried<br />
out by medical doctors in<br />
Francistown, Botswana’s second largest<br />
commercial centre, situated some<br />
433 km from the capital, Gaborone.<br />
Banda went undercover for three<br />
months, claiming to be five months<br />
pregnant. She discovered that five out<br />
<strong>of</strong> seven registered doctors in<br />
Francistown were willing to terminate<br />
her pregnancy, for a fee ranging from<br />
42 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Pula 800 (approx. US$133) to Pula 3<br />
200 (approx. US$533). Abortion is<br />
illegal in Botswana.<br />
Banda told MISA-Botswana that<br />
she has received about 15 intimidating<br />
calls on her cellphone from<br />
anonymous callers, both men and<br />
women, in response to her October 4<br />
report. “You’ve messed up your life<br />
and you’ll see! This time you’ll really<br />
become pregnant. Police won’t<br />
watch you at night. Watch your step!<br />
The wages <strong>of</strong> sin is death! If you think<br />
you’re standing firm, watch out lest<br />
you fall,” are among the warnings she<br />
has received.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-11-06<br />
PERSON(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Botswana<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> Self-Regulation Task<br />
Force, co-sponsored by the Botswana<br />
chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA-Botswana)<br />
and the Botswana <strong>Media</strong> Consultative<br />
Council (BMCC) on Monday, October<br />
28, 2002, registered the Notarial<br />
Deed <strong>of</strong> Trust <strong>of</strong> the Press Council <strong>of</strong><br />
Botswana in the Deeds Office <strong>of</strong> Botswana<br />
at Gaborone. The Deed was<br />
registered by the legal firm <strong>of</strong> Bayford<br />
and Associates on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>Media</strong><br />
Self-Regulation Task Force.<br />
The registration <strong>of</strong> the Press Council<br />
is a culmination <strong>of</strong> over two years<br />
<strong>of</strong> stakeholder consultations involving<br />
local media organisations and<br />
houses, as well as interested individuals<br />
and a wide cross section <strong>of</strong> government<br />
and civil society representatives.<br />
The registration <strong>of</strong> the Council<br />
further fulfils the commitment made<br />
by representatives <strong>of</strong> the private me-
BOTSWANA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
dia before the High Level Consultative<br />
Council to establish an effective<br />
self-regulatory instrument.<br />
The Deed <strong>of</strong> Trust for the Press<br />
Council <strong>of</strong> Botswana provides for the<br />
establishment and support <strong>of</strong> an independent<br />
Complaints Committee to<br />
receive petitions from the public<br />
about the performance <strong>of</strong> members <strong>of</strong><br />
the press and to “adjudicate on such<br />
matters and apply appropriate remedies,<br />
including sanctions, where necessary,<br />
in order to promote an atmosphere<br />
<strong>of</strong> mutual trust and respect between<br />
the press and the public.”<br />
The Deed further provides for an<br />
Appeals Committee that will be empowered<br />
to hear appeals from the<br />
Complaints Committee.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-12-09<br />
PERSON(S): Moreri Moroka,<br />
Moreri Sejakgomo<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On December 5, 2002, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Botswana (UB) students, armed with<br />
bricks and stones, attacked two journalists<br />
from the bi-weekly newspaper<br />
“Mokgosi”.<br />
At around 05h00 on December 5,<br />
Moreri Moroka, a “Mokgosi” freelance<br />
reporter and well-known poet,<br />
who is also a third-year student at the<br />
UB, and photographer Moreri<br />
Sejakgomo were covering student<br />
demonstrations on campus, when a<br />
crowd <strong>of</strong> about 100 students surrounded,<br />
verbally abused and manhandled<br />
them. The Student Representative<br />
Committee (SRC) and UB<br />
security personnel later identified and<br />
freed Moroka. He was then forced to<br />
dodge flying bricks from the mob as<br />
he was walking out <strong>of</strong> the campus<br />
gates. Sejakgomo had managed to flee<br />
the campus earlier, but not before being<br />
manhandled by the students.<br />
“Mokgosi” management said it<br />
viewed the incident with contempt,<br />
finding it both disturbing and unfortunate.<br />
“The fact that [the journalists]<br />
were made the target <strong>of</strong> misdirected<br />
anger <strong>of</strong> rampaging students serves as<br />
a warning and a threat against those<br />
who put their lives on the line to inform<br />
the nation <strong>of</strong> problems facing the<br />
country,” said “Mokgosi” editor<br />
Pamela Dube. “The fact that the students<br />
felt strongly about the university<br />
administration’s disregard to their<br />
demands does not give them a licence<br />
to target innocent messengers.”<br />
Moroka says he fears for his life<br />
since his attackers are fellow students,<br />
with some <strong>of</strong> whom he shares lecture<br />
rooms.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 43
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Lesotho<br />
Sophia M. Tlali<br />
Sophia Tlali is the Director/Principal Shareholder <strong>of</strong> KK<strong>Media</strong> & Editorial<br />
Services PTY LTD. KK <strong>Media</strong> is a member <strong>of</strong> MILES since 1997/98. She is<br />
also a Co-Editor <strong>of</strong> the Lesotho Monitor.<br />
Generally, in the recent past Lesotho has moved away from assassina<br />
tion, injury to persons and harassment <strong>of</strong> journalists by government.<br />
It could be expected, then, that there is relative freedom within which<br />
the various independent media houses operate. But there are several hurdles<br />
that restrict the Lesotho media from meeting their challenges in a democratic<br />
dispensation. If we accept the premise that there can be no democracy without<br />
the media, then <strong>of</strong> necessity the national mindset should be that <strong>of</strong> true<br />
acceptance <strong>of</strong> the media as a forum for exchange <strong>of</strong> ideas. The legal system<br />
should provide room for freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
Maqutu J. said, “Lesotho has not yet matched our law with freedom <strong>of</strong> expression<br />
as stated in the constitution. We have largely based our law on<br />
Roman-Dutch law <strong>of</strong> defamation as received from the Cape <strong>of</strong> Good Hope<br />
and modified by English Law <strong>of</strong> slander and libel.” Pakathitha Mosisili v<br />
Candy Ramainoane CIV/T/51/97.<br />
This legal environment means that reprisal for publication alleged to be<br />
wrongful is still so severe as to discourage publication. On December 22<br />
1999, Candy Ramainoane, the editor <strong>of</strong> Moafrika news magazine, was found<br />
liable for defamation in a ruling by Lesotho’s High Court. A member <strong>of</strong><br />
parliament Moeketsi Sello was awarded US$15,000 as compensation for<br />
damages to his dignity and fame and a further US$2,500 in punitive damages<br />
and payment <strong>of</strong> all legal costs incurred in the pursuit <strong>of</strong> the case.<br />
In July 2002, the Lesotho Evangelical Church (LEC), paid M15,000<br />
(R15,000) in an out <strong>of</strong> court settlement to the former Lesotho Mounted Police<br />
Service Officer Sello Lesita, now Lesotho Football Association administrative<br />
secretary. The news report alleged that Lesita was linked to the<br />
disappearance <strong>of</strong> a M10,000 cheque intended to buy a Mercedes-Benz. Lesita<br />
sought to be compensated for damages as a result <strong>of</strong> the publication. He had<br />
asked for fifty thousand maloti (M50,000) as compensation.<br />
It is not far-fetched to conclude that the paper, Leselinyana la Basotho would<br />
have been afraid to appear in court over this matter in light <strong>of</strong> the previous<br />
cases that for instance Moafrika had not won, which have set a precedent<br />
that a newspaper would find it difficult to win a defamation suit.<br />
2002<br />
In another incident an English Weekly Publication, Public Eye, faces a defa-<br />
44 So This Is Democracy?
LESOTHO<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
mation suit from National University <strong>of</strong> Lesotho (NUL) Pro-vice Chancellor<br />
Dr. Nqosa Mahao. He is demanding R800,000 as damages, 18.5 percent <strong>of</strong><br />
the claimed damages, and payment <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the suit. Mahao, in court<br />
papers dated April 25 2002, says that the Public Eye Publication had greatly<br />
and irretrievably impaired and damaged his dignity and fame in the eyes <strong>of</strong><br />
right thinking members <strong>of</strong> society in both Lesotho and South <strong>Africa</strong> as well as<br />
in other countries in <strong>Africa</strong> and overseas.<br />
It would seem that the stage has been set for the media to fight a war <strong>of</strong><br />
survival in the courts <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the challenges that face the media in Lesotho is the provision <strong>of</strong> regular<br />
audience audits. In some countries a newspaper or magazine is required<br />
by law to conduct regular audience audits. The purpose the audits serve is to<br />
determine a paper’s boundaries in terms <strong>of</strong> readership in order to determine<br />
the extent <strong>of</strong> population coverage <strong>of</strong> the paper in relation to the actual population<br />
<strong>of</strong> the country. I believe the audits may also help the court to determine<br />
the extent <strong>of</strong> the damage suffered by a plaintiff and enable the judge to award<br />
fair compensation for damages to dignity and fame. It may be argued too that<br />
an English paper in reality is read by a few thousand people and therefore<br />
anybody who suffers injury in the form <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> dignity and fame from such<br />
a publication, has not suffered much, except in his or her own imagination.<br />
But there is no frame <strong>of</strong> reference to support this interpretation in the absence<br />
<strong>of</strong> a media-specific law.<br />
It is the media’s contention that the aim <strong>of</strong> reprisal should not be to discourage<br />
publication but to encourage pr<strong>of</strong>essional and ethical conduct by the media.<br />
It is important to realise that if the courts are forcing media houses to deplete<br />
all their resources in payments, this is tantamount to gagging the media and<br />
defeating the freedom <strong>of</strong> speech entrenched in the Constitution and in Article<br />
19 <strong>of</strong> the Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights:<br />
Everyone has the right to freedom <strong>of</strong> opinion and expression; this right includes<br />
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and<br />
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless <strong>of</strong> frontiers.<br />
In May 2002 EPIC Printers was charged as fourth defendant in the defamation<br />
case <strong>of</strong> Mahao for printing a Public Eye issue that contained the report<br />
headlined ‘Sex Scandal hits NUL’. As a result <strong>of</strong> EPIC Printers being “dragged<br />
into court primarily because <strong>of</strong> libel not caused or precipitated by us as printers<br />
but by you as publishers” the chairman <strong>of</strong> the company, Mampone<br />
Nthongoa, threatened to suspend printing newspapers unless they signed a<br />
disclaimer indicating that: “Any comments, views, opinions, editorial, news<br />
analysis in this issue are those <strong>of</strong> the publishers and not <strong>of</strong> EPC Printers.”<br />
So This Is Democracy? 45
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Newspapers were also required to settle their debts and pay in full costs for<br />
forthcoming printing work.<br />
EPIC Printers required in addition that a newspaper should sign a separate<br />
legal document stating that: “EPIC Printers is not liable and should not be<br />
held accountable from any legal action arising from the publications <strong>of</strong> any<br />
sort by the publishers.”<br />
Although the publications did not shut down, the environment within which<br />
they now have to publish is littered with legal and financial hurdles. The media<br />
can no longer be considered free if they are under threat <strong>of</strong> having to shut<br />
down or are fearful <strong>of</strong> court settlements from the ever-growing trend <strong>of</strong> defamation<br />
suits. Until the environment is such that everyone feels free to make<br />
the media the playing field for exchange <strong>of</strong> ideas, true democracy may not be<br />
realised.<br />
Since the 1993 democratic elections, the independent media began to emerge.<br />
The airwaves began to open up for independent broadcasting stations that<br />
were not run as government departments. Because this was a first, after many<br />
years <strong>of</strong> government control and the media war between the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
states and then Apartheid South <strong>Africa</strong>, the media expected that people would<br />
use their new found freedom to the fullest. A new and healthy culture <strong>of</strong> expressing<br />
opinions not necessarily those <strong>of</strong> the establishment was ushered in.<br />
The media fraternity, however, began to sense that some <strong>of</strong> the excesses in<br />
reporting were not in the public interest and, as a result, began to seek ways <strong>of</strong><br />
curbing wild reports to pave the way for a more pr<strong>of</strong>essional approach.<br />
In 2002, an important milestone was reached in the establishment <strong>of</strong> democracy.<br />
Since we had blamed the ‘first past the post’ Westminster model <strong>of</strong> elections<br />
for a lack <strong>of</strong> equal opportunity to participate in the affairs <strong>of</strong> our country<br />
and since we have been able to come up with the Mixed Member Proportional<br />
Model <strong>of</strong> election, we have high expectations that this forum <strong>of</strong> open debate<br />
between people <strong>of</strong> differing opinions will exist not only in parliament but in<br />
all public institutions that are meant to protect and advocate for the public<br />
interest.<br />
The media still requires an Ombudsman who will protect individual rights,<br />
public interest and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. Such an Ombudsman may mediate<br />
between media houses and aggrieved individuals to set conflict in its proper<br />
perspective.<br />
2002<br />
Despite the growing trend for legal suits, a new English tabloid was registered<br />
in February 2002. Its first issue, with a circulation <strong>of</strong> 1,000 copies, hit<br />
the streets on May 23. It hopes to improve the fragile democracy <strong>of</strong> Lesotho<br />
46 So This Is Democracy?
LESOTHO<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
among other objectives. Another paper, however, The <strong>Southern</strong> Star, ceased<br />
publication in June 2002.<br />
The year 2002 saw an increase in telecommunications tariffs, which will impact<br />
on development <strong>of</strong> independent broadcasters. Only one radio station,<br />
apart from the government-owned Radio Lesotho, can be received beyond 50<br />
kilometres <strong>of</strong> the capital city Maseru. It is hoped that a time will come when<br />
government will make available resources for independent broadcasters to<br />
reach all corners <strong>of</strong> Lesotho.<br />
A <strong>Media</strong> Ombudsman may be a proper lobbyist for the media in parliament.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Lesotho is working towards making some <strong>of</strong> the media<br />
fraternity’s hopes a reality.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 47
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Lesoto<br />
Por: Sophia Tlali<br />
Sophia Tlali é a Directora/principal accionista dos serviços da KK media &<br />
editorial PTY LTD. KK media é membro da delegação do MISA-Malawi<br />
[MILES] desde 1997/98. Ela é ainda a co-editora do Lesoto monitor.<br />
Introdução:<br />
De uma forma geral, o Lesoto moveu-se do recente passado marcado<br />
por assassinatos, ferimento de pessoas e perseguições de jornalistas<br />
por parte do governo. Pode, porém, esperar-se que exista uma<br />
liberdade relativa na qual operam as publicações/jornais.<br />
Mesmo assim ainda existem vários obstáculos que coarctam a imprensa do<br />
Lesoto dos seus desafios numa esfera democrática. Se acatarmos o supracitado<br />
de que pode não pode haver democracia sem a imprensa, então seria necessário<br />
que a mente tenha uma verdadeira aceitação da imprensa, como um fórum para<br />
o intercâmbio de ideias. O sistema legal deve providenciar espaço para a liberdade<br />
de expressão.<br />
Maqutu J. Disse, “O Lesoto ainda não equiparou as nossas leis com a liberdade<br />
de expressão como estipulado na constituição. Baseamos amplamente a nossa<br />
lei na lei de difamação Românica e Holandesa como recebida do Cabo de Boa<br />
Esperança [Cape <strong>of</strong> Good Hope] e modificada pela lei Inglesa de difamação e<br />
calúnia.” Pakathita Mosisili v Candy Ramainoane CIV/T/51/97.<br />
Este ambiente legal significa que a represália por uma publicação alegadamente<br />
errónea continua ainda sendo tão severa de modo a desencorajar a publicação.<br />
No dia 22 de Dezembro de 1999, Ramaoinoane, o editor do Moafrika news<br />
Magazine, foi declarado pelo tribunal supremo do Lesoto culpado por difamação.<br />
Sello [o difamado] foi atribuído USD 15,000 como compensação pelos danos<br />
infringidos contra a sua dignidade e USD 2,000 pelos danos punitivos e cobertura<br />
dos custos legais contraídos durante o processo judicial.<br />
Em Julho de 2002, a Igreja Evangélica do Lesoto (LEC), efectuou o<br />
pagamento de M15,0000 [convertido também 15,000 Rands, “moeda Sul<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>na”] num caso resolvido fora do tribunal, ao antigo agente da Policia<br />
Sello Lesita, actualmente secretário administrativo da Associação de Futebol<br />
do Lesoto. O artigo publicado alegava que Lesita estava envolvido no<br />
desaparecimento de um cheque de M10,000 que se destinava para a compra<br />
de um Mercedes-Bens.<br />
2002<br />
Lesita, procurou compensação pelos danos por causa da publicação. Lesita tivera<br />
antes solicitado pelos danos, uma compensação no valor de M50,000.<br />
48 So This Is Democracy?
LESOTHO<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Não constitui qualquer superstição, por isso, concluir que a publicação<br />
Leselinyana la Basotho recearia aparecer diante do tribunal num caso similar<br />
que por exemplo Moafrika ganhou, e criou um precedente no qual o jornal acha<br />
difícil vencer num caso de difamação.<br />
Num outro incidente o sumario publicado em inglês “Public Eye” enfrenta um<br />
caso de difamação levantado pelo pro vice-chanceler da Universidade Nacional<br />
do Lesoto (NUL), Dr. Nqosa Mahao. Mahao exige a recompensa de R800,000<br />
pelos danos estimados em 18.5% e o pagamento pelos custos legais. Nos papeis<br />
de Mahao datados 25 de Abril de 2002, diz que o “Public Eye” danificou e<br />
arruinou grandemente e irrecuperavelmente a sua dignidade e reputação perante<br />
os membros da sociedade intelectual no Lesoto, <strong>Africa</strong> do Sul assim como noutros<br />
países ultramarinos.<br />
Este aparenta ter sido apropriadamente estabelecido para que a imprensa combata<br />
uma guerra de sobrevivência nos tribunais de justiça.<br />
Um dos desafios que a imprensa enfrenta no Lesoto, é a provisão de uma<br />
audiência regular de ouvintes/leitores. Nalguns países os jornal e/ou revista são<br />
exigidos pela lei para manter e servir uma audiência regular. A audiência tem o<br />
propósito de determinar as barreiras do jornal em termos de leitura a fim de<br />
determinar a extensão de cobertura do jornal no seio da população em relação a<br />
actual população do país.<br />
Acredito que a audiência pode também assistir os tribunais a determinar o nível<br />
de danos e a capacitar o tribunal a estabelecer a compensação para a recuperação<br />
causados contra a reputação e a dignidade [das vitimas]. Pode-se discutir que<br />
um jornal publicado na língua inglesa tenha na realidade um número de leitores<br />
estimado em poucos milhares de pessoas, por isso seja quem for, que for alvo<br />
de difamação de tal publicação, não terá s<strong>of</strong>rido tanto assim, excepto na sua<br />
própria imaginação. Infelizmente, não existe qualquer padrão que apoie esta<br />
interpretação na ausência de uma lei de imprensa específica.<br />
É esta a discórdia da imprensa de que o objectivo de represálias não deve<br />
desencorajar as publicações, mas sim encorajar uma conduta ética e pr<strong>of</strong>issional<br />
para a imprensa.<br />
É importante notar que se os tribunais estiverem a forçar as publicações/jornais<br />
a esgotar os seus recursos em pagamentos, seria equivalente a amordaçar a<br />
imprensa e arruinar a liberdade de expressão, ambos instituídos na Constituição<br />
e no artigo 19 da Declaração Universal para os direitos humanos:<br />
Todos os cidadãos têm o direito a liberdade de opinião e de expressão; este<br />
direito inclui o direito de manter opiniões sem interferência e a procurar,<br />
receber e transmitir informações e ideias através de qualquer imprensa<br />
So This Is Democracy? 49
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
independentemente das fronteiras.<br />
Em Maio de 2002, EPIC Printers foi acusado como o terceiro defensor num<br />
caso de difamação de Mahao por ter imprimido a edição do “Public Eye” que<br />
continha a manchete “Escândalo sexual abala NUL”. Como resultado o EPIC<br />
Printers foi “levado ao tribunal por causa da calúnia não causada ou precipitada<br />
por nós como impressores, mas sim por vocês como publicadores” o presidente<br />
da empresa Mampone Nthongoa, ameaçou suspender a impressão do jornal a<br />
não ser que assinassem uma renúncia indicando que: “Qualquer comentário,<br />
convicções, opiniões, editoriais, analise de noticiais desta edição pertencem ao<br />
jornal e não a impressora EPC Printers.” Os jornais eram também exigidos a<br />
regularizarem as sua contas em atraso, e a efectuarem o pagamento total dos<br />
serviços que haviam de se seguir.<br />
EPC Printers em adição exigiu que o jornal tinha que assinar um documento<br />
legal em anexo declarando: “EPC Printers não assume qualquer responsabilidade,<br />
e nem deve ser responsabilizada por qualquer acção legal que advier na<br />
publicação de qualquer publicação/jornal”.<br />
Embora as publicações não tenham encerrado as suas portas, a esfera na qual<br />
devem fazer as suas publicações ficou poluído com a imposição de obstáculos<br />
judiciais e financeiros. De forma alguma se pode considerar a imprensa como<br />
sendo livre, quando permanecem sobre a ameaça de encerrar as suas portas ou<br />
qualquer intimação judicial que exige elevadas somas de valores monetários<br />
por difamação. Sem que o ambiente seja aquele no qual todos se sintam livres a<br />
tornar a imprensa o campo comum para o intercâmbio de ideias, jamais será<br />
realizada a verdadeira democracia.<br />
A imprensa independente começou a emergir com a realização das eleições<br />
democráticas em 1993. As ondas sonoras começaram a expandir-se para as<br />
estações de difusão independentes que não eram operados como departamentos<br />
do estado. Como este processo estava na fase embrionária, depois de muitos<br />
anos de controlo pelo estado, e a guerra da imprensa que existia entre os estados<br />
da <strong>Africa</strong> Austral e o então regime do Apartheid na <strong>Africa</strong> do Sul, a imprensa<br />
esperava que o povo usasse ao máximo a sua liberdade recentemente conquistada.<br />
Entretanto, a fraternidade da imprensa, começou a pressentir que alguns dos<br />
excessos na reportagem não eram de interesse público e como resultado, começou<br />
a procurar formas que dirimissem as reportagens desenfreadas pavimentando<br />
desta forma a via para uma aproximação cada vez mais pr<strong>of</strong>issional.<br />
2002<br />
Com o estabelecimento da democracia em 2002, atingiu-se um momento de<br />
carácter muito importante. Desde que acusávamos que ‘ganha quem merece’ o<br />
modelo de eleições de Westminster, por falta de oportunidades equiparadas na<br />
participação dos assuntos do nosso país e desde que fomos capazes de<br />
50 So This Is Democracy?
LESOTHO<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
implementar o sistema de eleições proporcional de membros mistos, temos<br />
grandes expectativas pela existência de povos de diferente opiniões num fórum<br />
de debate aberto, não só no parlamento mas também nas instituições públicas<br />
que devem proteger e advogar os interesses públicos.<br />
A imprensa ainda necessita do Ombudsman que protegerá os direitos individuais<br />
e públicos e a liberdade de expressão. Tal Ombudsman pode mediar em casos<br />
de conflitos entre indivíduos magoados e publicações/jornais de uma forma<br />
apropriada.<br />
Não obstante a tendência crescente dos casos legais, foi registado um novo<br />
tablóide inglês em Fevereiro de 2002. A sua primeira edição, com a circulação<br />
de 1,000 cópias, circulou nas ruas de Maseru no dia 23 de Maio. Este Tablóide<br />
pretende realçar a frágil democracia no Lesoto dentre outros objectivos.<br />
Um outro jornal porém, “The <strong>Southern</strong> Star” cessou a sua tiragem em Junho de<br />
2002.<br />
O ano de 2002 registou um aumento nas tarifas das telecomunicações, que<br />
causarão um impacto no desenvolvimento dos radiodifusores independentes.<br />
Só uma estação de rádio para além da rádio estatal “Rádio Lesoto” pode ser<br />
recebido para alem de cinquenta kilometros fora da capital Maseru. Espera-se<br />
pelo tempo em que o governo tornará disponível os recursos necessários para<br />
que os radiodifusores independentes possam cobrir todas as partes do Lesoto.<br />
Um Ombudsman para imprensa seria o órgão propício para se representar no<br />
parlamento. O Instituto dos Média do Lesoto está engajado em projectos que<br />
visam tornar realidade a fraternidade da média no Lesoto.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 51
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2003-03-04<br />
PERSON(S): Candi Ramainoane<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
52 So This Is Democracy?<br />
On 17 February 2003, High Court<br />
Judge Semapo Peete ruled in favour<br />
<strong>of</strong> the weekly Sesotho tabloid newspaper<br />
“MoAfrika”. “MoAfrika” editor<br />
Candi Ratabane Ramainoane was<br />
summoned to court to explain why<br />
he should not be ordered to remove<br />
an announcement that appears in the<br />
top right-hand corner <strong>of</strong> the front<br />
page <strong>of</strong> every issue <strong>of</strong> his newspaper.<br />
Judge Peete rejected the argument<br />
that the announcement dealt with a<br />
matter that was before the courts and<br />
therefore could not be discussed publicly.<br />
He added that although the<br />
High Court was the bulwark <strong>of</strong> the<br />
essential freedoms <strong>of</strong> Lesotho’s<br />
newly acquired democracy, the press<br />
did not have “carte blanche” to abuse<br />
the rule against commenting on cases<br />
before the courts without good cause<br />
and a true sense <strong>of</strong> responsibility.<br />
Peete ruled that the “MoAfrika” announcement<br />
was protected by Section<br />
14 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution, which<br />
upholds freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and<br />
press freedom.<br />
In late 2002, Judge Peete ordered<br />
Ramainoane to explain why he<br />
should not be ordered to remove an<br />
announcement in “MoAfrika” that<br />
says, “Ntsu Mokhehle and P.B.<br />
Mosisili,, who assassinated S.M.<br />
Baholo [x] weeks ago, on April 14,<br />
1994? The killers <strong>of</strong> Selometsi<br />
Baholo have still not been arrested<br />
nor prosecuted”. Twenty-five members<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Lesotho Defence Force<br />
(LDF) were arrested in 1999 in connection<br />
with Baholo’s murder.<br />
Ramainoane was summoned because<br />
Judge Peete was concerned that the<br />
“MoAfrika” announcement could<br />
therefore be considered to be commenting<br />
on a case that was before the<br />
courts.<br />
Judge Peete’s 17 February ruling<br />
stressed that suspects are presumed<br />
innocent until proven guilty. Peete<br />
also ruled that the announcement,<br />
which had been published long before<br />
any arrests <strong>of</strong> suspects were<br />
made, refers directly to the assassins<br />
and not necessarily to the suspects<br />
who are currently standing trial.<br />
MISA’s Lesotho chapter (Miles)<br />
hailed the ruling as a major victory<br />
for press freedom in Lesotho. Miles<br />
commended “MoAfrika” on its boldness<br />
and further praised Judge Peete<br />
for issuing an informed judgement,<br />
in conformity with the concepts <strong>of</strong><br />
press freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
Mokhehle was the predecessor <strong>of</strong><br />
current Prime Minister P.B. Mosisili.<br />
Baholo, who was deputy prime minister<br />
when he died, was assassinated<br />
by rebellious elements within the<br />
LDF.<br />
“MoAfrika” was established in<br />
1990. Soon after Baholo’s death, the<br />
newspaper began featuring the announcement<br />
in question, which lobbied<br />
for justice in the former deputy<br />
prime minister’s murder.
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Malawi<br />
By Lance Ngulube<br />
<strong>Media</strong> analyst and former National Governing Council chairperson <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Malawi chapter <strong>of</strong> MISA<br />
The Malawian media, especially the public broadcaster, is under siege.<br />
And as the country moves towards the next presidential and parlia<br />
mentary general elections due in 2004, it can be predicted that worse<br />
things that would impinge on the freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and <strong>of</strong> the media in<br />
Malawi are yet to unfold.<br />
The freedom <strong>of</strong> the media to function without undue interference from the<br />
state apparatus took a downward plunge in 2002. Evidence <strong>of</strong> this abounds in<br />
the numerous attacks levelled against media houses from the political podium<br />
by eminent persons, including State President, Bakili Muluzi, coupled with<br />
calculated propaganda campaigns executed through the state media to advance<br />
the cause <strong>of</strong> the ruling United Democratic Front. In this vein, the Malawi<br />
Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) and Television Malawi (TVM) - both<br />
financed by taxpayers - have degenerated to the extent <strong>of</strong> broadcasting blatant<br />
lies to over 10 million helpless people who have no way <strong>of</strong> verifying the<br />
information they broadcast.<br />
For instance, just before the end <strong>of</strong> 2002 and beginning <strong>of</strong> 2003, the state<br />
abused the powerful electronic media by announcing on MBC that leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the breakaway National Democratic Alliance (NDA) pressure group, Brown<br />
Mpinganjira, had been arrested by Zambian police at a border post. This turned<br />
out to be a total lie and the broadcast house knew this before airing the news<br />
item. It transpired later that the whole purpose <strong>of</strong> broadcasting false news was<br />
to create confusion in the pressure group that was holding a national convention<br />
a few days later. Mpinganjira was Muluzi’s right hand man before he fell<br />
out <strong>of</strong> grace with the ruling cadres and today, like other opposition figures, is<br />
denied access to the state- and ruling party-controlled electronic media.<br />
Then on January 13 2003 police arrested Maganizo Mazeze, a broadcaster at<br />
a training radio station run by the Malawi <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Journalism (MIJ) in<br />
Blantyre, and accused him <strong>of</strong> broadcasting false news likely to instil fear in<br />
the public and cause alarm. The police claimed in a statement issued to MBC<br />
and TVM that, prior to locking him up, they had picked up Mazeze and taken<br />
him to Thyolo district to go and identify his source for a story alleging that<br />
vampires were on the loose in the district sucking blood from villagers while<br />
they slept. Mazeze said later that the police’s claim was totally false. MBC<br />
and TVM rushed into broadcasting this information without attempting to<br />
check Mazeze’s side <strong>of</strong> the saga. And the manner in which the news was<br />
So This Is Democracy? 53
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
broadcast gave one the impression that the electronic media newsreaders were<br />
rejoicing and celebrating over the arrest <strong>of</strong> a fellow media worker. Clearly<br />
both MBC and TVM had been used by the system, to achieve its goal <strong>of</strong><br />
disinformation.<br />
Although government and ruling party authorities would want the world to believe<br />
that media freedom exists in Malawi, the environment in which media<br />
workers are operating today has moved several steps backwards. It is Not Yet<br />
Uhuru for media freedom in Malawi.<br />
Those at the helm <strong>of</strong> government who claim to be democrats and open to criticism<br />
should be ashamed <strong>of</strong> driving the country back into the dark ages <strong>of</strong> public<br />
media monopoly and manipulation to suit their whims.<br />
The trend to suppress freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and send the country back into an<br />
era <strong>of</strong> fear, has taken two major forms: condemnation <strong>of</strong> courageous media<br />
workers and media houses from political platforms, and physical attacks on<br />
media practitioners and houses that are seen to be exposing the wrongs committed<br />
by public figures.<br />
In September and October, a series <strong>of</strong> incidents occurred which are indicative<br />
<strong>of</strong> the threat that hangs over freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Malawi. Witness the<br />
following:<br />
2002<br />
• On September 12, President Muluzi at a rally in Lilongwe launched a tirade<br />
against The Chronicle newspaper accusing it <strong>of</strong> inciting people to rise against<br />
Muslims because <strong>of</strong> an article it published alleging that Muslims in Malawi,<br />
funded by Osama Bin Laden, were plotting to torch churches. If Muluzi has a<br />
right to utter inflammatory statements without proving them to hundreds <strong>of</strong> his<br />
blind followers at party functions, one still questions whether MBC and TVM<br />
can be justified to ‘go to town’ on such allegations without seeking the views <strong>of</strong><br />
the newspaper under attack.<br />
• Barely a few weeks later, a UDF functionary, Alick Makina, was killed in<br />
Mulanje. This death resulted from a clash between overzealous supporters <strong>of</strong><br />
the ruling party and people alleged to be members <strong>of</strong> NDA. Muluzi accused<br />
NDA <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>of</strong> the murder. MBC and TVM were at it again! They, almost<br />
with joy and in festive mood, trumpeted the story so loudly that listeners and<br />
viewers would be forgiven for believing that the stations had pro<strong>of</strong> about the<br />
identity <strong>of</strong> the killers. The two public broadcasters threw ethics to the wind in<br />
an effort to receive recognition from their political masters, without giving <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
<strong>of</strong> NDA a chance to reply to the accusations.<br />
• On September 15 the State President suppressed freedom <strong>of</strong> expression by<br />
attacking chairperson <strong>of</strong> the Public Affairs Committee, Rev. Constantine<br />
Kaswaya, at a church function <strong>of</strong> the Seventh Day Adventists at Malamulo. He<br />
criticised clergymen who, according to him, were intruding into politics. Muluzi<br />
54 So This Is Democracy?
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
threatened to crack down on any form <strong>of</strong> dissent and demonstrations against his<br />
third term bid. Ten days later, Muluzi bashed the Daily Times for editorialising<br />
a statement issued by the PAC, which contradicted his claim to having founded<br />
this committee. ‘What is the Daily Times’ motive?’ he asked in a manner indicating<br />
that he and the UDF would not tolerate anyone or any media house that<br />
tried to accommodate views that are contrary to his party’s stand.<br />
• On September 23 MBC started recording and airing what were supposed to be<br />
the views <strong>of</strong> the public on the third term issue. Nine out <strong>of</strong> every 10 interviews<br />
broadcast in this programme favoured the idea <strong>of</strong> Muluzi being given a chance<br />
to run for <strong>of</strong>fice for a third term. But I am told in confidence by researchers at<br />
MBC that these recordings were manipulated by the bosses who only chose to<br />
air views favourable to the ruling clique.<br />
• The truth on the ground was that out <strong>of</strong> every five people interviewed, four<br />
were totally opposed to Muluzi’s bid for a third term. Is freedom <strong>of</strong> the media<br />
only that which favours one side - the ruling side - as MBC and TVM kept on<br />
demonstrating through their biased one-sided broadcasts on important political<br />
affairs?<br />
• On September 29 the National <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (NAMISA),<br />
the Malawi chapter <strong>of</strong> MISA, learned that The Nation newspaper owned by<br />
first vice president <strong>of</strong> the UDF and cabinet minister, Aleke Banda, had slapped<br />
a ban on coverage <strong>of</strong> third term issues through a management directive. Members<br />
<strong>of</strong> staff complied for fear <strong>of</strong> losing jobs. This anti-media freedom development<br />
meant readers <strong>of</strong> the newspaper lost a reliable source <strong>of</strong> information on<br />
this topical issue. Later on October 23 a journalist working for The Nation,<br />
Gedion Munthali, was roughed up at parliament for trying to verify accusations<br />
that a parliamentarian from Blantyre, Fidson Chisesele, was betraying the wishes<br />
<strong>of</strong> his constituents by daring to support the third term for Muluzi. The Nation<br />
ignored this incident in its coverage <strong>of</strong> events at parliament.<br />
The list can go on and on. In my view these incidents and many others recorded<br />
by MISA and reproduced in this book are a glaring testimony <strong>of</strong> the dire state <strong>of</strong><br />
the media in Malawi. Unfortunately, efforts to sensitise media practitioners in<br />
the country as well as the general public about the need to protect the rights <strong>of</strong><br />
media workers to access information freely and disseminate it without let or<br />
hindrance, do not seem to be having any real mark on society. The best NAMISA<br />
has done so far is issue statements condemning ‘so’ and ‘so’ for violating media<br />
freedom. These statements, while necessary to alert the general public about<br />
gross violations <strong>of</strong> media freedom in the country, do not mean anything to politicians<br />
and decision-makers in government who are impervious to such revelations.<br />
Worse still, the statements do not even get printed or broadcast by media<br />
houses on whose behalf NAMISA is fighting. How pathetic!<br />
It is time that NAMISA started flexing its muscles and being seen to be biting<br />
where a situation warrants action and not mere verbiage. For instance, when<br />
Munthali <strong>of</strong> The Nation was allegedly harassed by a UDF parliamentarian,<br />
So This Is Democracy? 55
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
NAMISA should have mobilised media workers covering parliament to stage a<br />
peaceful demonstration against this barbaric behaviour. It should also have petitioned<br />
speaker <strong>of</strong> parliament, Sam Mpasu, to take disciplinary action against<br />
the <strong>of</strong>fender. NAMISA should also have explored the possibility <strong>of</strong> sending a<br />
clear message to all parliamentarians by dragging Chisesele to court. Of course<br />
with the blessing <strong>of</strong> the reporter who was harassed. Unless steps are taken to<br />
demonstrate that media watchdogs in Malawi will not just watch as media freedom<br />
is eroded, no one will take them seriously.<br />
True, the Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights in the Malawian Constitution provides a strong legal<br />
framework in support <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> the press, freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, and free<br />
dissemination <strong>of</strong> information. However, the real attainment <strong>of</strong> these freedoms<br />
will remain a pipe dream until media workers, media houses and media-friendly<br />
legislators take up the mantle to break the wall <strong>of</strong> resistance to the free practice<br />
<strong>of</strong> journalism.<br />
Incidents captured in this book tell the story <strong>of</strong> a media in dire need <strong>of</strong> liberation<br />
from the strong grip <strong>of</strong> state authorities desperate to control and manipulate the<br />
flow <strong>of</strong> information to their advantage.<br />
Apart from the above, economic sabotage <strong>of</strong> media houses and straight forward<br />
incidents <strong>of</strong> abductions, have been employed by those in authority to gag the<br />
free media. The siege <strong>of</strong> Daily Times premises in January 2002 and invasion <strong>of</strong><br />
The Chronicle by UDF cadres and state security agents in February point to a<br />
state <strong>of</strong> lawlessness affecting operations <strong>of</strong> the media that Malawians can expect<br />
to unfold with greater velocity in the run up to the 2004 elections.<br />
When opposition figures demonstrate against bad governance, the police move<br />
in quickly to disperse them using teargas and physically manhandling those that<br />
refuse to be intimidated. News <strong>of</strong> such incidents and subsequent arrests is never<br />
included in the bulletins <strong>of</strong> MBC and TVM. The picture created is that Malawians<br />
are living in a haven <strong>of</strong> peace. But when the UDF organises counter demonstrations,<br />
the entire state media apparatus is let loose to cover the event and prove<br />
that the party has huge support! No mention <strong>of</strong> nasty incidents that might have<br />
occurred during such demonstrations are included in the broadcasts.<br />
It is common knowledge that media workers from MBC, TVM and the Information<br />
Department, who during the 1999 general elections served their masters<br />
in a loyal and befitting manner, have been rewarded with lucrative appointments<br />
to diplomatic missions abroad. Those that chose to remain in the country<br />
have been given high positions in state corporations and government. Today<br />
they drive air-conditioned 4x4 vehicles. It would seem that the battle for similar<br />
honours among electronic media workers is back and many are jostling for<br />
recognition.<br />
2002<br />
The truth about the state <strong>of</strong> the media in Malawi, in my opinion, is that media<br />
freedom in this country is ‘Waiting For Godot.’<br />
56 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Malawi<br />
Por Lance Ngulube<br />
Acomunicação social no Malawi, especialmente a emissora pública,<br />
está sitiada. E à medida que o país avança para as próximas eleições<br />
presidenciais e parlamentares que se devem realizar em 2004, pode<br />
prever-se que estão para acontecer coisas muito piores e que irão violar a<br />
liberdade de expressão e da comunicação social no Malawi.<br />
A liberdade de imprensa tem que existir sem interferência indevida por parte<br />
da maquinaria do estado e a situação piorou substancialmente durante 2002.<br />
A prova do que dizemos está à vista nos numerosos ataques dirigidos por<br />
pessoas eminentes a partir dos estrados políticos, incluindo o Presidente da<br />
República, Bakili Muluzi, contra os meios de comunicação social aliado a<br />
uma campanha de propaganda bem preparada e executada pelos meios de<br />
comunicação estatais com o objectivo de promover a causa do partido no<br />
poder, a Frente Democrática Unida. Com tal objectivo, a Corporação de<br />
Radiodifusão do Malawi, (MBC) e a Televisão do Malawi (TVM) – ambas<br />
financiadas com o dinheiro dos contribuintes - degeneraram-se a tal ponto<br />
que chegam a transmitir mentiras óbvias para os mais de 10 milhões de<br />
ouvintes e telespectadores, que não têm qualquer forma de poderem confirmar<br />
as informações que recebem das emissoras públicas.<br />
Por exemplo, mesmo antes do fim de 2002 e do início de 2003, o estado<br />
abusou da poderosa informação electrónica, anunciando na MBC que Brown<br />
Mpinganjira, o líder do grupo de pressão dissidente, a Aliança Nacional<br />
Democrática, (NDA), , tinha sido detido no posto de fronteira da Zâmbia<br />
pela Polícia daquele país. Tal notícia provou-se ser uma absoluta mentira e a<br />
emissora sabia disso antes de transmitir a notícia. Disse-se depois que o<br />
objectivo de transmitir notícias falsas era de criar confusão no seio do grupo<br />
de pressão por causa da sua convenção nacional que se iria realizar poucos<br />
dias depois. Mpinganjira era um aliado muito próximo do Presidente Muluzi<br />
antes de ter caído em desgraça entre os líderes políticos, sendo-lhe hoje,<br />
como às outras figuras da oposição política, recusado acesso à comunicação<br />
social electrónica, totalmente controlada pelo estado - e pelo partido no poder.<br />
Depois, em 13 de Janeiro de 2003, a polícia deteve Maganizo Mazeze, um<br />
locutor na estação de treino de rádio em Blantyre que é dirigida pelo Instituto<br />
de Jornalismo do Malawi (MIJ), e acusou-o de transmitir notícias falsas<br />
capazes de instigar o medo e causar alarme entre o público. A polícia afirmava<br />
num comunicado, que foi entregue à MBC e à TVM, que antes de o ter<br />
preso, tinham levado Mazeze ao distrito de Thyolo para identificar a fonte<br />
da sua notícia que alegava que vampiros estavam à solta no distrito e sugavam<br />
So This Is Democracy? 57
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
sangue dos aldeãos à noite, quando estes estava a dormir. Mazeze disse<br />
mais tarde que as afirmações da polícia eram totalmente falsas. A MBC e a<br />
TVM apressadamente transmitiram a informação sem sequer tentarem<br />
contactar com Mazeze para ouvirem o seu lado da história. Por outro lado, a<br />
forma como a notícia tinha sido transmitida, dava a impressão que os<br />
noticiaristas da comunicação social electrónica, regozijavam-se e celebravam<br />
a detenção de um colega da comunicação social. Claramente, tanto a MBC<br />
como a TVM tinham sido mais uma vez utilizadas pelo sistema com o<br />
objectivo de fazer avançar a campanha de desinformação do público.<br />
Apesar do governo e das autoridades do partido no poder desejarem<br />
ardentemente que o mundo acredite que existe a liberdade de informação no<br />
Malawi, o ambiente no qual os trabalhadores da comunicação social estão a<br />
operar hoje, deu vários passos à retaguarda. Ainda não é “Uhuru” para a<br />
liberdade da comunicação social no Malawi.<br />
Os que estão encarregados pelo leme do governo e que se afirmam ser<br />
democratas e como tal, abertos à crítica, deveriam ter vergonha de estarem a<br />
dirigir o país de volta à idade negra do monopólio da comunicação social<br />
pública e da manipulação da informação com o objectivo de defenderem os<br />
seus caprichos.<br />
A tendência de suprimir a liberdade de expressão e de fazer o país retroceder<br />
para uma era de medo, tem vindo a ser desenvolvida de duas formas: por um<br />
lado, a condenação dos pr<strong>of</strong>issionais mais corajosos e das empresas da<br />
comunicação social a partir de plataformas políticas e por outro, ataques<br />
físicos contra os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da informação e suas empresas que são<br />
consideradas como estando a expor actos impróprios cometidos pelas figuras<br />
públicas.<br />
Em Setembro e Outubro, registaram-se uma série de incidentes que são<br />
indicativos da ameaça que paira sobre a liberdade de expressão no Malawi.<br />
Verificou-se o seguinte:<br />
2002<br />
• No dia 12 de Setembro, o Presidente Muluzi, num comício em Lilongwe,<br />
fez um extenso discurso de crítica contra o jornal “The Chronicle” acusandoo<br />
de incitar o povo a sublevar-se contra os Muçulmanos devido a um artigo<br />
que publicou, alegando que os Muçulmanos no Malawi, financiados por<br />
Osama Bin Laden, estavam a conspirar incendiar igrejas. Se Muluzi tem o<br />
direito de fazer afirmações inflamatórias nos comícios do partido, sem<br />
comprovar a sua veracidade a centenas dos membros do seu séquito que<br />
estão completamente cegos, deve pôr-se em dúvida o direito que a MBC e a<br />
TVM têm de fazerem um verdadeiro festival com estas alegações sem sequer<br />
se preocuparem em ouvir o ponto de vista do jornal que está a ser atacado.<br />
• Apenas algumas semanas depois, um funcionário da UDF, Alick Makina,<br />
58 So This Is Democracy?
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
foi morto em Mulanje. A sua morte resultou dum recontro entre apoiantes<br />
excessivamente zelosos do partido no poder e pessoas que alegadamente<br />
eram membros do NDA. Muluzi acusou os funcionários do NDA de terem<br />
cometido o assassinato. A MBC e a TVM, mais uma vez se excederam!<br />
Quase com alegria e num estado de espírito festivo, transmitiram a notícia<br />
de tal forma que os ouvintes e telespectadores seriam desculpados por<br />
pensarem que as estações tinham provas da identidade dos assassinos. Numa<br />
tentativa de receberem o reconhecimento dos seus patrões políticos, as duas<br />
emissoras públicas ignoraram, pura e simplesmente, a ética pr<strong>of</strong>issional não<br />
dando qualquer oportunidade aos funcionários do NDA para que pudessem<br />
responder às acusações.<br />
• No dia 15 de Setembro, o Presidente da República suprimiu a liberdade de<br />
expressão atacando o Presidente da Comissão de Assuntos Públicos, o<br />
Reverendo Constantine Kaswaya, numa cerimónia da Igreja Adventista do<br />
Sétimo Dia em Malamulo. O Presidente criticou clérigos que, de acordo<br />
com ele, se estavam a envolver em política. Muluzi ameaçou oprimir qualquer<br />
tipo de dissidências e manifestações contra a sua candidatura ao terceiro<br />
mandato. Dez dias depois, Muluzi atacou o jornal “Daily Times” por comentar<br />
uma afirmação publicada pelo PAC, que contradizia a afirmação do Presidente<br />
de ter sido ele a fundar esta comissão. ‘Qual é o motivo do Daily Times?’<br />
perguntou o Presidente numa forma que indicava que a UDF não iria tolerar<br />
ninguém nem nenhum meio de comunicação social que tentasse apresentar<br />
pontos de vista contrários à posição do seu partido.<br />
• No dia 23 de Setembro, a MBC começou a gravar e a transmitir o que se<br />
pensou serem as opiniões do público em relação à questão do terceiro mandato<br />
do Presidente. Nove das dez entrevistas transmitidas neste programa eram a<br />
favor da ideia de Muluzi ter a oportunidade de se candidatar à Presidência<br />
para um terceiro mandato. Contudo, tenho informações dignas de crédito de<br />
pesquisadores da MBC segundo as quais, que estas gravações foram<br />
manipuladas pelos patrões que escolheram só apresentar opiniões do grupo<br />
favorável ao partido no poder.<br />
• A verdade no terreno foi que, de todas as cinco pessoas entrevistadas, quatro<br />
opunham-se totalmente à candidatura de Muluzi para o terceiro mandato.<br />
Será que a liberdade de imprensa só é aquela que favorece um dos lados – o<br />
lado que está no poder –como a MBC e a TVM tentaram demonstrar através<br />
das suas emissões influenciadas e dúbias em assuntos políticos importantes?<br />
• No dia 29 de Setembro, o Instituto Nacional da Comunicação Social da<br />
África Austral (NAMISA), o capítulo do MISA no Malawi, teve<br />
conhecimento que o jornal “The Nation” propriedade do primeiro Vicepresidente<br />
da UDF e Ministro, Aleke Banda, proibiu simplesmente a<br />
cobertura dos assuntos relacionados com a terceira candidatura através de<br />
uma ordem de gestão interna. Os membros do seu pessoal, cumpriram as<br />
ordens com medo de perderem os seus empregos. Este acontecimento contra<br />
a liberdade de imprensa significa que os seus leitores perderam uma fonte<br />
de informação credível relacionada com este assunto tão importante. Mais<br />
So This Is Democracy? 59
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
tarde, em 23 de Outubro um jornalista que trabalhava para o “The Nation”,<br />
Gedion Munthali, foi mal tratado no parlamento por tentar verificar acusações<br />
segundo as quais um deputado de Blantyre, Fidson Chisesele, estava a ignorar<br />
a vontade dos seus eleitores ao apoiar um terceiro mandato para Muluzi.<br />
“The Nation” ignorou este incidente na sua cobertura dos trabalhos do<br />
parlamento.<br />
Esta lista pode prolongar-se indefinidamente. No meu ponto de vista, estes<br />
incidentes e muitos outros registados pelo MISA e reproduzidos neste<br />
documento, são um testemunho gritante da terrível situação em que se<br />
encontra a comunicação social no Malawi. Infelizmente, os esforços para<br />
sensibilizar os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da informação no país bem como o público em<br />
geral, sobre a necessidade de proteger os direitos de acesso à informação por<br />
parte dos pr<strong>of</strong>issionais de informação e destes poderem disseminar<br />
livremente, sem obstruções nem obstáculos essa mesma informação não<br />
parece estarem a ter qualquer efeito na sociedade. O melhor que o NAMISA<br />
fez até agora foi publicar comunicados condenando este e aquele por violarem<br />
a liberdade de imprensa. Estes comunicados, apesar de serem necessários<br />
para alertar o público em geral sobre as graves violações da liberdade de<br />
imprensa no país, nada querem dizer para os políticos e responsáveis pelas<br />
decisões do governo que são absolutamente insensíveis a tais revelações.<br />
Pior ainda, os comunicados nem sequer são impressos ou transmitidos pelos<br />
meios de comunicação social em nome de quem a NAMISA continua a lutar.<br />
Trata-se de uma situação patética!<br />
Pensamos ser chegada a altura para o NAMISA começar a mostrar os seus<br />
músculos e começar a ser respeitado demonstrando que pode morder quando<br />
a situação assim o exigir, em vez de se limitar à mera força das palavras. Por<br />
exemplo, quando Munthali do jornal “The Nation” foi rudemente tratado<br />
por um parlamentar da UDF, o NAMISA deveria ter mobilizado os<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da informação a cobrirem os trabalhos do parlamento para<br />
fazerem uma manifestação pacífica contra tal comportamento bárbaro.<br />
Deveria ter também feito uma petição ao Presidente do Parlamento, Sam<br />
Mpasu, para que tomasse medidas disciplinares contra o transgressor. O<br />
NAMISA deveria ter também explorado a possibilidade de enviar uma<br />
mensagem muito esclarecedora a todos os parlamentares, levando Chisesele<br />
a responder em tribunal. Com certeza, isso só seria feito com o consentimento<br />
do jornalista que foi assaltado. Ninguém nos levará a sério, a não ser que<br />
sejam tomadas medidas para demonstrar que os cães de guarda da<br />
comunicação social no Malawi não se limitarão a testemunhar a situação à<br />
medida que a liberdade da informação vai sendo destruída.<br />
2002<br />
É verdade que as bases de Direitos na Constituição do Malawi proporcionam<br />
um enquadramento legal forte de apoio à liberdade da imprensa, liberdade<br />
de expressão e livre disseminação de informação. Contudo, a efectivação de<br />
60 So This Is Democracy?
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
tais direitos continuará a não passar de um sonho se os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da<br />
informação, as editoras e os legisladores que respeitam a comunicação social<br />
não fizerem nada para quebrar a parede da resistência à livre prática do<br />
jornalismo.<br />
Os incidentes registados neste livro, contarão a história duma comunicação<br />
social em absoluta necessidade de libertação das garras fortes das autoridades<br />
do estado, que estão desesperadas por controlar e manipular a circulação da<br />
informação para benefício próprio.<br />
Mas, para além do acima descrito, a sabotagem económica das empresas de<br />
comunicação social e incidentes claros de rapto, foram já empregues pelos<br />
que detêm o poder para amordaçarem a comunicação social livre. O cerco<br />
das instalações do “Daily Times” em Janeiro de 2002 e a invasão do “The<br />
Chronicle” por quadros da UDF e por agentes da segurança do estado em<br />
Fevereiro indica claramente uma situação de anarquia que afecta as operações<br />
da comunicação social e que os Malawianos esperam poder vir a desenvolverse<br />
a um ritmo cada vez maior à medida que se aproximem as eleições 2004.<br />
Quando figuras da oposição se manifestam contra a má governação, a polícia<br />
actua rapidamente com gás lacrimogéneo para dispersar os manifestantes,<br />
abusando fisicamente dos que se recusam a ser intimidados. Notícias de tais<br />
incidentes e prisões subsequentes não são incluídas nos noticiários da MBC<br />
e da TVM. O quadro criado é que os Malawianos vivem num paraíso de paz.<br />
Mas quando a UDF organiza contra manifestações, a totalidade da maquinaria<br />
de informação do estado abre as torneiras para inundar os ouvintes e<br />
telespectadores com os acontecimentos e provar que o partido tem um apoio<br />
enorme! Nas transmissões, nenhuma menção foi feita de incidentes obscenos<br />
que podem ter tido lugar durante as manifestações.<br />
É do conhecimento geral que os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais de informação da MBC, da<br />
TVM e do Departamento de Informação, que serviram os seus patrões de<br />
forma leal e conveniente durante as eleições gerais de 1999, foram premiados<br />
com nomeações muito lucrativas para missões diplomáticas no estrangeiro.<br />
Os que escolheram ficar no país, receberam elevados cargos nas corporações<br />
estatais e no governo. Hoje, guiam veículos de tracção às 4 rodas com ar<br />
condicionado. Parece então que a batalha para honras idênticas entre os<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da informação electrónica está de volta e que muitos estão a<br />
posicionar-se para poderem receber tal reconhecimento.<br />
A verdade sobre a situação da comunicação social no Malawi, em minha<br />
opinião, é que a liberdade da comunicação social neste país está “À Espera<br />
de Godot”.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 61
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-25<br />
PERSON(S): Mallick Mnela, Quinton<br />
Jamieson, Robert Jamieson<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened,<br />
beaten<br />
On 22 February 2002, members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ruling United Democratic Front’s<br />
(UDF) Young Democrats and National<br />
Intelligence Bureau (NIB, an <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
intelligence body) agents broke into<br />
the privately-owned “The Chronicle”<br />
newspaper’s <strong>of</strong>fices in Lilongwe,<br />
where they abducted reporter Mallick<br />
Mnela and fled with him in an unmarked<br />
Land Rover vehicle.<br />
Publisher and editor-in-chief Robert<br />
Jamieson told MISA that he and his<br />
son Quinton gave chase in his car. “We<br />
managed to contact the paramilitary<br />
police, the Police Mobile Force, who<br />
helped us to force the Land Rover into<br />
a police station,” he said.<br />
However, police <strong>of</strong>ficers looked on<br />
as the UDF party thugs assaulted<br />
Jamieson, his son (who also works at<br />
the newspaper) and Mnela. The youths<br />
accused the journalists <strong>of</strong> “writing ill”<br />
<strong>of</strong> President Muluzi and the UDF.<br />
Another journalist, Joseph Ganthu,<br />
was also beaten. “Apparently, the story<br />
we wrote about ‘warring factions’<br />
within the UDF central region committee<br />
may be the cause <strong>of</strong> this,” he<br />
said.<br />
The story unearthed the deepening<br />
divisions between loyalists <strong>of</strong> the<br />
UDF’s central region governor, Uladi<br />
Mussa, and sacked former deputy minister<br />
Iqbal Omar. Young Democrats<br />
loyal to the two factions clashed a fortnight<br />
ago.<br />
“This is uncalled for,” said<br />
Jamieson. “Is the UDF a sacred cow?<br />
62 So This Is Democracy?<br />
We all write on problems in the MCP<br />
[Malawi Congress Party, an opposition<br />
party].”<br />
Police spokesman George Chikowi<br />
said he had no information on the incident.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-14<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Blantyre<br />
Printing and Publishing (BP&P) –<br />
publishers <strong>of</strong> the Daily Times,<br />
Malawi News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On 13 March 2002, the Malawi Revenue<br />
Authority (MRA) stormed the<br />
premises <strong>of</strong> the Blantyre Printing and<br />
Publishing (BP&P) group <strong>of</strong> companies,<br />
a parent body <strong>of</strong> Blantyre Newspapers<br />
Limited (BNL), publishers <strong>of</strong><br />
the “Daily Times” and “Malawi<br />
News”, and impounded a number <strong>of</strong><br />
vehicles belonging to various divisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the conglomerate.<br />
The move occurred shortly after<br />
editorials critical <strong>of</strong> the government<br />
appeared in the “Daily Times”, a flagship<br />
<strong>of</strong> the BNL, over the past few<br />
days. The editorials have questioned<br />
the rationale behind President Bakili<br />
Muluzi’s decision to release funds to<br />
rehabilitate Television Malawi and<br />
build houses for poor people on the<br />
spur <strong>of</strong> the moment. This is all occurring<br />
as the country’s citizens are suffering<br />
from excruciating hunger created<br />
by an acute maize shortage.<br />
According to BNL’s managing editor,<br />
Jika Nkolokosa, the MRA went<br />
to BP&P without notice, despite the<br />
agreement between the tax collectors<br />
and the company allowing the BP&P<br />
to settle its tax arrears in installments.<br />
This action, said Nkolokosa, raised
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
fears that the government was behind<br />
the move as a way <strong>of</strong> gagging the paper.<br />
However, Nkolokosa would neither<br />
say how much his company owed the<br />
MRA nor how many vehicles belonging<br />
to the newspaper division have<br />
been impounded. Nkolokosa said the<br />
newspaper would continue to appear<br />
on the street as his division’s vehicles,<br />
printing press and computers have not<br />
been impounded.<br />
MRA publicist Kitty Chinseu dismissed<br />
the allegation that the move<br />
was politically motivated. She said<br />
MRA was not obliged to issue a warning<br />
to BP&P on the action they have<br />
taken. The company might have defaulted<br />
on its repayments, Chinseu<br />
said, although she could not say with<br />
certainty whether this was the reason<br />
for the MRA action.<br />
However, Nkolokosa indicated to<br />
MISA that on previous occasions when<br />
BP&P had defaulted on payment, the<br />
MRA had declared its intent to act<br />
against the company. The company has<br />
since been making payments faithfully<br />
by certified cheque. “There is no good<br />
reason why this should have happened,”<br />
Nkolokosa told MISA, confirming<br />
his suspicion that this latest<br />
action against BP&P was politically<br />
motivated.<br />
During the past few days, the “Daily<br />
Times” has written three editorials<br />
questioning the rationale behind some<br />
directives issued by President Muluzi<br />
to the Finance Ministry to release funds<br />
for activities that were not included in<br />
the present budget.<br />
For instance, the newspaper questioned<br />
where the finance minister was<br />
going to get the money to fund a village<br />
housing scheme for the poor initiated<br />
by the president. The World<br />
Bank refused to include the scheme in<br />
its current funding programme. The<br />
scheme, according to the newspaper,<br />
lacks structures to ensure fairness in<br />
the houses’ ownership - especially considering<br />
the demise <strong>of</strong> present owners<br />
who are perceived to be poor and needing<br />
government support.<br />
Second, the newspaper questioned<br />
why the president ordered the Finance<br />
Ministry to allocate K10m (approx.<br />
US$137,580) towards repairing Television<br />
Malawi. The station was gutted<br />
by fire on Saturday 9 March.<br />
The newspaper wondered why the<br />
president acted fast in releasing funds<br />
for this rehabilitation when it is not a<br />
priority in the face <strong>of</strong> the hunger situation.<br />
The newspaper said the president<br />
had failed to attach similar urgency<br />
to the hunger problem, only declaring<br />
the country a disaster area after<br />
a number <strong>of</strong> lives had been lost. It<br />
suggested that the money could have<br />
better been used to buy maize for the<br />
poor masses.<br />
Third, the newspaper questioned<br />
why the director <strong>of</strong> public prosecutions<br />
(DPP) locked away three men accused<br />
<strong>of</strong> treason for over a year, only to drop<br />
the charges unceremoniously on 5<br />
March.<br />
The DPP reacted angrily to this criticism<br />
and branded the editorial “a child<br />
born out <strong>of</strong> ignorance.”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-04<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Chronicle<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
Dumbo Lemani, Malawi presidential<br />
affairs minister and director general<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ruling United Democratic<br />
Front (UDF) party, has sued “The<br />
So This Is Democracy? 63
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Chronicle” weekly newspaper for aggravated<br />
damages.<br />
According to the writ <strong>of</strong> summons<br />
issued to the newspaper by the Malawi<br />
High Court, Lemani is taking issue<br />
with a story “The Chronicle” ran<br />
in its 4-10 March 2002 edition.<br />
The newspaper quoted remarks by<br />
Yusuf Wadi, an executive member <strong>of</strong><br />
the opposition Malawi Congress Party<br />
(MCP), who alleged that the Anti-<br />
Corruption Bureau was failing to<br />
prosecute UDF leaders.<br />
The newspaper reported that “Wadi<br />
cited several financial scandals in<br />
which the big wigs were involved but<br />
have been left untouched, like the Petroleum<br />
Control Commission (PCC)<br />
where Dumbo Lemani is involved by<br />
virtue <strong>of</strong> being Minister <strong>of</strong> Energy at<br />
the time coupled with Davis Kapito<br />
who was chairman <strong>of</strong> PCC.”<br />
Lemani argues that the article insinuated,<br />
in part, that he was using his<br />
political clout to defeat the course <strong>of</strong><br />
justice and that he was corrupt.<br />
He contends that “The Chronicle”<br />
ran the story out <strong>of</strong> malevolence and<br />
spite towards him, which he said put<br />
him “into public scandal, odium and<br />
contempt.”<br />
Lemani strengthens his case by contending<br />
that the newspaper did not<br />
interview either the Anti-Corruption<br />
Bureau or himself to verify the facts.<br />
The minister is seeking damages on<br />
the footing <strong>of</strong> aggravated or exemplary<br />
damages and costs.<br />
Since 2000, “The Chronicle” has<br />
been slapped with five lawsuits. In<br />
addition to the Lemani case, two cases<br />
were launched by Speaker <strong>of</strong> National<br />
Assembly Sam Mpasu, one was<br />
launched by President Bakili Muluzi,<br />
and another by UDF’s Aleke Banda.<br />
64 So This Is Democracy?<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-23<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Blantyre Printing<br />
and Publishing (BP&P) – publishers<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Daily Times, Malawi<br />
News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened, beaten<br />
At least 3 000 militant youths and<br />
women, members <strong>of</strong> the ruling United<br />
Democratic Front (UDF), besieged<br />
the premises <strong>of</strong> Blantyre Newspapers<br />
on Monday May 20 2002. They were<br />
angered by the newspaper group’s<br />
stand against President Bakili<br />
Muluzi’s bid to run for an unconstitutional<br />
third term when his current<br />
term expires in 2004.<br />
There was high drama as the UDF<br />
loyalists held a rowdy demonstration<br />
outside the newspaper <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
Blantyre Newspapers publishes the<br />
“Daily Times” and the weekly “Malawi<br />
News”. The demonstrators threatened<br />
to storm the premises and beat<br />
up journalists.<br />
The ruling party loyalists were angered<br />
by the newspapers’ persistent<br />
articles against the proposed third term<br />
bid for Muluzi. After a series <strong>of</strong> stinging<br />
commentaries against the bid, it<br />
appears the demonstration was<br />
prompted by a recent article in “Malawi<br />
News” which disputed claims by<br />
Henry Mussa, the ruling party’s member<br />
<strong>of</strong> parliament for the southern district<br />
<strong>of</strong> Chiradzulu, that up to 185<br />
chiefs had mandated him to support<br />
an amendment to the constitutional<br />
clause that limits presidential terms.<br />
However, Presidential Affairs Minister<br />
Dumbo Lemani brought two senior<br />
chiefs to the newspaper <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
after the demonstrations, where the<br />
chiefs re-affirmed their support for the
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
presidential third term.<br />
The militant youths started gathering<br />
outside the newspaper <strong>of</strong>fices as<br />
<strong>of</strong> 7:00 a.m. (local time). By 8:00 a.m.,<br />
the crowd had significantly grown,<br />
with hundreds <strong>of</strong> people arriving in<br />
truckloads and joining the youths.<br />
Newspaper staff barricaded themselves<br />
in their <strong>of</strong>fices as the women<br />
demonstrators chanted their support<br />
for the president’s third term bid while<br />
the youths angrily demanded an apology<br />
from the newspaper. Blantyre<br />
Newspapers’ managing editor Jika<br />
Nkolokoa said he did not know why<br />
the youths decided to demonstrate outside<br />
their <strong>of</strong>fices. In its Monday 20<br />
May editorial, the “Daily Times” challenged<br />
the ruling party, saying it would<br />
not be silenced by threats.<br />
The demonstration, which despite<br />
the inflamed emotions was largely<br />
peaceful, turned violent when the angry<br />
youths beat up a newspaper staffer<br />
who was seen attempting to record the<br />
registration numbers <strong>of</strong> the vehicles<br />
that brought in the demonstrators.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-25<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Malawi <strong>Institute</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Journalism radio station<br />
(MIJ FM) VIOLATION(S):<br />
Threatened<br />
The Malawi Communications Regulatory<br />
Authority (MACRA) has<br />
warned the Malawi <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Journalism<br />
radio station (MIJ FM) that it<br />
risks losing its broadcasting license<br />
because <strong>of</strong> what MACRA describes as<br />
anomalies and bias in its reporting. MIJ<br />
FM is a community radio station run<br />
by the MIJ to train students.<br />
In a 13 June 2002 letter signed by<br />
MACRA Director General Evance<br />
Namanja, MACRA accused MIJ FM<br />
<strong>of</strong> running editorial comments,<br />
newscasts, licensed programme formats<br />
and general coverage inconsistent<br />
with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Communications<br />
Act and MIJ’s broadcasting<br />
license.<br />
However, the MISA’s Malawi chapter<br />
(Namisa) has established that the<br />
license principles issued to MIJ state<br />
that the radio station should protect the<br />
best interest <strong>of</strong> the community, encourage<br />
new and innovative programmes<br />
and promote community access to information.<br />
MIJ Executive Director James<br />
Ng’ombe told Namisa in a 20 June interview<br />
that he was surprised by<br />
MACRA’s move. Ng’ombe said his<br />
station would not betray pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
standards because <strong>of</strong> the threats. “I<br />
hope everyone gets the same type <strong>of</strong><br />
refereeing. I hope they (MACRA)<br />
have a way <strong>of</strong> proving neutrality and<br />
balance,” said Ng’ombe.<br />
MACRA Director <strong>of</strong> Telecommunications<br />
Mike Kuntiya refused to clarify<br />
what the authority meant by “anomalies”<br />
in MIJ FM programmes.<br />
MACRA, hitherto dormant, is yet to<br />
prove to be a neutral referee.<br />
Political analysts suspect that<br />
MACRA’s move is aimed at turning the<br />
station into another front to advance the<br />
idea <strong>of</strong> an unlimited term in the presidential<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice. The Malawi Constitution,<br />
which the UDF is trying to amend,<br />
gives the president a maximum <strong>of</strong> two<br />
five-year terms in <strong>of</strong>fice. MIJ FM took<br />
to the airwaves a year ago and is fully<br />
dependent on donor funding, especially<br />
from Denmark, a country that<br />
controversially cut its diplomatic ties<br />
with Malawi a few months ago.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 65
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-25<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Lilongwe<br />
Press Club (public debate)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Other<br />
On 20 June 2002, police in Malawi’s<br />
largest city Blantyre stopped a series<br />
<strong>of</strong> public debates organised by the<br />
Lilongwe Press Club to discuss the<br />
proposed amendment to the Malawi<br />
Constitution regarding the limits on<br />
the president’s term in <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
The debates were supposed to be<br />
held in the three regional centres <strong>of</strong><br />
Blantyre (South – 20 June), Lilongwe<br />
(Central - 21 June) and Mzuzu (North<br />
– 23 June) under the theme: “The merits<br />
and demerits <strong>of</strong> changing Section<br />
83(3) <strong>of</strong> the Malawi Constitution”.<br />
Lilongwe Press Club publicist Don<br />
Kulapani said in an interview with<br />
MISA’s Malawi chapter (Namisa) that<br />
30 heavily armed paramilitary police<br />
accompanied by armoured vehicles<br />
sealed the Blantyre venue, barely an<br />
hour before the debate, and turned<br />
away anyone who went to the venue.<br />
Kulapani stated that Club Secretary<br />
General Peter Kumwenda was called<br />
to the Lilongwe Hotel Manager’s <strong>of</strong>fice,<br />
where he encountered two policewomen.<br />
Kulapani said the policewomen<br />
told Kumwenda that the<br />
Lilongwe debate had been cancelled<br />
because it was a “threat to security”<br />
and that the issue would be discussed<br />
in Parliament and not at public debates.<br />
Kulapani said that when the two<br />
sides failed to agree, the policewomen<br />
took Kumwenda to their regional <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
where he met police commissioner<br />
Lot Dzonzi and a Central Region<br />
commissioner. According to<br />
66 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Kulapani, the two police <strong>of</strong>ficers recited<br />
the reasons given earlier by the<br />
policewomen.<br />
On 21 June, a contingent <strong>of</strong> ten<br />
heavily armed paramilitary police,<br />
stood sentry at the gates <strong>of</strong> the hotel<br />
to enforce the ban. Just one day before<br />
the Mzuzu debate, Northern Region<br />
Police Commissioner Milward<br />
Chikwamba called Kulapani to tell<br />
him about a ban on the debate.<br />
Kulapani said Chikwamba accused<br />
the club <strong>of</strong> being used by donors to<br />
destabilise Malawi. The debates were<br />
funded by the United States Agency<br />
for International Development<br />
(USAID).<br />
On 28 May, Malawi President<br />
Bakili Muluzi ordered the army and<br />
the police to deal with anyone involved<br />
in organising or participating<br />
in any demonstrations for or against<br />
the constitutional amendment.<br />
A week later, the High Court in<br />
Blantyre granted an injunction to religious<br />
groups, civil society and concerned<br />
citizens against the presidential<br />
ban. However, at a press conference,<br />
President Muluzi dismissed the<br />
injunction as “irresponsible and<br />
highly insensitive.”<br />
The court has since reversed its decision,<br />
following an application by the<br />
attorney general and minister <strong>of</strong> justice.<br />
The ban still stands.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-07-05<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Malawi <strong>Institute</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Journalism radio station<br />
(MIJ FM)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
The Malawi Communications Regulatory<br />
Authority (MACRA) has back-
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
pedalled on its recently issued threat<br />
that the Malawi <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Journalism<br />
radio station (MIJ FM) risked<br />
losing its broadcasting licence for<br />
what MACRA described as anomalies<br />
and bias in its reporting.<br />
MACRA general counsel David<br />
Kadwa told the press on Thursday 27<br />
June 2002 that the problem was not<br />
only the radio station’s content but<br />
was also “technical in nature.”<br />
Kadwa added that MIJ FM was<br />
broadcasting beyond its licensed 35-<br />
kilometre radius and moreover was<br />
airing “news bulletins instead <strong>of</strong> news<br />
updates” for which the station was licensed.<br />
“The violations are technical<br />
in nature. We are not against the content<br />
<strong>of</strong> news but we are concerned that<br />
instead <strong>of</strong> updates or briefs stipulated<br />
in the licence MIJ is giving listeners<br />
bulletins,” Kadwa stated.<br />
However, MIJ Executive Director<br />
James Ng’ombe described MACRA’s<br />
arguments on the radius as not being<br />
“scientifically practical.” “Scientifically<br />
you can not put a ruler and demarcate<br />
that radio waves should not<br />
go beyond this point because they go<br />
with the terrain. Where the terrain is<br />
even the coverage is wider, while<br />
where there are mountains there is<br />
poor or no coverage. So I can say on<br />
paper we are covering the 35 kilometre<br />
radius,” Ng’ombe argued.<br />
On the subject <strong>of</strong> airing news bulletins<br />
instead <strong>of</strong> “news updates”,<br />
Ng’ombe said his radio licence permitted<br />
the station to carry bulletins.<br />
He explained that an update or news<br />
brief suggested by MACRA comes<br />
from a bulletin. “What they<br />
(MACRA) are saying is a jargon that<br />
does not exist (in journalism),”<br />
Ng’ombe stated.<br />
MACRA wrote to the radio station<br />
on 13 June threatening to withdraw<br />
its licence if the station did not change<br />
its content, which MACRA described<br />
as inconsistent with the station’s<br />
broadcasting licence.<br />
MIJ FM took to the airwaves in<br />
2001 and is fully dependent on donor<br />
funding, especially from Denmark, a<br />
country that controversially cut its<br />
diplomatic ties with Malawi a few<br />
months ago.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-06<br />
PERSON(S): Bright Sonani<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On 21 August 2002, Bright Sonani, a<br />
senior reporter for the “Malawi<br />
News”, was assaulted by three unidentified<br />
men who accused him <strong>of</strong><br />
writing stories that were critical <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government.<br />
Sonani told MISA’s Malawi Chapter<br />
(Namisa) that he was accosted by<br />
the trio at approximately 5:30 p.m. (local<br />
time) in Malawi’s commercial city<br />
Blantyre.<br />
He said the assailants called him<br />
aside by first name stating that they had<br />
something to discuss with him. “I<br />
thought they were my friends but I<br />
failed to recognise them. They tripped<br />
me to the ground and beat me up,” recalled<br />
Sonani. The reporter lost his cell<br />
phone during the incident.<br />
“I do not think they wanted to steal<br />
anything from me. They only wanted<br />
to assault me,” he told Namisa.<br />
Namisa has discovered a plot by<br />
some individuals, who they believe<br />
belong to the ruling United Democratic<br />
Front (UDF), to “deal” with investigative<br />
reporters. The UDF vehemently<br />
So This Is Democracy? 67
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
denies involvement in the plot.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-30<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Chronicle,<br />
Daily Times<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
President Bakili Muluzi has lashed<br />
out at the “Chronicle” and “Daily<br />
Times” newspapers for what he<br />
termed “irresponsible journalism.”<br />
Speaking at a rally in Balaka district<br />
(southern Malawi) on 25 September<br />
2002, Muluzi described the “Daily<br />
Times” as a “naughty paper” whose<br />
agenda was questionable.<br />
“What’s wrong with our ‘Daily<br />
Times’? What agenda do they have?”<br />
he charged.<br />
Muluzi’s remarks follow the publication<br />
<strong>of</strong> an article in which the newspaper<br />
quoted the Public Affairs Committee<br />
(PAC) as contradicting<br />
Muluzi’s assertions that he founded<br />
the group. PAC described the president’s<br />
outbursts as “untrue and misleading.”<br />
On 11 September, Muluzi accused<br />
the “Chronicle” newspaper <strong>of</strong> trying<br />
to incite civil unrest. The “Chronicle”<br />
had quoted a letter written by a sector<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Muslim community threatening<br />
a holy war (Jihad) against Christians<br />
and their institutions.<br />
Muluzi, a practicing Muslim,<br />
strongly condemned the newspaper,<br />
but fell short <strong>of</strong> rebuking the authors<br />
<strong>of</strong> the letter.<br />
PAC is a grouping <strong>of</strong> religious faiths<br />
that helped to catapult the Muluzi administration<br />
to power through its role<br />
as a human rights watchdog.<br />
President Muluzi and his ruling<br />
United Democratic Front (UDF) are<br />
68 So This Is Democracy?<br />
on a countrywide tour, trying to rally<br />
people behind the constitutional<br />
change to allow him a third term in<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice. In July, the Malawi Parliament<br />
defeated a bill aiming to delimit the<br />
presidential tenure <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-22<br />
PERSON(S): Gabriel Kamlomo,<br />
Levison Mwase<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Two police <strong>of</strong>ficers from the Criminal<br />
Investigations Department (CID)<br />
stormed the newsroom <strong>of</strong> “The<br />
Chronicle” newspaper in Lilongwe,<br />
Malawi’s capital, on 22 October 2002.<br />
They demanded to see reporter<br />
Levison Mwase, who was not in the<br />
newsroom at the time.<br />
“The Chronicle”’s editor-in-chief,<br />
Rob Jamieson, told MISA’s Malawi<br />
chapter that the two <strong>of</strong>ficers refused<br />
to say why they wanted to see the reporter,<br />
but ordered the journalist to report<br />
to the central region CID <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
Jamieson said he was not sure why<br />
the police wanted to see his reporter,<br />
but could not rule out a connection to<br />
an article Mwase wrote about a sensitive<br />
letter allegedly written by President<br />
Bakili Muluzi on 18 October.<br />
In another development, people believed<br />
to be supporters <strong>of</strong> the ruling<br />
United Democratic Front (UDF) have<br />
threatened to “deal with” reporter<br />
Gabriel Kamlomo, who also wrote<br />
about the letter.<br />
Police publicist George Chikowi<br />
refused to comment on the developments.<br />
In the letter, President Muluzi allegedly<br />
told his party’s southern regional<br />
governor and three cabinet
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ministers to intensify the campaign on<br />
his bid to run for another term in <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
The letter allegedly strategised<br />
the buying <strong>of</strong> opposition members <strong>of</strong><br />
parliament (MPs) using government<br />
resources, to fortify support for the bill<br />
during the current sitting <strong>of</strong> Parliament.<br />
On 20 October, the police arrested<br />
the president <strong>of</strong> the opposition Malawi<br />
Congress Party (MCP), his secretary<br />
and two MPs on suspicion that they<br />
authored the letter. The four were<br />
charged with forgery, altering false<br />
documents and criminal libel.<br />
Malawi’s Parliament will soon vote<br />
on a proposed constitutional amendment<br />
bill to allow President Muluzi<br />
to run for a third term. His current term<br />
expires in 2004.<br />
On 4 July, Parliament voted against<br />
an open-ended bill that sought to<br />
amend the constitution to remove limits<br />
on the number <strong>of</strong> terms an incumbent<br />
president can contest in elections.<br />
“The Chronicle” is an independent<br />
newspaper owned by the Jamieson<br />
family. It has been publishing for the<br />
past nine years.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-23<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The media in<br />
Malawi<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
The Principal Magistrate Court in<br />
Malawi’s capital, Lilongwe, has ordered<br />
that parties to a case involving<br />
the president <strong>of</strong> the main opposition<br />
Malawi Congress Party (MCP),<br />
Gwanda Chakuamba, not grant interviews<br />
to the press.<br />
Principal Magistrate Chifundo<br />
Kachale issued the order on 22 October<br />
2002, when he granted bail to<br />
Chakuamba, his secretary and two<br />
members <strong>of</strong> parliament (MPs) in a<br />
case in which the four are accused <strong>of</strong><br />
authoring a sensitive letter purportedly<br />
written by President Bakili<br />
Muluzi.<br />
In the letter, Muluzi allegedly directed<br />
his party <strong>of</strong>ficials to intensify<br />
the campaign on his bid to run for a<br />
third term in <strong>of</strong>fice by paying <strong>of</strong>f opposition<br />
MPs.<br />
Chakuamba’s lawyer, Rodrick<br />
Makono, confirmed in an interview<br />
that the court made the order as a condition<br />
<strong>of</strong> bail. However, Makono said<br />
the order had no constitutional basis<br />
and was made for the sake <strong>of</strong> convenience.<br />
“It was a general order for both<br />
sides. I think it was put conveniently<br />
because there were many supporters<br />
<strong>of</strong> Chakuamba and BBC correspondents<br />
who wanted to talk to him. Maybe<br />
the court wanted to avoid some fracas,”<br />
said Makono.<br />
While admitting that the order infringed<br />
on freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and<br />
press freedom, Makono pleaded that<br />
the press not interview his clients.<br />
However, another lawyer, who<br />
opted for anonymity, said the order<br />
was unconstitutional and that the court<br />
was avoiding prejudice from press reports.<br />
“If [Chakuamba] is released [on<br />
bail, it means] he is free until proved<br />
guilty by a court <strong>of</strong> law. He has to<br />
enjoy his constitutional right to expression.<br />
In a way, the order also gags<br />
the press,” said the lawyer.<br />
On 4 July, Parliament voted against<br />
an open-ended bill which sought to<br />
amend the constitution to remove limits<br />
on the number <strong>of</strong> terms an incumbent<br />
president can contest in elections.<br />
However, the Muluzi administra-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 69
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
tion has expressed its determination<br />
to table a second constitutional<br />
amendment bill in mid-October, despite<br />
widespread criticism from political<br />
parties, non-governmental organisations,<br />
civic and religious leaders and<br />
the diplomatic community, including<br />
Britain, the United States and the European<br />
Community.<br />
Section 36 <strong>of</strong> Malawi’s constitution<br />
states, “The press shall have the right<br />
to report and publish freely, within<br />
Malawi and abroad, and to be accorded<br />
the fullest possible facilities for<br />
access to public information.”<br />
On freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, Section<br />
35 stipulates, “Every person shall<br />
have the right to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-24<br />
PERSON(S): Gedion Munthali,<br />
unidentified freelance photographer<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On 23 October 2002, Fidson<br />
Chisesele, a member <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
(MP) from the ruling United Democratic<br />
Front (UDF) party, assaulted<br />
Gedion Munthali, a senior reporter<br />
from “The Nation” newspaper, and an<br />
unidentified freelance photographer.<br />
The incident took place at the Parliament<br />
buildings. Chisesele reportedly<br />
also dragged Munthali to House<br />
Leader Harry Thomson’s <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
Soon after the beating, Munthali<br />
told MISA’s Malawi chapter that he<br />
had been trying to discuss concerns<br />
raised by the MP’s constituents. The<br />
constituents had addressed a letter <strong>of</strong><br />
appeal to the MP and his colleagues<br />
in which they urged them to vote<br />
70 So This Is Democracy?<br />
against an amendment to Malawi’s<br />
constitution that would allow President<br />
Bakili Muluzi to seek a third term<br />
in <strong>of</strong>fice. The letter, which bore the<br />
signatures <strong>of</strong> 1,300 constituents, was<br />
also delivered to the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> “The<br />
Nation”.<br />
Munthali said he was asked by his<br />
colleagues at “The Nation” to seek<br />
comments on the letter from Chisesele,<br />
another MP and Speaker Sam Mpasu.<br />
Munthali said the speaker and the other<br />
MP responded, but Chisesele advised<br />
him to meet with him later, during a<br />
break.<br />
“He asked if I was Gedion and told<br />
me to follow him inside. Instead <strong>of</strong><br />
addressing the issue, he grabbed me<br />
by the neck and beat me up,” Munthali<br />
said, adding that a photographer who<br />
tried to capture the incident was also<br />
assaulted.<br />
Munthali said the MP stopped beating<br />
him when another MP and a cabinet<br />
minister intervened, advising<br />
Chisesele to give his side <strong>of</strong> the story<br />
instead <strong>of</strong> assaulting the journalist.<br />
Munthali said Chisesele then<br />
dragged him to House Leader<br />
Thomson’s <strong>of</strong>fice. He said the MP told<br />
Thomson and the UDF’s first vicepresident,<br />
who was also in the <strong>of</strong>fice,<br />
that Munthali was “slinging mud at<br />
[him] and the party.”<br />
“All this time, I was being dragged<br />
by the collar. The leader <strong>of</strong> the House<br />
and the UDF first vice-president advised<br />
him not to beat me up, but to respond<br />
to my questions,” Munthali explained.<br />
MISA’s Malawi chapter has issued<br />
a statement condemning Chisesele’s<br />
assault on the media workers and asking<br />
House Leader Thomson and the<br />
UDF to discipline their MP. Police are
MALAWI<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
also investigating the matter.<br />
Malawi’s Parliament has become<br />
dangerous ground for people deemed<br />
to be anti-third term campaigners. On<br />
16 October, unknown assailants ambushed<br />
an opposition MP and pulled<br />
him from his car before brutally beating<br />
him, within the precincts <strong>of</strong> Parliament.<br />
No arrests have been made.<br />
Malawi’s Parliament may soon vote<br />
on a proposed constitutional amendment<br />
bill to allow President Muluzi to<br />
run for a third term. His current term<br />
expires in 2004.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-12-09<br />
PERSON(S): McDonald<br />
Chapalapata<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On 28 November 2002, a senior public<br />
servant assaulted journalist<br />
McDonald Chapalapata, <strong>of</strong> “The Nation”<br />
newspaper.<br />
Chapalapata told the National <strong>Media</strong><br />
<strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Malawi (NAMISA),<br />
MISA’s Malawi chapter, that the National<br />
Food Reserve Agency (NFRA)<br />
finance controller, Paul Chimenya, attacked<br />
him in the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the latter’s<br />
lawyer, after the journalist asked him<br />
about allegations that he fraudulently<br />
awarded a contract to his personal<br />
transport company.<br />
“He pounced on me as I took notes<br />
and I fell to the floor. He smashed my<br />
cell phone and my company<br />
dictaphone against a wall,”<br />
Chapalapata, who sustained injuries to<br />
his face and arm, told NAMISA.<br />
Chimenya denied having beaten the<br />
reporter, saying he only tried to push<br />
him out <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fice. “I pushed him<br />
and he fell down. I even regret having<br />
granted him the interview. He is childish,”<br />
he said.<br />
The police has opened a criminal<br />
case against Chimenya.<br />
NAMISA condemned the incident,<br />
calling upon those who come into contact<br />
with the media to desist from attacking<br />
journalists.<br />
In a similar incident, on 23 October,<br />
a member <strong>of</strong> parliament (MP) belonging<br />
to the ruling United Democratic<br />
Front (UDF), assaulted “The Nation”<br />
journalist Gedion Munthali. The<br />
MP became incensed when Munthali<br />
confronted him about calls from his<br />
constituents to vote against changing<br />
the Malawi Constitution to allow incumbent<br />
President Bakili Muluzi another<br />
term in <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 71
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
SPECIAL REPORT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-14<br />
PERSON(S): Burundian national coach, Nsazurwimo Ramadhan<br />
TOPIC: Unethical behaviour <strong>of</strong> The Sun reporters<br />
On Sunday 24 March 2002, Malawi police arrested three reporters<br />
belonging to “The Sun” newspaper for assaulting and harming<br />
a football coach at a shopping mall in the country’s commercial<br />
capital, Blantyre.<br />
Police spokesman George Chikowi said in an interview that the<br />
three reporters, Chikumbutso Mtumodzi, Thom Chiumia and Ken<br />
Ndanga, pounced on the Burundian national coach, Nsazurwimo<br />
Ramadhan, in the mall as he was shopping with his wife on the<br />
evening <strong>of</strong> Friday 22 March.<br />
Chikowi said Ramadhan, who has coached Malawian clubs for<br />
over two years, was rescued by a Criminal Investigation Department<br />
(CID) policeman.<br />
The three reporters, said Chikowi, attacked Ramadhan again as<br />
he was leaving the mall after the CID policeman had left. “They<br />
beat him up in front <strong>of</strong> his wife and threatened to kill him with a<br />
panga knife,” he said.<br />
He said the police arrested the trio and their aide, Davie<br />
Chipembere, following a complaint by Ramadhan.<br />
Chikowi said the reporters were out on bail and would appear<br />
before a court <strong>of</strong> law very soon.<br />
The incident occurs at the same time as media institutions in Malawi<br />
such as Namisa (National <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Malawi) and the<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Council are engaging government in dialogue to check violations<br />
<strong>of</strong> media freedom mostly by political operatives.<br />
2002<br />
Background Information<br />
“The Sun” runs a vicious propaganda campaign for the ruling<br />
United Democratic Front (UDF) party. The newspaper attacks<br />
everyone deemed critical <strong>of</strong> the UDF and its stalwarts.<br />
Ramadhan came to Malawi to coach Total Big Bullets Football<br />
Club but was fired under mysterious circumstances. State President<br />
Bakili Muluzi is a strong supporter <strong>of</strong> the club.<br />
Ramadhan later picked up a job with MTL Wanderers Football<br />
Club but was sacked in similar circumstances. MTL’s supporters<br />
include the presidential affairs minister and UDF director general,<br />
Dumbo Lemani (patron) and presidential adviser Humphreys<br />
Mvula (chairman).<br />
72 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Mozambique<br />
By Augusto de Carvalho<br />
Journalist and university lecturer<br />
The year 2002 was marked by the emergence <strong>of</strong> two weeklies and a new<br />
television station. The appearance <strong>of</strong> the weeklies – Zambeze and País<br />
came abut as a result <strong>of</strong> differences within existing weeklies.<br />
Zambeze was established by a group <strong>of</strong> journalists <strong>of</strong> the ‘Savana’ newspaper,<br />
headed by editor Salomão Moyana, who has taken charge <strong>of</strong> the paper.<br />
The editorial line does not differ substantially from that <strong>of</strong> Savana. País came<br />
about following problems between Sociedade Notícias, which owns the newspaper<br />
Domingo, and its administrator, Correia Paulo, appointed to manage<br />
the paper. At issue were problems relating to financial reporting. Correia Paulo<br />
established País with Ramos Miguel – a former journalist at Domingo – as<br />
editor. The paper’s editorial line favours government positions, but given its<br />
brief existence, it is too soon to evaluate its consistency. As for Zambeze, it<br />
generally challenges government positions in theoretical terms and appears<br />
to have already found a comfortable space among the weekly publications.<br />
The new television station, STV, began broadcasting in October. It is owned<br />
by private individuals, namely Daniel David and Graciette Silva, and for the<br />
time being reaches only the Maputo area. The idea is to expand to the whole<br />
country, but, according to Daniel Silva, it is encountering bureaucratic hurdles.<br />
Could it be because <strong>of</strong> fear <strong>of</strong> the competition it might present to the<br />
state TVM channel? In 2002 STV did not produce its own programmes, using<br />
mostly programmes bought from TV <strong>Africa</strong> with money from the World Bank.<br />
The STV team hopes to gradually introduce own programming, including<br />
news. The station is distinctively commercial.<br />
The year 2002 was pr<strong>of</strong>oundly marked – as far as media is concerned – by the<br />
murder trial <strong>of</strong> journalist Carlos Cardoso. The trial was foreshadowed by concerns<br />
over its impartiality in legal terms as well as over media coverage <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
It is perhaps right to state that after this trial, the media has taken a great leap<br />
forward in terms <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> information. It was without a doubt the most<br />
covered event it the history <strong>of</strong> Mozambican journalism. The judge, Justice<br />
Augusto Raúl Paulino, after a brief hesitation, allowed the trial to be broadcast<br />
live by Mozambican television, which experienced audience figures<br />
matched only by those during the soccer World Cup. This was a sensitive<br />
trial, given the individuals involved, who included high-level personalities<br />
from attorneys’ <strong>of</strong>fices, politicians, policemen and business people.<br />
The media was able to expose a mafia-style group within the Mozambican<br />
So This Is Democracy? 73
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
society, with organised crime figures being protected by individuals linked to<br />
political circles, attorneys’ <strong>of</strong>fices, judges and state departments. One must<br />
highlight the judge’s position on freedom <strong>of</strong> information, a position that should<br />
now be part <strong>of</strong> textbooks. The judge stated before a full house that he was not<br />
opposed to the trial being broadcast live, but that being broadcast live or not<br />
was the sole responsibility <strong>of</strong> the media. In this way, the judge acknowledged<br />
their complete responsibility.<br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> information means, first and foremost, to be able to inform without<br />
interference from political <strong>of</strong> economic power. But to enjoy freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
information it is important that the journalist be informed, which is not easy<br />
in our situation because <strong>of</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> material resources. In Mozambique – as<br />
in other places – freedom <strong>of</strong> information has to face phenomenal restrictions,<br />
precisely because media managers do not invest in the nuts and bolts <strong>of</strong> journalism.<br />
Our media are poor, they live from hand to mouth, apart from the state media,<br />
such as Rádio Moçambique and Televisão de Moçambique.<br />
As far as the printed media is concerned, although the Press Law does not<br />
pose major restrictions (anybody, legally speaking, can set up a newspaper)<br />
there are no public sustainability mechanisms made available by the state. I<br />
am referring specifically to subsidies on newsprint and other cost components<br />
<strong>of</strong> lesser importance. Paper is one <strong>of</strong> the costliest items in the budget.<br />
The press is seen by the law as if it were any other industry, which, from the<br />
outset hampers quantity and quality. Perhaps this is the reason why in a country<br />
<strong>of</strong> 17 million people – taking into account the substantial number <strong>of</strong> illiterate<br />
people – daily readers do not exceed an average <strong>of</strong> two hundred thousand.<br />
In a way, this situation is mitigated by radio stations and TVM, which<br />
can be picked up in practically the entire country. However, it should be pointed<br />
out that TVM broadcasts only in Portuguese, while the vast majority <strong>of</strong> the<br />
people do not speak it. To its credit, one must mention the effort by TVM to<br />
broadcast live – with abundant commentary – the Carlos Cardoso murder<br />
trial, without any concern for the fact that one <strong>of</strong> the individuals mentioned<br />
was the son <strong>of</strong> the president.<br />
2002<br />
The issue <strong>of</strong> access to information is one <strong>of</strong> the critical points <strong>of</strong> our system.<br />
Although the Press Law makes provision for the compulsory release <strong>of</strong> information<br />
by state organs, public <strong>of</strong>ficials have so far not internalised this culture.<br />
Nonetheless, we do have a number <strong>of</strong> public <strong>of</strong>ficials who have begun to<br />
understand the importance <strong>of</strong> keeping the public informed and maintaining<br />
contact with those journalists that seek them out, even if they wish to remain<br />
anonymous. This behaviour depends also on the journalists, who, in our country,<br />
have been raised in a paternalistic culture. Access to information, to sources,<br />
fails in journalism <strong>of</strong> an investigative nature, because <strong>of</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> resources<br />
74 So This Is Democracy?
MOZAMBIQUE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
and with the poor salaries earned by media pr<strong>of</strong>essionals thrown into the equation.<br />
In Mozambique, public consensus is that the media that are not owned by the<br />
state are independent. The word “independent” is ambiguous as far as journalists<br />
are concerned, as through the act <strong>of</strong> producing or publishing a story,<br />
the journalist is vulnerable to bribery or dependence on powerful influences<br />
be they political or financial.<br />
As far as the current journalism is concerned - especially where large audiences<br />
are involved - it is important to note that it is still highly influenced by<br />
state powers on a daily basis. These same ‘state powers’ are also the biggest<br />
producers <strong>of</strong> events that capture the interest <strong>of</strong> the average journalist, who<br />
shuns investigative journalism primarily because <strong>of</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> resources.<br />
However, this year saw a number <strong>of</strong> instances in which journalists – even<br />
those working for the state media – were able to freely inform their readerships<br />
or audiences.<br />
Concerning <strong>of</strong>ficial bodies established to look after and promote freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
information, their actions were not felt in the year 2002 - neither from a negative<br />
nor positive point <strong>of</strong> view - as was the case with the High <strong>Media</strong> Council.<br />
The Journalists’ Union was also conspicuous by its absence. Journalists were<br />
not summoned to stand trial for alleged acts <strong>of</strong> defamation that they were<br />
accused <strong>of</strong>, even though they frequently practiced confrontational journalism.<br />
The defamation case against journalist Marcelo Mosse – already started in<br />
2001 – and instituted by Nyimpine Chissano, son <strong>of</strong> the state president, remained<br />
dormant in the courts, because <strong>of</strong> procedural incidents raised by the<br />
plaintiff’s lawyer.<br />
In conclusion, this overview in general terms should be accompanied by details,<br />
but the space does not allow. We should, however, draw a few conclusions<br />
for the future.<br />
1. At an <strong>of</strong>ficial level, there is no censorship from a legal point <strong>of</strong> view. The<br />
legal environment is one <strong>of</strong> the most liberal that we know. The law that governs<br />
media is truly open, without restrictions, which is not the case in countries<br />
with democracies older than ours. For example, a journalist may not<br />
even be questioned about the source <strong>of</strong> news.<br />
2. The state treats the media as if it were any other industry. There are no<br />
subsidies for the consumables that the media have to import, as is the case<br />
with newsprint, prohibitively expensive, a cost that strangles a number <strong>of</strong><br />
So This Is Democracy? 75
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
media houses.<br />
3. There are no exemptions from taxes for the media.<br />
4. The dominant mode <strong>of</strong> media management is not appropriate for the objectives<br />
<strong>of</strong> journalists’ work. I would dare say that the biggest problem with<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> information is an inadequate understanding <strong>of</strong> media management.<br />
Attention is not given to the real objective, which is to produce news,<br />
commentary, stories, reports, analyses and opinion pieces, which would benefit<br />
most from investment.<br />
5. Journalists earn paltry salaries and do not enjoy any social security benefits<br />
commensurate with the negatives consequences <strong>of</strong> their pr<strong>of</strong>ession.<br />
2002<br />
76 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Moçambique<br />
Augusto de Carvalho<br />
Jornalista e pr<strong>of</strong>essor universitário<br />
Oano de 2002 foi marcado em Moçambique pelo aparecimento de<br />
dois semanários e de uma nova estação de televisão. Os semanários<br />
resultaram de divergências no interior de outros semanários já<br />
existentes. São eles o “Zambeze” e o “País”.<br />
O Zambeze foi fundado por um grupo de jornalistas que integravam o “Savana”,<br />
tendo à cabeça o seu editor, Salomão Moiana, que assumiu a direcção do<br />
Zambeze. A sua linha editorial não difere substancialmente do Savana.<br />
O “País” resultou de problemas havidos entre a Sociedade Notícias, proprietária<br />
do jornal “domingo” e o administrador, Correia Paulo, em contrato de gestão<br />
deste semanário, sobretudo devido a problemas de prestação de contas. Correia<br />
Paulo fundou o “País”, sendo seu editor um ex - jornalista do “domingo”,<br />
Ramos Miguel.<br />
A sua linha editorial privilegia as posições do Governo, embora o seu tempo<br />
de vida ainda seja relativamente curto para se poder avaliar a respectiva<br />
consistência.O “Zambeze”, por sua vez, contestatário, em geral, das posições<br />
governamentais em termos teóricos, parece já ter adquirido um espaço<br />
confortável entre as publicações semanais.<br />
A nova estação televisiva, a STV, começou a emitir em Outubro. É propriedade<br />
de particulares, nomeadamente, Daniel David e Graciette Silva, cobrindo, por<br />
enquanto, apenas, a zona de Maputo. Pretende expandir - se para todo o território<br />
moçambicano, mas está a encontrar dificuldades burocráticas na sua expansão,<br />
segundo nos informou Daniel David. Receio da concorrência que possa fazer<br />
à TVM estatal?<br />
Em 2002 a STV não teve produção própria. Viveu, sobretudo , dos programas<br />
comprados à TV África, com apoio do Banco Mundial.<br />
Esperam os seus promotores introduzir gradualmente produção própria,<br />
inclusivamente no sector da informação.<br />
Trata - se de uma estação marcadamente de índole comercial.<br />
Ambiente jornalístico<br />
O ano 2002 foi marcado pr<strong>of</strong>undamente , a nível dos media, pelo julgamento<br />
relativo ao assassinato do jornalista Carlos Cardoso.Havia receios, quer quanto<br />
a um julgamento imparcial em termos legais, quer quanto à sua<br />
mediatização.Talvez seja lícito afirmar que, depois deste julgamento, a Imprensa<br />
deu um salto em frente no capítulo da liberdade de informação.<br />
Foi, sem dúvida, o episódio mais mediatizado em toda a vida do jornalismo<br />
moçambicano.O juiz da causa, dr. Augusto Raúl Paulino, depois de breve<br />
hesitação, permitiu que o julgamento fosse transmitido em directo pela<br />
Televisão de Moçambique, a qual registou índices de audiência só comparáveis<br />
So This Is Democracy? 77
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
com a transmissão do campeonato do Mundo de futebol. Tratava - se para<br />
mais de um julgamento melindroso, dadas as personalidades envolvidas, quer<br />
no acto do assassinato em si mesmo considerado, quer na periferia envolvente,<br />
com destacadas individualidades em relevo, desde as pertencentes às<br />
magistraturas, à política ,às polícias, passando pelo mundo dos negócios.<br />
Os media conseguiram apresentar, em liberdade plena, uma certa sociedade<br />
moçambicana de índole mafiosa, com o crime organizado a ser protegido por<br />
personalidades ligadas aos ambientes políticos e às magistraturas, Judicial e<br />
do Ministério Público..<br />
Deve ser salientada a posição do juiz em termos de liberdade de informação,<br />
posição que pode começar a fazer escola. O juiz afirmou, em plenário, que ele<br />
não se opunha à transmissão em directo do julgamento, mas que o facto de ser<br />
ou não transmitido era da inteira responsabilidade dos media.Passou, assim,<br />
aos media, um atestado de maioridade, reconhecendo - lhes inteira<br />
responsabilidade.<br />
Nunca a Imprensa foi tão longe entre nós, vencendo a barreira da aparente<br />
intocabilidade de algumas figuras de proa.<br />
2002<br />
O problema da liberdade de informação<br />
Liberdade de informação significa, antes de mais, poder informar sem coacções<br />
vindas quer dos poderes políticos, quer económicos. Refiro - me a coacções e<br />
não a pressões, pois estas só atingem a liberdade de informação quando o<br />
jornalista se lhe não pode esquivar.Mas para que haja liberdade de informação<br />
é necessário, antes de mais, que o jornalista esteja informado, o que, entre nós,<br />
não é fácil, por carência de meios materiais.Quer - me parecer que, em<br />
Moçambique, como, aliás, noutras paragens, o problema da liberdade de<br />
informação s<strong>of</strong>re restrições enormes, precisamente porque os gestores dos media<br />
não investem na produção jornalística propriamente dita.<br />
Os nossos meios de informação são pobres, vivem com a corda na garganta, se<br />
exceptuarmos, os órgãos do Estado, como a Rádio Moçambique e a Televisão<br />
de Moçambique, mas nestes a sua qualidade e actualidade pode ser mais<br />
eficazmente controlada a partir dos gestores ou administradores, usando<br />
processos indirectos, mas extremamente eficazes.<br />
No capítulo da Imprensa escrita, embora a Lei de Imprensa não ponha restrições<br />
de maior, quem quer que seja pode, em termos jurídicos, fundar jornais, não<br />
existem condições públicas de viabilidade prodigalizadas pelo Estado. Refiro<br />
- me , concretamente, aos subsídios ao papel e outros componentes de menor<br />
peso, papel este que é um dos factores que mais pesa no orçamento.<br />
A Imprensa é vista pela lei como se de uma outra qualquer indústria se tratasse,<br />
o que à partida, inviabiliza a quantidade e respectiva qualidade. Talvez, por<br />
isso, é que num país com cerca de 17 milhões de habitantes, embora descontada<br />
a parte substancial de analfabetos, leitores diários dos jornais não ultrapassarão<br />
a média dos duzentos mil.<br />
Este facto é , de certa maneira, compensado, entretanto,pelas rádios e pela<br />
TVM que já pode ser captada praticamente em todo o território.De sublinhar a<br />
78 So This Is Democracy?
MOZAMBIQUE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
circunstância da Televisão emitir apenas em língua portuguesa, quando a grossa<br />
maioria da população a não fala.<br />
É de salientar, entretanto, o esforço feito pela TVM estatal no sentido de<br />
transmitir em directo, com abundância de comentários, o julgamento relativo<br />
ao assassinato de Carlos Cardoso, sem se preocupar com o facto de uma das<br />
personalidades postas em causa ser um filho do Presidente da República.<br />
Acesso à informação<br />
É este, o do acesso à informação, um dos pontos críticos do nosso sistema.<br />
Embora a Lei da Imprensa obrigue os poderes públicos a soltarem a informação,<br />
com algumas poucas e compreensíveis excepções ( caso de segredo de Estado<br />
e de Justiça, etc ), os funcionários públicos ainda não interiorizaram este tipo<br />
de cultura. Há, no entanto, alguns destes funcionários que começam a perceber<br />
a importância de manter o público informado e mantêm contactos com os<br />
jornalistas que os procuram, embora, sob o signo do anonimato. Esta conduta<br />
depende também dos jornalistas, entre nós marcados por alguma cultura de<br />
índole paternalista.<br />
O acesso à informação, às fontes, padece, como acima ficou dito, sobretudo<br />
num jornalismo de índole investigativa, de falta de meios materiais, entrando<br />
em linha de conta, também, com os magros salários que auferem os homens<br />
da Imprensa..<br />
O problema da Imprensa “Independente”<br />
Em Moçambique vigora o mote público segundo o qual são independentes os<br />
media cuja propriedade não pertence ao Estado. A palavra “independente”<br />
reveste - se de “ambiguidade”, já que , no que se refere ao jornalista, no acto<br />
de produzir ou publicar a sua história, deve perguntar - se: “ independente de<br />
quem”. Aconte, por vezes, o jornalista deixar -se subornar, tornar - se dependente<br />
de grandes e pequenos poderes, desde os políticos aos monetários. Tivemos<br />
alguns casos clamorosos, mas poucos.<br />
Quanto ao jornalismo produzido, quer escrito, televisivo ou radi<strong>of</strong>ónico,<br />
sobretudo o de maior expressão, importa sublinhar que ainda é fortemente<br />
influenciado pelos poderes públicos no seu dia a dia.São estes também os<br />
maiores produtores de eventos que conseguem captar a atenção do jornalista,<br />
pouco dado a uma investigação aturada, sobretudo por falta de meios.<br />
Aconteceram, porém, este ano, diversos episódios em que os jornalistas, mesmo<br />
nas estações públicas, puderam informar com liberdade. Em 2002, os<br />
“intocáveis” em Moçambique tiveram a vida menos fácil já que alguns deles<br />
apareceram, com certa frequência, nos meios de comunicação social.Mesmo<br />
na Comunicação Social , propriedade do Estado.<br />
Organismos <strong>of</strong>iciais<br />
Quanto aos organismos <strong>of</strong>iciais criados, para velarem e promoverem, ex <strong>of</strong>icio,<br />
a liberdade de informação, caso do Conselho Superior de Comunicação Social,<br />
a sua actuação não se fez sentir no ano de 2002, nem do ponto de vista<br />
So This Is Democracy? 79
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
positivo, nem negativo.<br />
Também o Sindicato dos Jornalista, organismos de classe, tem - se pautado<br />
pela ausência.<br />
Os jornalistas também não foram chamados a responder em tribunal por<br />
eventuais actos de difamação de que hajam sido acusados, embora, com<br />
frequência, tenham praticado um jornalismo viril e acusatório.<br />
O processo, já inciado em 2001 contra o jornalista Marcelo Mosse, movido<br />
por Nyimpine Chissano, filho do Presidente da República, que acusou Marcelo<br />
Mosse de difamação, continua a dormir nos gabinetes do tribunal, em virtude,<br />
ao que sabemos, de incidentes processuais levantados pelo seu advogado.<br />
Marcelo Mosse tem, no entanto, possibilidade de, juridicamente, se defender.<br />
CONCLUSÂO<br />
Esta nossa apreciação concretizada em termos genéricos, à laia de radiografia,<br />
deveria ser pormenorizada, mas o espaço de que dispomos não o consente.<br />
Devemos tirar, entretanto, algumas conclusões a pensar no futuro:<br />
1 - A nível <strong>of</strong>icial não existem censuras do ponto de vista legal. O ambiente<br />
legal é dos mais liberais que conhecemos.A Lei que rege os media é francamente<br />
aberta, sem restrições que até acontecem em países de democracia mais velha<br />
que a nossa. Por exemplo, o jornalista nem sequer pode ser interrogado em<br />
juizo sobre a proveniência das respectivas notícias.<br />
2 - O Estado trata a imprensa como se de uma outra indústria qualquer se<br />
tratasse. Não existem subsídios para os consumíveis que os media são obrigados<br />
a importar, como é o caso do papel, excessivamente caro, custo que estrangula<br />
muitos órgãos de comunicação.Não seria difícil estabelecer percentagens em<br />
regime de igualdade.<br />
3 - Não existe qualquer isenção de impostos.<br />
4 - Predomina uma gestão não adequada aos objectivos da produção<br />
jornalística.Direi um tanto atrevidamente que o principal problema da liberdade<br />
de informação reside numa compreensão inadequada da gestão dos média.Não<br />
se atende ao verdadeiro objectivo que é o de produzir notícias, comentários,<br />
histórias, reportagens, análises e opiniões, onde deveria ser feito o principal<br />
investimento.<br />
5 - Os jornalistas auferem salários exíguos e não gozam de assistência social<br />
conveniente com os consequentes reflexos negativos na respectiva pr<strong>of</strong>issão.<br />
2002<br />
80 So This Is Democracy?
MOZAMBIQUE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-17<br />
PERSON(S): Marcello Mosse<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Metical<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
President Joaquim Alberto<br />
Chissano’s son, Nympine Chissano,<br />
filed charges <strong>of</strong> criminal defamation<br />
against Marcello Mosse and<br />
“Metical” over a February 21, 2001<br />
“Metical” article reporting that<br />
Nympine Chissano was briefly detained<br />
in South <strong>Africa</strong>, around 15<br />
February, on unspecified charges.<br />
In a written denial sent to<br />
“Metical” in March, Nympine<br />
Chissano’s lawyer threatened legal<br />
action against the newspaper, declaring<br />
that his client was not detained<br />
and had “never transported cocaine<br />
or other substances forbidden by law<br />
inside or outside the country,” according<br />
to AIM, the Mozambican<br />
state news service.<br />
However, sources concur that the<br />
“Metical” story did not mention cocaine<br />
or any other illegal substance.<br />
That allegation first appeared in the<br />
Johannesburg “Mail and Guardian”<br />
under the byline <strong>of</strong> a South <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
journalist. Mosse later repeated the<br />
allegation in the Portuguese weekly<br />
“Expresso”, for which he is the correspondent<br />
in Mozambique.<br />
The next hearing is scheduled for<br />
January 21. Nympine Chissano is<br />
seeking damages <strong>of</strong> US$80 000 from<br />
Mosse and “Metical”. A guilty verdict<br />
could also result in a jail sentence<br />
for the journalist.<br />
“Metical” cannot be liable for allegations<br />
that it did not publish. For<br />
this reason alone, Nympine<br />
Chissano’s case has no merit.<br />
“Metical”, which closed its doors<br />
in late December 2001, was the property<br />
<strong>of</strong> its founder and first editor,<br />
Carlos Cardoso, who was murdered<br />
on November 22, 2000. After<br />
Cardoso’s death, ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />
paper passed to Cardoso’s two underage<br />
children, Ibo and Milena, under<br />
the legal supervision <strong>of</strong> their mother,<br />
Nina Berg. In the worst-case scenario,<br />
the court could jail Mosse and<br />
bankrupt the Cardoso family.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-03-11<br />
PERSON(S): Marcello Mosse<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Metical<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On Monday March 11, 2002, the libel<br />
case pursued by businessman<br />
Nyimpinhe Chissano, son <strong>of</strong><br />
Mozambican President Joaquim<br />
Chissano, against journalist Marcelo<br />
Mosse and the now defunct newssheet<br />
“Metical”, was postponed. This<br />
is the fifth time that the case has been<br />
postponed.<br />
The case was to have been heard in<br />
the Maputo First Urban District Court<br />
on Monday March 11. However, the<br />
judge announced that a protest lodged<br />
by the defence with a higher court, the<br />
Maputo City Court, has been successful.<br />
This means that before the libel<br />
case can be heard in the lower court,<br />
the higher court must decide on a series<br />
<strong>of</strong> irregularities alleged by the defence,<br />
which could render the whole<br />
case null and void.<br />
The urban district judge, Wilson<br />
Djambo, previously admitted the appeal<br />
by “Metical” lawyer Lucinda<br />
Cruz, but ruled that the appeal could<br />
only be heard after the trial. Since her<br />
So This Is Democracy? 81
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
appeal was on grounds <strong>of</strong> law, Cruz<br />
argued that it must be dealt with first.<br />
She therefore lodged a protest with the<br />
Maputo City Court, which gave its ruling<br />
on the afternoon <strong>of</strong> Friday 8 March.<br />
Cruz and Mosse’s lawyer, Helder<br />
Matlaba, have pointed to a number <strong>of</strong><br />
procedural irregularities in the case.<br />
First, they say that the charge sheet<br />
drawn up by Balate was delivered a<br />
day late - and, since Mozambican law<br />
is strict about time limits, this alone<br />
should have been enough for the case<br />
to be thrown out.<br />
Second, since Mosse is facing a<br />
criminal charge, a private prosecution<br />
is not sufficient. The public prosecutor’s<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice must also be involved - the<br />
public prosecutor may support the private<br />
charge sheet, may press different<br />
charges, or may give the opinion that<br />
no crime has been committed.<br />
In fact, the public prosecutor has not<br />
said anything. This course <strong>of</strong> action is<br />
not permitted. The most serious irregularity<br />
is the attempt to hold “Metical”<br />
responsible for articles published in<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong> and Portugal. The defence<br />
argues that “Metical” has no editorial<br />
control over what appears in<br />
other newspapers and can only be sued<br />
for what appeared within its own<br />
pages.<br />
As for “Expresso”, a Portuguese<br />
lawyer sent a denial to the newspaper<br />
which was published in full under the<br />
Portuguese right <strong>of</strong> reply legislation.<br />
“Expresso” has not been dragged<br />
before any Portuguese court, though<br />
that possibility does remain open. No<br />
date has yet been fixed for the Maputo<br />
City Court to hear the appeal against<br />
the procedural irregularities in the<br />
prosecution case.<br />
Under Mozambican law, there are<br />
82 So This Is Democracy?<br />
two forms <strong>of</strong> libel. One is “difamacao”<br />
(defamation), which deals with specific<br />
accusations said to be untrue.<br />
However, Chissano Jr and his lawyer<br />
have not opted to use this.<br />
Instead, Mosse and “Metical” have<br />
been charged with the much vaguer<br />
crime <strong>of</strong> “injuria” (affront). According<br />
to the definition <strong>of</strong> this crime, libel<br />
takes the form <strong>of</strong> indeterminate accusations,<br />
such as claims that the <strong>of</strong>fended<br />
person is a criminal, a bandit,<br />
a scoundrel, and so forth. The key difference<br />
is that in defamation cases the<br />
accused can opt for the defence that<br />
what he wrote is true. But in cases <strong>of</strong><br />
affront, there is no possibility <strong>of</strong> such<br />
a defence.<br />
Active legal proceedings are only<br />
underway against “Metical”, the smallest<br />
<strong>of</strong> the three newspapers that contained<br />
the <strong>of</strong>fending articles.<br />
In 2001, Chissano Jr announced his<br />
intention to sue the “Mail and Guardian”.<br />
However, foreign citizens who<br />
have no assets in South <strong>Africa</strong> must<br />
make a deposit to cover legal costs in<br />
cases such as this. In July, the “Mail<br />
and Guardian” demanded a deposit <strong>of</strong><br />
ZAR100 000 (approx. US$9 800) from<br />
Chissano Jr. Since then, the newspaper<br />
has not heard from him. However,<br />
it is still possible for the case to be<br />
pursued in the South <strong>Africa</strong>n courts.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-09-03<br />
PERSON(S): Carlos Cardoso<br />
VIOLATION(S): Killed<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the six men accused <strong>of</strong> murdering<br />
Mozambique’s best known<br />
journalist, Carlos Cardoso, has escaped<br />
from Maputo’s top security jail.<br />
On September 2, 2002, a police
MOZAMBIQUE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
spokesman told Cardoso’s widow,<br />
Nina Berg, that the suspect, Anibal<br />
Antonio dos Santos Junior (better<br />
known by his underworld nickname<br />
<strong>of</strong> Anibalzinho), had escaped from<br />
the prison at about 11:00 p.m. (local<br />
time) on the night <strong>of</strong> 1 September.<br />
No further details on the escape are<br />
available at present.<br />
The trial <strong>of</strong> Anibalzinho and the<br />
five other accused is expected to start<br />
in the next few weeks, following unsuccessful<br />
appeals by the defence<br />
lawyers <strong>of</strong> the case going to trial.<br />
Judge Augusto Paulino must still set<br />
a trial date.<br />
Cardoso, editor <strong>of</strong> the independent<br />
newssheet “Metical” and a former<br />
director <strong>of</strong> Mozambique’s state news<br />
agency AIM, was assassinated on<br />
November 22, 2000. After a vigorous<br />
public campaign by Cardoso’s<br />
family, friends and colleagues, the<br />
police arrested suspects in February<br />
and March 2001.<br />
With the help <strong>of</strong> the Swazi police,<br />
Anibalzinho and a second suspect,<br />
Manuel Fernandes, were arrested in<br />
Swaziland and brought back to<br />
Maputo. It was discovered that<br />
Anibalzinho is a Portuguese citizen,<br />
but was also using a forged<br />
Mozambican passport under the<br />
name Carlos Pinto da Cruz.<br />
A story published at the time by<br />
the weekly newspaper “Savana”<br />
noted that Anibalzinho had good police<br />
connections arising from his<br />
business as a trafficker <strong>of</strong> luxury vehicles,<br />
which he would bring in from<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong> and resell in Maputo.<br />
In March 2001, four other people<br />
were picked up. Carlos Rachid<br />
Cassamo was alleged, along with<br />
Anibalzinho and Fernandes, to be a<br />
member <strong>of</strong> the hit squad that carried<br />
out the killing. Former bank manager<br />
Vicente Ramaya and wealthy businessmen<br />
Ayob Abdul Satar and<br />
Momade Assife Abdul Satar were arrested<br />
as the “moral authors” <strong>of</strong> the<br />
crime. They allegedly paid the assassins<br />
to murder Cardoso.<br />
Ramaya and members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Abdul Satar family were the main<br />
suspects in a huge bank fraud case in<br />
1996, which saw the equivalent <strong>of</strong><br />
US$14 million siphoned out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Commercial Bank <strong>of</strong> Mozambique<br />
(BCM) on the eve <strong>of</strong> its privatisation.<br />
Cardoso had followed the case tenaciously,<br />
repeatedly demanding that<br />
those who swindled the BCM be<br />
brought to justice. He also investigated<br />
other shady business affairs <strong>of</strong><br />
the Abdul Satar family, including<br />
loan sharking and illegal wire-tapping.<br />
Since March 2001, all six suspects<br />
in Cardoso’s murder have been detained<br />
in a top security jail, while investigations<br />
continue. Their lawyers<br />
have used every device available to<br />
delay a trial, but eventually ran out<br />
<strong>of</strong> room for manoeuvre. Before<br />
Anibalzinho’s escape, it was generally<br />
expected that the trial would begin<br />
in September or October.<br />
Anibalzinho’s escape has demonstrated<br />
the truth <strong>of</strong> the accusations<br />
levied against the country’s prisons<br />
by Attorney General Joaquim Madeira<br />
earlier in 2002. Reporting to<br />
Parliament on 6 March, Madeira declared,<br />
“Inmates escape from almost<br />
all the country’s prisons, sometimes<br />
in a spectacular fashion. Preliminary<br />
investigations indicate that these escapes<br />
enjoyed the connivance <strong>of</strong><br />
prison guards, or were at least facili-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 83
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
tated by their inexcusable negligence.”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-08<br />
PERSON(S): Fernando Lima, Kok<br />
Nam, Marcello Moss<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
According to “<strong>Media</strong>Fax”, as well as<br />
the Maputo weekly “Domingo”, a<br />
man identified as “Opa,” or “Uapa,”<br />
testified on September 23 before the<br />
magistrate investigating the Cardoso<br />
murder.<br />
Opa claimed he met Momade<br />
Abdul Satar, the accused mastermind<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Cardoso murder, while in jail<br />
and alleged that Satar had told him<br />
that he had carried out Cardoso’s<br />
murder at the behest <strong>of</strong> someone he<br />
described as “o filho do galo” (the<br />
son <strong>of</strong> the rooster). In a September<br />
27 column signed by journalist<br />
Fernando Lima, <strong>Media</strong>Fax reported<br />
that Opa had told the magistrate that<br />
the “son <strong>of</strong> the rooster” referred to<br />
Nymphine Chissano.<br />
The next night, at about 1 a.m., a<br />
truck arrived at the home <strong>of</strong> Kok<br />
Nam, the publisher <strong>of</strong> “Savana”,<br />
which is owned by the same media<br />
cooperative-<strong>Media</strong>Coop-that publishes<br />
“<strong>Media</strong>Fax”. The driver <strong>of</strong> the<br />
truck said he had about 100 chickens<br />
to deliver to Kok Nam and<br />
Fernando Lima, who had written the<br />
article in “<strong>Media</strong>Fax”. The driver<br />
claimed that the chickens were a gift<br />
from the first lady, Marcelina<br />
Chissano. Later that day, similar<br />
trucks carrying chickens attempted to<br />
make deliveries to the home <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Media</strong>Fax editor Marcelo Mosse and<br />
to the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> “<strong>Media</strong>Coop”.<br />
84 So This Is Democracy?<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-11-04<br />
PERSON(S): Fernando Lima, Kok<br />
Nam, Marcello Moss<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
First Lady Marcelina Chissano has<br />
denied intimidating any <strong>of</strong> the country’s<br />
journalists, and has demanded<br />
that her “good name and right to privacy<br />
be respected.”<br />
A letter sent by her lawyer,<br />
Augusto Macedo Pinto, to the independent<br />
weekly “<strong>Media</strong>fax”, and<br />
published on November 1 2002, also<br />
stressed that the first lady wanted to<br />
see the case <strong>of</strong> the murder <strong>of</strong> Carlos<br />
Cardoso, the newspaper’s founding<br />
editor, “resolved as rapidly as possible,<br />
and the guilty parties tried and<br />
sentenced.”<br />
The letter, which made no explicit<br />
threat <strong>of</strong> legal action, was clearly in<br />
response to claims made a month ago<br />
that the first lady had sent mysterious<br />
gifts <strong>of</strong> live chickens to<br />
“<strong>Media</strong>fax” editor Marcelo Mosse,<br />
Fernando Lima, chairman <strong>of</strong> the<br />
board <strong>of</strong> <strong>Media</strong>coop (the company<br />
that owns the newspaper), and Kok<br />
Nam, director <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong>coop<br />
weekly “Savana”.<br />
The delivery <strong>of</strong> the chickens followed<br />
“<strong>Media</strong>fax”’s publication <strong>of</strong><br />
articles concerning “o filho do galo”<br />
(“the son <strong>of</strong> the cockerel”). The<br />
newspaper had revealed that a new<br />
witness, named only as “Opa”, had<br />
been heard by the magistrate investigating<br />
the Cardoso murder. Opa had<br />
just been released from Maputo’s top<br />
security prison after serving half <strong>of</strong><br />
a 10-year sentence for illegal possession<br />
<strong>of</strong> firearms. While in jail, he had<br />
come to know Momade Assife Abdul
MOZAMBIQUE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Satar (alias “Nini”), one <strong>of</strong> the businessmen<br />
accused <strong>of</strong> ordering<br />
Cardoso’s assassination. According<br />
to “<strong>Media</strong>fax”, Opa testified that<br />
Nini had told him he was merely a<br />
go-between, acting on behalf <strong>of</strong> “o<br />
filho do galo.” The following day, an<br />
article by Lima, entitled “A chicken<br />
called Nyimpine”, identified “o filho<br />
do galo” as Nyimpine Chissano,<br />
President Joaquim Chissano’s son.<br />
Lima said that when asked the identity<br />
<strong>of</strong> “o filho do galo”, Opa had<br />
given Nyimpine Chissano’s name,<br />
and the president son’s name had<br />
been entered in the minutes <strong>of</strong> the<br />
hearing.<br />
The men who delivered the live<br />
chickens to the three journalists<br />
claimed they were a gift from the first<br />
lady, and journalists believe they<br />
came from a poultry farm owned by<br />
Marcelina Chissano in the city <strong>of</strong><br />
Matola. However, a spokesperson for<br />
the first lady’s <strong>of</strong>fice denied any<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> the chickens.<br />
“<strong>Media</strong>fax” interpreted the delivery<br />
<strong>of</strong> the chickens as a peculiar type <strong>of</strong><br />
veiled threat.<br />
Pinto’s letter neither confirmed nor<br />
denied that Marcelina Chissano had<br />
sent the chickens. The letter insisted<br />
that “no journalist was, or ever will<br />
be, intimidated or threatened.” Pinto<br />
claimed that the first lady’s “most elementary<br />
individual rights [had] been<br />
violated,” notably through “lack <strong>of</strong><br />
rigour and objectivity” in the press.<br />
“Facts are invented, rumours are<br />
used, the privacy and intimate sphere<br />
<strong>of</strong> her family relations are invaded,<br />
with the intent to create tension<br />
within her family, and seriously damage<br />
the good image and reputation<br />
<strong>of</strong> all her relatives,” Pinto claimed.<br />
The honour and consideration due to<br />
the first lady “have been deeply and<br />
seriously affected, with grave social<br />
repercussions,” the letter continued,<br />
while calling for an end to “public<br />
trials” in the pages <strong>of</strong> the press, and<br />
stressing that “it is universally recognised<br />
that all citizens have the right<br />
to honour, good name, reputation, the<br />
defence <strong>of</strong> their public image, and to<br />
their privacy.”<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-12-12<br />
PERSON(S): Carlos Cardoso<br />
VIOLATION(S): Killed<br />
On December 10, 2002, two colleagues<br />
<strong>of</strong> murdered journalist Carlos<br />
Cardoso told the Maputo City Court<br />
that two <strong>of</strong> the six men charged with<br />
the assassination had regularly visited<br />
Cardoso’s <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
Victor Matsinhe and Zacarias<br />
Couto were reporters at “Metical”,<br />
the daily newsletter owned and edited<br />
by Cardoso. Couto was also the<br />
“Metical” <strong>of</strong>fice manager. They both<br />
said that Carlitos Rashid Cassamo,<br />
the man who has confessed to firing<br />
the shots that killed Cardoso, visited<br />
the “Metical” <strong>of</strong>fice regularly in October<br />
and November 2000. The two<br />
journalists also confirmed that Anibal<br />
dos Santos Junior (alias<br />
“Anibalzinho”), the man accused <strong>of</strong><br />
organising a death squad to assassinate<br />
Cardoso, visited the “Metical”<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice twice.<br />
In a related incident, on December<br />
10, Eduardo Jorge, a Portuguese<br />
lawyer who is representing Maputo<br />
loan shark Momade Assife Abdul<br />
Satar (alias “Nini”), one <strong>of</strong> the men<br />
charged with ordering Cardoso’s<br />
So This Is Democracy? 85
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
murder, sought to take legal action<br />
against a newspaper. The lawyer objected<br />
to a front-page article in the<br />
latest issue <strong>of</strong> the weekly “O Pais”,<br />
entitled “Nini may be involved in the<br />
death <strong>of</strong> Siba-Siba”. The article suggested<br />
that those responsible for<br />
Cardoso’s murder may have also ordered<br />
the killing <strong>of</strong> Austral Bank<br />
Chairman Antonio Siba-Siba<br />
Macuacua on August 11, 2001.<br />
Jorge requested that presiding<br />
Judge Augusto Paulino summon “O<br />
Pais” editor Ramos Miguel to appear<br />
before the court and testify on what<br />
he knows about the Siba-Siba case.<br />
Jorge insisted that journalists must be<br />
held responsible for what they write.<br />
He claimed it would be “complicated”<br />
to use the press law, “and it<br />
won’t have any effect.” The judge<br />
suggested, however, that if anyone<br />
was upset by media coverage, they<br />
should opt for the remedies available<br />
under the press law, in other words,<br />
either demand a right <strong>of</strong> reply or start<br />
libel proceedings.<br />
The trial <strong>of</strong> the six men accused <strong>of</strong><br />
murdering Cardoso opened on November<br />
18 under tight security in the<br />
Mozambican capital, Maputo. The<br />
defendants are businessmen Ayob<br />
and Abdul Satar, former bank manager<br />
Vicente Ramaya, and two members<br />
<strong>of</strong> the hit squad that they allegedly<br />
recruited to murder Cardoso,<br />
Manuel Fernandes and Rashid<br />
Cassamo. The third member <strong>of</strong> the<br />
hit squad, Anibalzinho, escaped from<br />
prison on 1 September and is being<br />
tried in absentia. The accused face<br />
charges for Cardoso’s murder on<br />
November 22, 2000, the attempted<br />
murder <strong>of</strong> Cardoso’s driver, Carlos<br />
Manjate, the formation <strong>of</strong> a criminal<br />
association and the illegal possession<br />
and use <strong>of</strong> firearms. Anibalzinho also<br />
faces charges for using a fake passport<br />
and making false statements to<br />
the authorities.<br />
2002<br />
86 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Namibia<br />
By Pauliina Shilongo<br />
Lecturer, Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Media</strong> Technology, Polytechnic <strong>of</strong> Namibia<br />
During 2002 the Government <strong>of</strong> Namibia increased its animosity towards<br />
the free and independent media. President Sam Nujoma also<br />
targeted the public broadcaster, the NBC, throughout the year. The<br />
campaign culminated in President Nujoma giving himself the ministerial portfolio<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting in an unexpected Cabinet reshuffle at<br />
the end <strong>of</strong> August. Events that took place following Nujoma’s self-appointment<br />
signalled that the environment for the media in Namibia is changing for<br />
the worse.<br />
On 27 August 2002 President Sam Nujoma announced that he would take<br />
over as the Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting. In a Cabinet reshuffle,<br />
the president split the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, Information and Broadcasting,<br />
which had been joined together in another Cabinet reshuffle in 2000.<br />
He decided to personally take over the reins <strong>of</strong> the Information and Broadcasting<br />
division. Nujoma claimed that the move was necessary to clean up the<br />
management crisis at the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), which<br />
had long been plagued by financial instability and infighting between the board<br />
and management <strong>of</strong> the corporation. Two days after President Nujoma assumed<br />
his new position it was reported that the Cabinet had approved a N$100<br />
million bail out for the NBC.<br />
At the press briefing where the President announced the take-over, he also<br />
made thinly veiled threats against journalists. Pointing to an NBC journalist<br />
at the briefing Nujoma asked if the reporter was one <strong>of</strong> NBC’s undisciplined<br />
employees. “Are you one <strong>of</strong> them? If you are, you will be dealt with, rest<br />
assured,” the President said.<br />
He added: “Now what kind <strong>of</strong> NBC is that? Is NBC working for the interest<br />
<strong>of</strong> this country? As journalists we all have to defend Namibia. The NBC acts<br />
as agents <strong>of</strong> some enemies.”<br />
Soon after taking upon himself the portfolio <strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting,<br />
the President initiated some changes in the NBC TV programme schedule.<br />
The television news slot in indigenous languages was moved from 22h00<br />
to directly follow the English bulletin at 20h00 at night and the English news<br />
was rebroadcast at 22h00.<br />
Soon after that, during a visit to the public broadcaster, President Nujoma<br />
lashed out at some <strong>of</strong> the foreign programmes broadcast on TV. He called<br />
So This Is Democracy? 87
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
these programmes “a bad influence on the Namibian youth.” The effects <strong>of</strong><br />
his influence on the NBC’s management and staff were visible to the TV<br />
audience the same night when an extremely popular soap opera, “The Bold<br />
and Beautiful”, and a mini-series scheduled for the late night slot were replaced<br />
by rebroadcasts <strong>of</strong> old programmes and a broadcast <strong>of</strong> the proceedings<br />
<strong>of</strong> the recent SWAPO Congress.<br />
Due to popular demand “The Bold and the Beautiful” returned to its slot the<br />
following day, but many other foreign programmes were removed permanently.<br />
The schedule was filled with rebroadcasts <strong>of</strong> old local productions and<br />
news and current affairs programmes.<br />
This prompted one opposition member <strong>of</strong> the parliament to charge that President<br />
Nujoma’s aim was to boost the subscriptions <strong>of</strong> the satellite service,<br />
Multichoice Namibia, which is 51% owned by a SWAPO holding company.<br />
The NBC management and board denied vehemently that the programme<br />
changes were done at the instruction <strong>of</strong> the president. The chairperson <strong>of</strong> the<br />
NBC board Uazuva Kaumbi said that the president merely expressed his views<br />
about the foreign programmes, and the staff responsible for the programming<br />
effected the changes on their own. It is however clear that President Nujoma’s<br />
influence at the NBC is considerable. Another indicator <strong>of</strong> this is that the<br />
main TV news bulletin has started to resemble President Nujoma’s personal<br />
news bulletin. The <strong>Media</strong> Monitoring Project <strong>of</strong> Namibia (MMPN) counted<br />
that in September Nujoma featured in the TV news 31 times, i.e. at least once<br />
in every bulletin.<br />
The staff <strong>of</strong> the troubled NBC continued to live under the threat <strong>of</strong> retrenchments<br />
for most <strong>of</strong> the year. The restructuring process, which the board had<br />
planned since the beginning <strong>of</strong> the year, as well as continuous hostility between<br />
the NBC board chairperson Uazuva Kaumbi and the Director General<br />
Ben Mulongeni, gained momentum on September 17 when Mulongeni resigned<br />
after having been asked to do so by the board.<br />
In May the Government released a draft <strong>of</strong> a new Communications Bill for<br />
comment from the public. MISA and the National Community Radio Network<br />
(NCRN) have criticised a number <strong>of</strong> issues in the draft bill and lobbied<br />
MPs before the bill is tabled in the parliament.<br />
2002<br />
The new bill is geared towards the commercialisation <strong>of</strong> the telecommunications<br />
sector. While this is not a bad thing as it allows the public more choice in<br />
choosing a cellular network provider, the bill overlooks the importance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
broadcasting sector in a country such as Namibia. The new bill gives priority<br />
to commercial broadcasters. This is contrary to many international treaties<br />
that Namibia has signed, for example the SADC protocol on Culture, Information<br />
and Sport, which was adopted by the National Assembly in Novem-<br />
88 So This Is Democracy?
NAMIBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ber. The bill also does not deal with the public broadcaster. The bill will establish<br />
a new regulatory body, the Communications Authority <strong>of</strong> Namibia (CAN),<br />
which will only regulate commercial and community broadcasters. It is also<br />
necessary for the bill to establish clearly the independence <strong>of</strong> the CAN as the<br />
telecommunications regulator.<br />
The Namibian media industry saw a few newcomers during the year 2002,<br />
including the emergence <strong>of</strong> new community publications. The <strong>Southern</strong> Sun,<br />
a monthly newsletter for the Karas region, started publishing in January in<br />
Keetmanshoop. During the yearThe <strong>Southern</strong> Sun gained popularity and trust<br />
among its readers in the south <strong>of</strong> Namibia as a watchdog over local and<br />
regional governing bodies, which had grown accustomed to operating with<br />
no checks and balances. The Caprivi Vision, which provides news from the<br />
Caprivi region, was launched in May.<br />
Two new commercial radio stations were licensed to broadcast from February.<br />
One is the Omulunga Radio station based in Oshakati in the north <strong>of</strong> the<br />
country, which is also the most populated area <strong>of</strong> Namibia. The station broadcasts<br />
in the Oshiwambo language and planned to expand to other parts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
country during the year. The other station, Live FM, started broadcasting in<br />
Rehoboth, a town about 80 kilometres to the south <strong>of</strong> the capital, Windhoek.<br />
The country’s first community radio station Katutura Community Radio<br />
(KCR), which went <strong>of</strong>f air in February 2001 and lost its licence in November<br />
<strong>of</strong> the same year, changed its board and applied for a new licence which was<br />
granted to them in November.<br />
A Christian television network, Trinity Broadcasting, was awarded a community<br />
broadcasting licence to operate in the coastal towns <strong>of</strong> Swakopmund<br />
and Walvis Bay. Of the two private television stations, which went on air in<br />
2001, Desert TV experienced difficulties with its partners and was <strong>of</strong>f air for<br />
long periods in 2002. TV <strong>Africa</strong> Namibia continued to broadcast foreign<br />
programming.<br />
The Government <strong>of</strong> Namibia continued to enforce its advertising ban against<br />
The Namibian. A cartoon published in The Namibian newspaper on September<br />
6, in which Namibian President Sam Nujoma was depicted as an attack<br />
dog <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe stirred up a strong reaction in<br />
sections <strong>of</strong> the ruling party.<br />
The cartoon was a comment on Nujoma’s speech at the World Summit in<br />
Johannesburg where he condemned Britain and other Western nations for interfering<br />
in the <strong>Africa</strong>n countries. In response to the cartoon the SWAPO Youth<br />
League demanded insult laws to protect the President and called on SWAPOdominated<br />
local authorities and parastatals not to advertise in The Namibian.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 89
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
The media’s right to protect its sources was challenged in November when<br />
the Namibia Food and Allied Workers’ Union (Nafau) threatened to sue The<br />
Namibian if the newspaper refused to divulge the names <strong>of</strong> its sources for a<br />
report that that said Nafau President Dawid Namalenga was under pressure to<br />
resign.<br />
In another case the media enjoyed a victory when the Prosecutor General<br />
decided not to prosecute The Namibian, Die Republikein and the Society <strong>of</strong><br />
Advocates on charges <strong>of</strong> contempt <strong>of</strong> court over statements made in connection<br />
with a controversial High Court case. Judge President Pio Teek laid the<br />
contempt complaint in early 2001.<br />
In May the Namibian chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA)<br />
launched a media monitoring report, summarising the findings <strong>of</strong> a four-month<br />
study <strong>of</strong> the Namibian media conducted by the <strong>Media</strong> Monitoring Project <strong>of</strong><br />
Namibia (MMPN).<br />
The pilot phase <strong>of</strong> the project, funded by the Open Society <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong> (OSISA), involved monitoring the main news in both print and<br />
broadcasting in the country from July to October 2001. The second phase <strong>of</strong><br />
the MMPN runs from April 2002 to March 2003.<br />
The aim <strong>of</strong> the monitoring project is to establish if state-funded media are<br />
meeting their obligation to reflect a variety <strong>of</strong> political and social opinion and<br />
perspectives; whether all media - be it public or private - adhere to commonly<br />
accepted pr<strong>of</strong>essional and ethical standards; and to estimate how far the media<br />
meet the information needs <strong>of</strong> all Namibians.<br />
The findings <strong>of</strong> the MMPN showed that all media, and mostly NBC radio and<br />
television, rely much too heavily on single sources for their stories, creating<br />
“constant imbalance”; that roughly 75% <strong>of</strong> the voices accessed in the media<br />
are male; that about 61% <strong>of</strong> all stories are from the Khomas region creating<br />
an imbalance in the regional reporting; and that all media, and mostly the<br />
NBC, rely too heavily on reporting on conferences, workshops, speeches and<br />
other events.<br />
2002<br />
90 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Namíbia<br />
Por: Paulina Shilongo<br />
Catedrática, no Departamento de tecnologia da imprensa, Politécnica da<br />
Namíbia.<br />
Durante o ano de 2002, o governo Namibiano aumentou a sua<br />
animosidade contra a imprensa livre e independente. O Presidente<br />
Sam Nujoma também alvejou o difusor público, a Televisão Publica<br />
Namíbia (NBC), durante o ano inteiro. A campanha com a auto-proclamaçao<br />
do Presidente como Ministro da Informação e Radiodifusão numa inesperada<br />
remodelação realizada em Agosto do ano passado.<br />
Os eventos que se seguiram da auto-proclamação do presidente indicaram de<br />
que o meio ambiente para a imprensa na Namíbia estava a mudar para o pior.<br />
No dia 27 de Agosto de 2002, o presidente Sam Nujoma anunciou que tomaria<br />
sobre o ministério da Informação e Radiodifusão. O presidente dividiu o<br />
Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Informação e Radiodifusão que tinha<br />
sido difundido num outro ministério no ano de 2000. Nujoma decidiu tomar<br />
pessoalmente o reinado da divisão da Informação e Radiodifusão. Nujoma<br />
reclamava de que era necessário esta moção a fim de realizar uma operação<br />
de limpeza com vista a por fim a crise da gestão na NBC, que por muito<br />
tempo esteve mergulhada em instabilidade financeira e contendas entre o<br />
conselho e corpo directivo da NBC. Dois dias depois do presidente ter<br />
assumido o reinado da divisão de Informação e Radiodifusão, o governo<br />
aprovou uma verba no valor de N$ 100 milhões para caucionar a NBC.<br />
Na conferência de imprensa onde o presidente anunciou a tomada de poder<br />
da pasta de Informação e Radiodifusão, Nujoma também lançou algumas<br />
ameaças contra os jornalistas. Apontando a um jornalista durante a<br />
conferencia de imprensa Nujoma questionou se o jornalista era um dos<br />
empregados indisciplinados da NBC. “Tu és um deles?” Se tu és, posso te<br />
assegurar que as coisas estarão agora sob controlo,” disse Nujoma.<br />
Mas adiante Nujoma acrescentou: “Que tipo de NBC é esta? Será que a<br />
NBC está a trabalhar para os interesses deste país? Como jornalistas devemos<br />
todos defender o país. A NBC age como se fosse agente de alguns inimigos.”<br />
Pouco depois de tomar as pastas da divisão de Informação e Radiodifusão o<br />
presidente começou a realizar algumas mudanças na programação da<br />
televisão. O noticiário em línguas nacionais que era apresentado as 22h00<br />
passou a ser apresentado logo depois do noticiário em inglês das 20h00. O<br />
noticiário passou a ser difundido pela segunda vez as 22h00. Durante uma<br />
So This Is Democracy? 91
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
visita a NBC, Sam Nujoma lançou ataques contra alguns programas<br />
estrangeiros apresentados na NBC. Nujoma chamou tais programa “de má<br />
influencia para a juventude Namibiana”. A influencia do presidente junto do<br />
corpo directivo e membros do staff da NBC se fez sentir junto da audiência<br />
na mesma noite quando a série popular “A Bela e o Monstro” e uma outra<br />
série que devia ser apresentado mais tarde foram substituídos com a<br />
apresentação de programas antigos e a difusão do recente congresso da<br />
SWAPO.<br />
Por causa da exigência do público a série “a Bela e Monstro” voltou a aparecer<br />
na televisão pública no dia seguinte, mas o mesmo não se pode dizer dos<br />
outros programas estrangeiros que até o dia de hoje continuam desaparecidos<br />
da televisão pública. As séries estrangeiras foram substituídos com programas<br />
locais antigos, noticiários e programas da actualidade.<br />
Estes eventos incitaram um membro parlamentar da oposição a acusar o<br />
presidente Sam Nujoma de que o seu objectivo era realçar as subscrições do<br />
público aos serviços da televisão satélite “Multichoice Namíbia” na qual<br />
uma empresa da SWAPO possui 51% em acções. O corpo directivo da NBC,<br />
na companhia dos membros do staff negou categoricamente de que as<br />
mudanças registadas na NBC não eram resultado das instruções do presidente.<br />
O Presidente do Conselho da NBC, Uazuva Kaumbi disse que o presidente<br />
simplesmente expressou as suas convicções sobre os programas estrangeiros<br />
e que os membros do staff responsáveis pela programação aplicaram as<br />
mudanças necessárias de sua escolha. É portanto claro de que a influência<br />
do presidente na NBC é considerada. Um outro indicador deste factor, cingiuse<br />
no noticiário que começou a assemelhar-se com os [princípios] do próprio<br />
presidente. O Projecto monitor da imprensa na Namíbia (MMPN), registou<br />
a aparência do presidente na NBC só em Setembro 31 vezes, pelos menos<br />
uma vez em todos boletim de noticias todos os dias.<br />
O staff da NBC continuou a viver ameaças de demissão na maior parte do<br />
ano. O processo de reestruturação, planeado pelo conselho desde o indicio<br />
do ano, assim como a continuidade das hostilidades entre o presidente do<br />
Conselho da NBC Uazuva Kaumbi e do Director Geral Ben Mulongeni,<br />
ganhou espaço no dia 17 de Setembro quando Mulongeni demitiu-se depois<br />
de ter sido instruído pelo conselho.<br />
Em Maio o governo publicou o esboço do projecto-lei para a Comunicação<br />
para comentários públicos. MISA e o Network da Rádio Nacional<br />
Comunitária (NCRN) criticaram um numero de questões contidos no esboço<br />
do projecto-lei e apadrinhou-se a alguns membros do parlamente antes da<br />
apresentação do projecto-lei no Parlamento.<br />
2002<br />
O novo projecto-lei prevê a comercialização do sector de comunicação.<br />
Embora isto não seja mau, porque permite uma variedade de escolha ao<br />
público em escolher o provedor de serviços, o projecto-lei ignora a<br />
92 So This Is Democracy?
NAMIBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
importância do sector da radiodifusão num país como a Namibnia. O novo<br />
projecto-lei dá prioridade às radiodifusões comerciais. Isto é contrário aos<br />
vários tratados internacionais assinados pela Namíbia, como por exemplo o<br />
protocolo da SADC sobre a Cultura, Informação e Desporto que foi adoptado<br />
pela Assembleia Nacional em Novembro. O projecto-lei também nem sequer<br />
lida com o difusor público. O projecto-lei estabelecerá um novo órgão<br />
regulador as Autoridades para a Comunicação Namibiana (CAN) que terá<br />
somente a responsabilidade de regular a os difusores comunitários e<br />
independentes. É também necessário que o projecto-lei estabeleça claramente<br />
a independência do CAN como regulador das Comunicações.<br />
A indústria de informação Namibiana registou novas aparições durante o<br />
ano de 2002, incluindo a aparição de novas publicações comunitárias. O<br />
“<strong>Southern</strong> Sun” um boletim mensal para a região de Karas parte sul do país,<br />
começou a publicar as suas edições em Janeiro a partir do centro sul<br />
Keetmanshoep. Durante o ano “The <strong>Southern</strong> Sun” ganhou popularidade e<br />
confiança dentre os seus leitores como sendo a vigília no sul do país sobre<br />
os órgãos governantes que estava acostumado a funcionar sem qualquer<br />
prestação de contas. O “The Caprivi Vision” que providencia noticias na<br />
região do Caprivi também marcou a sua presença em Maio.<br />
Emitiram-se licenças para duas rádios comercias que deram inicio as suas<br />
operações em Fevereiro. Uma delas é a rádio Omulunga baseada no Oshakati,<br />
parte norte do país, que é a área com maior população no país. Esta estação<br />
difundi em Oshiwambo [língua indígena] e tem como objectivo expandir os<br />
seus programas para outras partes do país. A outra estação a “Live FM”<br />
começou a difundir na cidade do Rehoboth uma cidade que se dista a 87 km<br />
sul da capital Windhoek.<br />
A primeira estação de rádio comunitária do país, “Katutura Community<br />
Rádio” (KCR) que começou com as suas operações Fevereiro de 2001 e<br />
perdeu a sua licença em Novembro do mesmo ano, mudou o seu conselho de<br />
governadores e fez a aplicação para uma nova licença que foi concedida em<br />
Novembro.<br />
Uma Network da Televisão Cristã, “Trinity television” foi atribuída uma<br />
licença para a difusão comunitária a fim de operar nas áreas costeiras do<br />
país nomeadamente Walvis Bay e Swakopmund. Das duas estações de<br />
televisão privada, que estiveram no ar no ano de 2001, a “Desert TV”<br />
enfrentou uma série de dificuldades com os seus parceiros e paralisou as<br />
suas difusões durante muito tempo em 2002. A “TV <strong>Africa</strong> Namíbia”<br />
continuou a difundir programas internacionais.<br />
O governo da Namíbia continuou a impor o seu banimento nas publicidades<br />
contra o diário “The Namibian”. Uma caricatura publicada na edição do dia<br />
06 de Setembro, no qual o presidente Sam Nujoma foi retratado com um cão<br />
So This Is Democracy? 93
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
de ataque do presidente Zimbabueano Robert Mugabe provocou uma reacção<br />
forte dentro de algumas secções do partido no poder SWAPO. A caricatura<br />
retratava o discurso do presidente Sam Nujoma na Cimeira Mundial para o<br />
Desenvolvimento Sustentável realizado em Durban na <strong>Africa</strong> do Sul, onde<br />
Nujoma condenou o primeiro-ministro Britânico Tony Blair e outras nações<br />
que se interferem nos assuntos dos países <strong>Africa</strong>nos. Em resposta a caricatura<br />
a Liga da Juventude da SWAPO exigiu [leis de insultos] que protejam o<br />
presidente e apelou as autoridades locais dominada por membros da SWAPO<br />
a no fazer qualquer publicidade através do “The Namibian”.<br />
O direito da imprensa que visa proteger a sua fonte foi desafiado em<br />
Novembro, quando a União dos Trabalhadores Aliados (NAFAU), ameaçou<br />
intimar judicialmente o diário “The Namibian” caso recusasse divulgar os<br />
nomes das fontes que disseram que o presidente da NAFAU, Dawid<br />
Namalenga estava sob forte pressão para demitir-se.<br />
Num outro incidente a imprensa teve uma vitoria quando o procurador geral<br />
decidiu não levar a mesa de justiça o “The Namibian”, “The Republikein” e<br />
a sociedade dos advogados sob acusações de desdém ao tribunal pelos<br />
comentários feitos em conexão com o controverso caso no tribunal supremo.<br />
O juiz Pio Teek fez a aplicação do caso de desdém ao tribunal no início de<br />
2001.<br />
Em Maio a delegação do Instituto dos Média da <strong>Africa</strong> Austral, Misa-Namibia,<br />
lançou um relatório sobre o monitoramento da imprensa sumariando<br />
as descobertas feita durante os estudos nos quatro meses sobre a imprensa<br />
Namibiana conduzido pelo projecto de Monitoramento da Namíbia (MMPN).<br />
A fase piloto do projecto, financiado pela Open Society <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong> (OSISA), envolveu o monitoramento das principais noticiais no<br />
país tanto na imprensa escrita como radiodifusão no país a partir de Julho à<br />
Outubro de 2001. A segunda fase cobriu de Abril de 2002 a Março de 2003.<br />
2002<br />
O projecto de monitoramento tem como objectivo estabelecer se a imprensa<br />
estatal estão a cumprir com as suas obrigações que implica a reflexão da<br />
variedade da opinião e perspectiva politica e social; caso toda a imprensa –<br />
quer seja pública ou privada – adere aos padrões éticos pr<strong>of</strong>issionais<br />
amplamente aceites; e a estimar ate que ponto a imprensa cobre as<br />
necessidades de informação de todos os Namibianos.<br />
As descobertas do projecto MMPN indicaram que toda a imprensa, e<br />
principalmente a rádio e televisão da NBC, confiavam as suas histórias<br />
grandemente em fontes singulares (única) criando desta feita um “constante<br />
desequilíbrio” ; que quase 75% das vozes com acesso na imprensa eram<br />
vozes masculinas; 61% de todas as histórias eram da região de Khomas<br />
criando mas uma vez um desequilíbrio na reportagem regional; e que toda a<br />
imprensa e principalmente a NBC, confiava grandemente as suas reportagens<br />
a partir de conferencias, workshops, discursos e outros eventos.<br />
94 So This Is Democracy?
NAMIBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-04<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Katutura<br />
Community Radio (KCR)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
The Namibian Communications<br />
Commission (NCC) has indicated<br />
that the Katutura Community Radio<br />
(KCR) station will have to reapply<br />
for its broadcast licence if it wants it<br />
back. The station’s licence was revoked<br />
in November 2001 after the<br />
station had been <strong>of</strong>f the air since<br />
March and had failed to pay its annual<br />
licencing fees. “They must follow<br />
all legal procedures as they did<br />
in the beginning. The commission<br />
will consider them only if they apply,”<br />
said NCC’s Jan Kruger.<br />
MISA has learnt that the NCC is<br />
considering the option <strong>of</strong> auctioning<br />
the frequency to the highest bidder.<br />
MISA is currently in negotiation with<br />
the NCC and other interested parties<br />
to lobby for the retention <strong>of</strong> the frequency<br />
for community broadcasting<br />
initiatives.<br />
KCR, <strong>of</strong>f the air since February,<br />
lost its broadcasting licence on<br />
Wednesday 28 November. The NCC<br />
revoked KCR’s licence on the basis<br />
that the station was not broadcasting<br />
and was in arrears.<br />
The NCC decision was announced<br />
in the December 15 edition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
“Government Gazette”. Ann Strauss,<br />
one <strong>of</strong> KCR’s trustees, was quoted<br />
at the time as saying that KCR<br />
wanted to continue broadcasting and<br />
that negotiations over sponsorship to<br />
get the radio station back on air were<br />
at an advanced stage.<br />
KCR previously attracted a large<br />
audience in Katutura, Khomasdal<br />
and other parts <strong>of</strong> the Namibian capital.<br />
KCR stopped broadcasting when<br />
about ten volunteers went on a wildcat<br />
strike, accusing management and<br />
the directors <strong>of</strong> ignoring their appeals<br />
for improved working conditions.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the striking volunteers also<br />
objected to changes made to the<br />
broadcast schedule, which would<br />
have reduced the time the station<br />
used to play music.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-08-28<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Namibian<br />
Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
PRESIDENT Sam Nujoma on August<br />
27, 2002, took over the Information<br />
and Broadcasting Ministry,<br />
saying it is a bid to tackle problems<br />
at the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(NBC).<br />
He immediately called a meeting<br />
with the broadcaster’s Board that day.<br />
During a press conference at State<br />
House, Nujoma announced that he<br />
had decided to split the Ministry <strong>of</strong><br />
Foreign Affairs, Information and<br />
Broadcasting into two, giving Foreign<br />
Affairs to Hidipo Hamutenya<br />
and taking Information and Broadcasting<br />
for himself.<br />
Some sectors <strong>of</strong> the media immediately<br />
expressed concern about the<br />
implications <strong>of</strong> Nujoma taking over<br />
at Information and Broadcasting.<br />
Some observers said they fear a<br />
more authoritarian approach to the<br />
media and problems for journalists<br />
obtaining accreditation, as has happened<br />
in Zimbabwe.<br />
Others feel Nujoma’s decision to<br />
So This Is Democracy? 95
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
place himself at the head <strong>of</strong> the Information<br />
Ministry may only be a temporary<br />
move so that he can oversee<br />
changes at the NBC.<br />
The President on August 27 said he<br />
planned to clean up the “mess” at the<br />
NBC. He had his first meeting with the<br />
NBC Board yesterday afternoon but<br />
the outcome was not known at the time<br />
<strong>of</strong> going to press.<br />
Nujoma said the NBC was corrupt<br />
and was being used by “enemies” <strong>of</strong><br />
the State to sabotage Government initiatives<br />
and the national economy.<br />
“NBC is the mirror <strong>of</strong> the nation. But<br />
in NBC there is corruption,” he said,<br />
before adding that one <strong>of</strong> its managers<br />
had destroyed seven to eight NBC vehicles<br />
but had got <strong>of</strong>f the hook.<br />
This appeared to be a reference to<br />
the NBC’s Controller for Human Resources<br />
and Administration, Vitura<br />
Kavari, who was charged with 20<br />
counts <strong>of</strong> misconduct which ranged<br />
from misuse <strong>of</strong> NBC cars to the assault<br />
<strong>of</strong> a junior employee. He was<br />
convicted on only two counts.<br />
Further, said the President:<br />
“Cheques or money are being stolen<br />
at NBC. There is no discipline [at<br />
NBC].”<br />
Nujoma also cited the case in which<br />
the NBC broadcast a news item about<br />
“enemies <strong>of</strong> Namibia” at Walvis Bay<br />
who took fish cans to South <strong>Africa</strong> and<br />
declared that they were “rotten and<br />
dangerous for consumption”.<br />
Nujoma said the NBC followed up<br />
the story and “showed even the tins”<br />
before the situation was “rectified”.<br />
“Now what kind <strong>of</strong> NBC is that? Is<br />
NBC working for the interest <strong>of</strong> this<br />
country? As journalists we all have to<br />
defend Namibia. The NBC act as<br />
agents <strong>of</strong> some enemies,” Nujoma<br />
96 So This Is Democracy?<br />
said.<br />
Looking at the NBC reporter covering<br />
the media briefing, Nujoma said<br />
he would discipline NBC employees.<br />
“You can go and tell your friends,”<br />
he said to NBC’s Lahja Kandongo.<br />
Earlier, when she introduced herself<br />
as “Lahja Kandongo from the NBC<br />
TV”, Nujoma bluntly asked “What?”<br />
as if it was the first time he had seen<br />
the reporter who regularly reports on<br />
presidential matters. When she restated<br />
her name, Nujoma asked whether she<br />
was one <strong>of</strong> the indisciplined NBC<br />
employees.<br />
“Are you one <strong>of</strong> them? If you are,<br />
you will be dealt with. Rest assured,”<br />
he said without even waiting for her<br />
reply.<br />
Nujoma also called a Windhoek Observer<br />
reporter a “comrade”.<br />
“Yes comrade,” he said to Brigitte<br />
Weidlich, as he gave her a chance to<br />
pose a question, but while she was still<br />
getting up, he asked: “Can I call you a<br />
comrade? Are you a comrade?”.<br />
When Weidlich stated that she was<br />
a journalist and not a Swapo member<br />
he nodded that she could continue.<br />
When The Namibian’s Christ<strong>of</strong><br />
Maletsky introduced himself, Nujoma<br />
questioned his nationality.<br />
“Maletsky? Are you a Namibian?”<br />
he asked. When the reporter stated that<br />
his great grandfather was a German<br />
soldier who came to Namibia in the<br />
1800s he abruptly said “continue”.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-03<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Namibian<br />
Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Namibian President Sam Nujoma has
NAMIBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
told the state broadcaster, the<br />
Namibian Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(NBC), to stop broadcasting foreign<br />
films and series that have a bad influence<br />
on Namibian youth.<br />
While addressing staff members at<br />
a meeting at the NBC <strong>of</strong>fices on the<br />
afternoon <strong>of</strong> 30 September 2002,<br />
Nujoma instructed the broadcaster to<br />
show films that portray Namibia in a<br />
positive light. The “bad” foreign movies,<br />
the president stated, should be replaced<br />
with locally made programmes<br />
and documentaries on Namibia’s<br />
wildlife and environment.<br />
Immediately after the president’s<br />
directive, the NBC changed its schedule<br />
and started showing local productions<br />
made several years ago.<br />
On August 27, President Nujoma<br />
took over the Information and Broadcasting<br />
Ministry, claiming it was a bid<br />
to tackle problems at the NBC, and<br />
promising to discipline NBC employees.<br />
At the time, MISA noted that the<br />
NBC, the Namibian Communications<br />
Commission (NCC) and the “New<br />
Era” newspaper (all government institutions)<br />
should be operating independently<br />
and in the public interest<br />
without government interference and<br />
control.<br />
The NBC is immersed in a financial<br />
crisis - reportedly triggered by a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> factors ranging from extensive<br />
foreign travel by some staff<br />
members, abuse <strong>of</strong> overtime claims,<br />
fuel card fraud and financial mismanagement.<br />
On March 11, the NBC<br />
board appointed a consulting firm,<br />
Executive Management Services, to<br />
design and implement performance<br />
and management contracts for the<br />
state broadcaster.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-101-0319<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Namibian<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
On November 17, 2002, the Namibia<br />
Food and Allied Workers’ Union<br />
(NAFAU) threatened to take “The<br />
Namibian” newspaper to court if the<br />
newspaper refused to divulge the<br />
names <strong>of</strong> its sources for a report which<br />
stated that NAFAU President Dawid<br />
Namalenga was under pressure to resign.<br />
On October 16, “The Namibian”<br />
reported that Namalenga was facing<br />
calls to resign as NAFAU leader after<br />
he joined the Roads Contractor<br />
Company (RCC) as human resources<br />
manager. Last month, workers at<br />
NAFAU branches in a number <strong>of</strong><br />
Namibian towns presented submissions<br />
to NAFAU Secretary General<br />
Cuana Angula opposing Namalenga’s<br />
continued presidency, arguing<br />
that it contradicted the union’s<br />
constitution.<br />
“The Namibian’s” journalist Max<br />
Hamata told MISA that Namibian<br />
politicians and union leaders have a<br />
poor understanding <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
speech and journalists’ need to protect<br />
their sources - one <strong>of</strong> the basic<br />
tenets <strong>of</strong> press freedom.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-101-0327<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Namibian,<br />
Die Republikein, Society <strong>of</strong> Advocates<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
Prosecutor General Hans Heyman has<br />
decided not to prosecute “The<br />
Namibian”, “Die Republikein” and<br />
So This Is Democracy? 97
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
the Society <strong>of</strong> Advocates on charges<br />
<strong>of</strong> contempt <strong>of</strong> court over statements<br />
made in connection with a controversial<br />
High Court case. The contempt<br />
charge was laid by Judge President<br />
Pio Teek in early 2001.<br />
On November 26, 2002, Prosecutor<br />
General Heyman announced that<br />
he had decided against prosecuting<br />
the two daily newspapers and the Society<br />
<strong>of</strong> Advocates. He has also decided<br />
not to prosecute Democratic<br />
Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) Youth<br />
League Secretary General Joseph<br />
Kauandenge on a similar charge.<br />
Heyman’s only explanation for his<br />
decision was that in his opinion there<br />
was no prima facie case against the<br />
newspapers, the Society <strong>of</strong> Advocates<br />
and Kauandenge.<br />
Judge Teek laid the complaint after<br />
the Society <strong>of</strong> Advocates issued a<br />
media statement on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Bar<br />
Council on 29 November 2000, while<br />
a hard-fought and divisive case about<br />
the planned deportation <strong>of</strong> the former<br />
representative <strong>of</strong> the National Union<br />
for the Total Independence <strong>of</strong> Angola<br />
(UNITA) in Namibia, Jose Domingos<br />
Sikunda, was still pending in the<br />
High Court.<br />
In the statement, issued under the<br />
name <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> Adovates’<br />
then vice-president Susan Vivier, the<br />
judge was sharply criticised for not<br />
directing the mMinister <strong>of</strong> hHome<br />
aAffairs to comply with a month-old<br />
High Court order for Sikunda’s immediate<br />
release.<br />
Both newspapers reported on the<br />
Society <strong>of</strong> Advocates’ media statement,<br />
and shortly afterwards published<br />
editorials commenting critically<br />
on the case and the judge’s refusal<br />
to ensure that the previous court<br />
98 So This Is Democracy?<br />
order for Sikunda’s release was carried<br />
out.<br />
Sikunda was eventually released<br />
after spending more than three<br />
months in detention despite the order<br />
for his release, and Home Affairs<br />
Minister Jerry Ekandjo was convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> contempt <strong>of</strong> court for not<br />
carrying out the initial order.<br />
Judge Teek had by then recused<br />
himself from the case, criticising the<br />
two newspapers and the Society <strong>of</strong><br />
Advocates for what he termed “the<br />
highest order <strong>of</strong> gross interference<br />
and intimidation in Namibian legal<br />
history” and “a blighted and scurrilous<br />
attack on my integrity as a<br />
judge.”<br />
He accused them <strong>of</strong> “a deliberate<br />
assault on and threat to” not only his<br />
independence, dignity and effectiveness<br />
as a judge, but that <strong>of</strong> the entire<br />
judiciary <strong>of</strong> Namibia.<br />
Deputy Prosecutor General<br />
Herman January added that a decision<br />
on whether to prosecute a similar<br />
charge laid after the South West<br />
<strong>Africa</strong> People’s Organization<br />
(SWAPO) Youth League demonstrated<br />
on the steps <strong>of</strong> the High Court<br />
in February 2001 - shortly before<br />
Ekandjo was found guilty <strong>of</strong> contempt<br />
<strong>of</strong> court - has not been taken<br />
yet.<br />
The completed police docket on<br />
that complaint still has to be forwarded<br />
to the Prosecutor General’s<br />
Office, January indicated. He and<br />
Heyman further indicated that they<br />
have received information that a<br />
similar complaint is being investigated<br />
against the Law Society <strong>of</strong><br />
Namibia, but no docket has been received<br />
by the Prosecutor General’s<br />
Office on that case either.
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
By William Gumede and Goodman Chauke<br />
Gumede is Chairperson <strong>of</strong> MISA-SA. Chauke is the MISA-SA’s <strong>Media</strong> Officer.<br />
The South <strong>Africa</strong>n media had a rough time in 2002. The media <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
came under severe fire from politicians and government <strong>of</strong>ficials ac<br />
cusing it <strong>of</strong> being “unpatriotic”. Former South <strong>Africa</strong>n President Nelson<br />
Mandela encapsulated this sentiment when he spoke on the popular Tim<br />
Modise radio talk show in April. He accused the media <strong>of</strong> being unpatriotic<br />
by focussing too much on crime in their reporting and not appreciating what<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong> had achieved. He also argued that the kind <strong>of</strong> reporting coming<br />
out <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong> had caused investment flight.<br />
The independence <strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)<br />
was a big issue. The public broadcaster was plunged into controversy when<br />
Barney Mthombothi, its chief executive for news resigned on July 3.<br />
Mthombothi, one <strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>’s most respected journalists, had a reputation<br />
for independence.<br />
The SABC’s board and its chief executive were quick to quash speculation<br />
that Mthombothi fell out with senior ruling <strong>Africa</strong>n National Congress government<br />
leaders and the management <strong>of</strong> the broadcaster who were allegedly<br />
“unhappy” about his editorial decisions. Although Mthombothi declined to<br />
discuss the reasons for his departure, sources within the broadcaster said the<br />
“last straw” was Mthombothi’s sanctioning <strong>of</strong> the showing <strong>of</strong> an unedited<br />
video exposing corruption at Bloemfontein’s Grootvlei prison.<br />
The controversy around Mthombothi’s departure had hardly died down when<br />
the Congress <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong>n Trade Unions (Cosatu), the largest trade union<br />
federation in the country, marched on the SABC on September 24 urging the<br />
“speeding up <strong>of</strong> transformation” at the public broadcaster. Cosatu was aggrieved<br />
at the SABC’s alleged bias against “blacks, the poor and the working<br />
class”. The trade union federation also complained that the SABC has “done<br />
nothing” to promote minority languages in the country. Cosatu spokesperson<br />
Vukani Mde said the SABC was under the control <strong>of</strong> business interests.<br />
However, probably the fiercest debate around the independence <strong>of</strong> the SABC<br />
was sparked by the introduction <strong>of</strong> the controversial Broadcasting Amendment<br />
Bill by Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri in July. The<br />
bill stipulated that the SABC board should fall under the direct control <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Communications, sparking fears among media organisations that<br />
the SABC would lose its independence. The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
[MISA-SA] strongly argued for the need and importance <strong>of</strong> an independ-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 99
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ent SABC in democratic South <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
A last-minute amendment to the controversial Broadcasting Amendment Bill<br />
appeared to have lessened fears <strong>of</strong> government control <strong>of</strong> the SA Broadcasting<br />
Corporation and prevented a threatened Constitutional Court challenged<br />
by opposition parties and media freedom organisations. In terms <strong>of</strong> the amendment,<br />
which was introduced on October 16, the SABC board will fall under<br />
the control <strong>of</strong> the Independent Communications Authority <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
(ICASA), and not the Minister <strong>of</strong> Communications as originally proposed.<br />
The SABC Board will have to submit its policies on broadcasting, which<br />
include news editorial policy to Icasa. The SABC’s policies would have to<br />
comply with Icasa’s code <strong>of</strong> conduct, and the licensing provisions imposed<br />
by the regulator. In addition, before the SABC’s Board finalised these policies,<br />
it would ensure public participation in the policy-making process.<br />
Parliament’s Communications Committee chair, and ANC MP, Nat Kekana<br />
remarked on the amended bill: “They (the legislators) have created a clause<br />
that expands on the charter <strong>of</strong> the corporation that will guarantee independence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the SABC, freedom <strong>of</strong> speech and journalistic integrity”.<br />
Moving away, from the SABC, there was number <strong>of</strong> other cases involving<br />
government interference in the work <strong>of</strong> journalists. The department <strong>of</strong> Social<br />
Services and Population Development requested Thuli Nhlapo, a journalist<br />
to from The Star newspaper to testify at their disciplinary hearing on<br />
September 3. Nhlapo had reported that a receptionist in the department neglected<br />
his duties by closing his <strong>of</strong>fice earlier than usual. The newspaper<br />
refused to have its journalist testify, as it would set a bad precedent.<br />
The country saw a heated debate over “tokenism” in the South <strong>Africa</strong>n media.<br />
The debate was sparked by the firing <strong>of</strong> former Pace magazine editor Kuli<br />
Roberts in January 2003. Roberts told the Sowetan newspaper she was not<br />
prepared to be “just a beautiful black face”, as she claimed her employer,<br />
Caxton publishers, wanted her to be. She said that although she was editor she<br />
was forced to report to a junior white manager, who was still on probation.<br />
2002<br />
Caxton, which owns a number <strong>of</strong> publications in South <strong>Africa</strong>, including,<br />
Pace and The Citizen newspaper, denied Roberts’ allegations. However, the<br />
matter stayed in the public domain for quite a while. South <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Editors Forum (Sanef) chairperson, Mathatha Tsedu, said Caxton, as a company,<br />
was not used to editors who have overall authority. He cited the example<br />
<strong>of</strong> how Tim du Plessis, then editor <strong>of</strong> The Citizen (now editor <strong>of</strong> Rapport),<br />
was fired after he refused to be a “token” editor, dutifully carrying out<br />
the instructions <strong>of</strong> the publishers without editorial control. Their (Caxton’s)<br />
approach <strong>of</strong> having a black face and a white male running the show smacks<br />
<strong>of</strong> the old SABC where you had a lot <strong>of</strong> blacks working there under the<br />
100 So This Is Democracy?
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
supervision <strong>of</strong> whites, Tsedu said.<br />
Violence against journalists remained all too common. The year saw a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> rural journalists being intimidated or physically assaulted for their reporting.<br />
Four journalists with <strong>Africa</strong>n Eye News Services (AENS), a rural news<br />
agency, were assaulted or intimated in separate incidents in Nelspruit, the<br />
provincial capital <strong>of</strong> Mpumalanga, over a nine-month period.<br />
The incidents prompted MISA to call for police protection for the journalists.<br />
“Rural journalists already work under far more difficult conditions then their<br />
metropolitan counterparts. They also enjoy significantly less institutional support,<br />
which makes it all the more important that effective societal safeguards,<br />
such as police protection, are in place,” MISA said in a statement.<br />
The Johannesburg <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n Press Association (Sapa), the<br />
country’s news agency, was robbed bringing its editorial operations to a complete<br />
halt. Five men, one <strong>of</strong> them armed with a pistol, forced their way into<br />
the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the news agency, tied up one <strong>of</strong> the reporters and then stole vital<br />
equipment in the newsroom.<br />
On a more positive note, the Mail&Guardian scored an important victory in a<br />
R3m defamation suit Housing Minister Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele filed<br />
against the newspaper. The court ruled on September 27 that a cabinet minister<br />
should not have the standing to sue for defamation, where she was being<br />
criticised in relation to the execution <strong>of</strong> her function as a minister. The newspaper<br />
had published an evaluation <strong>of</strong> the minister’s performance in December<br />
1998, which said she “cannot deliver in a key Ministry”.<br />
However, more negatively, a simmering battle between Parliament and the<br />
parliamentary correspondents burst into the open when the Speaker <strong>of</strong> Parliament<br />
Frene Ginwala told the Press Gallery in early January 2003 that they<br />
will be moved to new premises, outside the confines <strong>of</strong> parliament. Ginwala<br />
said the legislature wanted the media out to make way for parliamentary staff<br />
that will translate proceedings into all the <strong>of</strong>ficial languages.<br />
MISA-SA then called on all editors, publishers and owners <strong>of</strong> the media to<br />
oppose this arbitrary action. “The original decision to house journalists in<br />
parliament was to give them the freedom and facilities to carry out their duties.<br />
By removing them to another site, it must be equally obvious that their<br />
effectiveness will be seriously reduced,” MISA said in a statement.<br />
The organisation reminded parliament <strong>of</strong> the Minister in the Presidency, Essop<br />
Pahad’s speech on June 12. He said “those who take the trouble to elect parties<br />
and their representatives to parliament are entitled to know what these<br />
representatives are doing and saying, how they behave, and how they approach<br />
the many issues that confront the nation. Parliament is not an exclu-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 101
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
sive social club, but an open forum for the whole nation.” He added: “It is up<br />
to parliament to ensure maximum access and proper facilities to journalists so<br />
that they can do their job.” The issue has not been resolved.<br />
A huge step was taken towards promoting greater diversity in the South <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
media when the <strong>Media</strong> Diversity and Development Agency (MDDA) was<br />
finally constituted late last year. South <strong>Africa</strong>’s struggling community media<br />
first mooted such an agency in 1995 at a conference <strong>of</strong> the National Community<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Forum. Cabinet adopted a recommendation in 1996, that government<br />
should “facilitate the process <strong>of</strong> setting up a statutory recognised media<br />
development agency that will operate a statutory recognised subsidy system<br />
for community and independent media in SA”.<br />
The MDDA board consisted <strong>of</strong> six members nominated publicly and appointed<br />
through a parliamentary process. Their other members were directly appointed<br />
by the President taking into account the funding <strong>of</strong> the Agency, and include<br />
one from the commercial print and one from the commercial broadcast media<br />
sector. The board is chaired by Khanyi Mkonza, the former National Community<br />
Radio Forum chairperson. The MDDA, funded by the government and<br />
the private sector, will encourage media diversity by providing support and<br />
subsidies to community and independent media. It is a partnership between<br />
the government, the media industry and donors to work together to redress<br />
the legacy <strong>of</strong> imbalances in access to the media.<br />
Funding commitments as <strong>of</strong> last year June, from government and industry,<br />
amounted to just over R40m per annum. There will be further material support<br />
such as training, access to print and distribution facilities or subsidies<br />
and discounts that the MDDA will be seeking for developing small media.<br />
The Agency is required to be demonstrably independent, its board be impartial<br />
and to act “without fear, favour or prejudice and without any political or<br />
commercial interference.”<br />
However, there has been great concern at the fact that the public process in<br />
appointing MDDA board members was done in a hurry and shrouded in such<br />
secrecy. The result was that many independent and community organisations<br />
did not have enough time to nominate potential board members.<br />
Moreover, the board has very few members who came from the independent<br />
or community media (except for the chairperson, members).<br />
2002<br />
The South <strong>Africa</strong>n print media underwent dramatic changes. Zimbabwean<br />
publisher, Trevor Ncube bought the majority stake <strong>of</strong> the independent<br />
Mail&Guardian newspaper, from the Guardian in London. Ncube’s decision<br />
shook the SA media industry, used to European or Northern American foreign<br />
media ownership in SA media.<br />
102 So This Is Democracy?
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
The SA media industry had just recovered from the shock when Nigerianbased<br />
ThisDay newspaper announced that they will be launching a daily newspaper<br />
in 2003 in SA. The big question now is whether ThisDay will be sustainable<br />
in a country with fierce newspaper competition and where the major<br />
distribution and printing networks are in the hands <strong>of</strong> a few monopolies. Advertisers<br />
are also notoriously fickle, with many black-owned local industry<br />
players still complaining that the predominantly white advertising industry<br />
shuns black titles.<br />
Public hearings into the marketing and advertising industry conducted by<br />
Parliament’s communications committee and held in November 2002, heard<br />
that the marketing and advertising industry is still predominantly white-orientated<br />
and focused.<br />
The media industry acted with alarm when it was discovered that a littlenoticed<br />
feature <strong>of</strong> the Promotion <strong>of</strong> Access to Information Act could threaten<br />
press freedom - specifically the identity <strong>of</strong> sources who request to be unnamed<br />
- by opening the door for people to demand reporters’ notes and other<br />
written information. The Act came into force at the end <strong>of</strong> 2001, but questions<br />
have been raised in November 2002, whether through the Act a victim <strong>of</strong><br />
crime would be entitled to demand information held by the media. At issue is<br />
the public’s right to know versus the journalists’ need to protect their sources<br />
as a basic tenet <strong>of</strong> press freedom and to protect the physical safety <strong>of</strong> sources.<br />
The relevant section <strong>of</strong> the Act has yet to be tested in court.<br />
Hate speech versus artistic freedom was another issue that raised tempers. In<br />
mid-2002, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
(BCCSA) received a complaint from the Human Rights Commission (HRC)<br />
about a song called Amandiya by Mbongeni Ngema, suggesting that the song<br />
promoted hate speech. Ngema said the song was composed with the intention<br />
<strong>of</strong> highlighting alleged deep-seated problems between Zulu people and Indians<br />
in KwaZulu Natal. However, many people believed the song only sowed<br />
hatred in a country still struggling to recover from its racist past. The song<br />
was eventually banned from the airwaves. Ngema was persuaded, by prominent<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>ns, including former President Nelson Mandela to withdraw<br />
the song from the airwaves. However, MISA believed the Ngema was within<br />
his constitutional rights to use his artistic expression to highlight a serious<br />
deficiency in society.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 103
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
África do Sul<br />
Por William Gumede e Goodman Chauke<br />
Gumede é o presidente do MISA-AS. Chauke é o Encarregado da Comunicação<br />
Social do MISA-AS.<br />
Acomunicação social passou por um período muito difícil em 2002. A<br />
comunicação social enfrentou muitas vezes fogo cerrado por parte<br />
dos políticos e funcionários governamentais que a acusavam de ser<br />
antipatriota. O anterior Presidente Sul <strong>Africa</strong>no, Nelson Mandela, sumariou<br />
este sentimento quando foi convidado pelo popular programa de rádio de<br />
Tim Modise em Abril. Mandela acusou a comunicação social de ser antipatriota<br />
por focar muito do seu espaço e da sua atenção no crime, não reconhecendo o<br />
que a África do Sul tinha já alcançado. Defendeu ainda a posição de que o<br />
tipo de informação que saía da África do Sul era responsável pela saída do<br />
investimento do país.<br />
A independência da Corporação de Radiodifusão da África do Sul (SABC) foi<br />
também um assunto muito importante. A estação pública foi envolvida em<br />
controvérsia quando Barney Mthombothi, o seu Chefe Executivo para as Notícias<br />
pediu a demissão no dia 3 de Julho. Mthombothi, um dos mais respeitados<br />
jornalistas da África do Sul, tinha uma reputação de ser independente.<br />
O Conselho de Administração da SABC e o seu Chefe Executivo, foram muito<br />
rápidos em sufocar especulações de que Mthombothi tinha caído em desgraça<br />
com os líderes mais importantes do Congresso Nacional <strong>Africa</strong>no no governo<br />
e com a direcção da estação que, de acordo com os rumores, estavam “infelizes”<br />
com as decisões editoriais de Mthombothi . Apesar de Mthombothi ter recusado<br />
a discutir as razões para a sua saída da SABC, contactos dentro da estação<br />
disseram que a última “gota” tinha sido a autorização concedida por<br />
Mthombothi, da transmissão de um vídeo sem ser editado, que expunha a<br />
corrupção na prisão de Grootvlei, em Bloemfontein.<br />
Ainda a controvérsia em redor da saída de Mthombothi da SABC não tinha<br />
morrido completamente, quando em 24 de Setembro, o Congresso dos Sindicatos<br />
da África do Sul (Cosatu), a maior federação sindical no país, organizou uma<br />
marcha contra a estação reivindicando uma “ transformação mais acelerada” na<br />
estação pública.<br />
2002<br />
A Cosatu estava indignada pela alegada predisposição da SABC contra os<br />
“negros, os pobres e a classe trabalhadora”. A federação sindical também se<br />
queixou pelo facto da SABC “nada ter feito” para promover as línguas das<br />
minorias no país. Um porta voz da Cosatu, Vukani Mde, disse que a SABC<br />
estava sob o controlo dos interesses das grandes companhias.<br />
104 So This Is Democracy?
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Contudo, o mais intenso debate em redor da independência da SABC foi criado<br />
pelo controverso projecto de alteração da lei da Radiodifusão apresentado em<br />
Julho, pela Ministra das Comunicações Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri. O projecto<br />
estipulava que o Conselho de Administração da SABC devia estar sob o<br />
controlo directo do Ministro das Comunicações, o que fez levantar sérios<br />
receios, entre os meios de comunicação social, de que a SABC iria perder a<br />
sua independência. O Instituto da Comunicação Social da África Austral<br />
(MISA-SA) defendeu veementemente a necessidade e a importância de uma<br />
SABC independente numa África do Sul democrática.<br />
Uma alteração de última hora ao controverso Projecto de Alteração da Lei<br />
Radiodifusão parece ter feito diminuir os receios de que o governo iria controlar<br />
a SABC e evitou com que uma ameaça de uma acção no Tribunal<br />
Constitucional contra o governo, feita pelos partidos da oposição e por<br />
organizações para a liberdade da comunicação social, fosse levada por diante.<br />
Nos termos do projecto de alteração, que foi apresentado ao Parlamento, em<br />
16 de Outubro, o Conselho de Administração da SABC estará debaixo do<br />
controlo da Autoridade Independente das Comunicações da África do Sul<br />
(ICASA) e não da Ministra das Comunicações como proposto originalmente.<br />
O Conselho de Administração da SABC terá que submeter as suas políticas<br />
sobre a radiodifusão, o que inclui a política editorial de notícias à ICASA. As<br />
políticas da SABC têm que estar em conformidade com o código de conduta<br />
da ICASA bem como com as cláusulas de licença impostas pelo regulador.<br />
Para além disso, antes do Conselho de Administração da SABC finalizar estas<br />
políticas, teria que garantir a participação pública no processo de preparação<br />
de tais políticas.<br />
O Presidente da Comissão de Comunicações do Parlamento e Deputado pelo<br />
ANC, Nat Kekana, referiu-se ao projecto de alteração de lei nos seguintes<br />
termos: “Eles (os legisladores) criaram uma cláusula que alarga a carta da<br />
corporação de radiodifusão garantindo a independência, a liberdade de<br />
expressão e a integridade jornalística da SABC.”<br />
Para além da SABC houve ainda vários outros casos envolvendo a interferência<br />
governamental no trabalho dos jornalistas. Em 3 de Setembro, o Ministério<br />
dos Serviços Sociais e Desenvolvimento Populacional, pediu a Thuli Nhlapo,<br />
um jornalista do The Star para prestar declarações numa sessão de<br />
interrogatório de testemunhas organizada pelo Ministério. Nhlapo tinha escrito<br />
um artigo onde dizia que uma recepcionista do Ministério tinha demonstrado<br />
negligência por ter encerrado os seus escritórios mais cedo do que o habitual.<br />
O jornal recusou-se a autorizar que o seu jornalista fosse prestar declarações,<br />
uma vez que tal situação criaria um péssimo precedente.<br />
O país assistiu também a um acalorado debate sobre “aparências” na<br />
So This Is Democracy? 105
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
comunicação social Sul <strong>Africa</strong>na . O debate foi causado pelo despedimento<br />
da antiga Editora da revista Pace, Kuli Roberts, em Janeiro de 2003. Kuli<br />
Roberts disse ao jornal Sowetan que não estava preparada para ser apenas<br />
“uma cara negra bonita”, como ela afirmou que a sua entidade patronal , a<br />
editora Caxton, pretendia que ela fosse. Disse também que apesar de ser ela a<br />
chefe da redacção, via-se forçada a responder perante um gestor júnior, de<br />
raça branca, que estava ainda a estagiar.<br />
A Caxton, que é proprietária de várias publicações na África do Sul, incluindo<br />
a revista Pace e o jornal The Citizen, desmentiu as alegações de Kuli Roberts.<br />
Contudo, o assunto manteve-se no domínio público durante bastante tempo.<br />
O Presidente do Fórum Nacional dos Editores Sul <strong>Africa</strong>nos, (Sanef), Mathatha<br />
Tsedu, disse que a Caxton, como companhia, não estava habituada a ter editores<br />
ou chefes de redacção com a autoridade geral. Citou o exemplo de como Tim<br />
du Plessis, então Editor do The Citizen (e presentemente editor do jornal em<br />
Afrikaans Rapport), foi despedido depois de se ter recusado a ser um editor<br />
de “fachada”, cumprindo escrupulosamente as instruções da editora e sem<br />
qualquer controlo editorial sobre o jornal. A sua (da Caxton) abordagem de<br />
ter uma cara negra e um homem branco a controlar o trabalho faz lembrar a<br />
velha SABC onde havia muitos negros a trabalhar sob a supervisão de brancos,<br />
disse Tsedu.<br />
A violência contra jornalistas foi também muito comum. O ano testemunhou<br />
vários jornalistas rurais a serem intimidados ou fisicamente agredidos devido<br />
às suas reportagens. Quatro jornalistas que trabalham para a agência de notícias<br />
rural <strong>Africa</strong>n Eye News Services (AENS), durante um período de nove meses,<br />
foram agredidos ou intimidados em incidentes separados em Nelspruit, a capital<br />
provincial de Mpumalanga, no Nordeste da África do Sul.<br />
Os incidentes levaram o MISA a pedir a protecção policial para os jornalistas.<br />
“Os jornalistas rurais, já de si, trabalham sob condições muito mais difíceis<br />
que os seus colegas nas cidades. Por outro lado têm um apoio institucional<br />
significativamente muito mais pequeno o que faz com que se torne muito<br />
mais importante que sejam dadas garantias efectivas da sociedade, como a<br />
protecção policial,” disse o MISA num comunicado.<br />
Os escritórios de Joanesburgo da Associação de Imprensa da África do Sul,<br />
(Sapa), a agência de notícias do país, foi assaltada o que fez com que toda a<br />
sua operação editorial fosse totalmente interrompida. Cinco homens, um deles<br />
armado com uma pistola, forçaram a entrada nos escritórios da agência<br />
noticiosa, amarraram um dos repórteres e roubaram equipamento vital à<br />
redacção da agência.<br />
2002<br />
Numa nota mais positiva, o semanário Mail & Guardian conseguiu uma<br />
importante vitória numa acção judicial com uma compensação de três milhões<br />
106 So This Is Democracy?
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
de Randes por difamação intentado contra o jornal pela Ministra da Habitação<br />
Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele. Em 27 de Setembro, o tribunal decidiu que<br />
nenhum ministro no Governo tinha o direito de intentar uma acção por<br />
difamação, quando estava a ser criticado em relação à execução da sua função<br />
como ministro. O semanário tinha publicado uma avaliação do trabalho da<br />
ministra em Dezembro de 1998, onde afirmou que “não conseguia fazer o seu<br />
trabalho num ministério considerado como chave”.<br />
Contudo, numa nota mais negativa, uma batalha que se vinha desenvolvendo<br />
com baixa intensidade entre o Parlamento e os correspondentes parlamentares,<br />
veio a público quando a Presidente do Parlamento, Frene Ginwala, informou<br />
o grupo de jornalistas parlamentares no princípio de Janeiro de 2003, que iam<br />
mudar para novas instalações, fora das instalações do Parlamento. Frene<br />
Ginwala disse que a legislatura queria que a comunicação social saísse para<br />
ter mais espaço para os intérpretes que iriam traduzir os trabalhos em todas as<br />
línguas <strong>of</strong>iciais.<br />
O MISA-AS apelou então a todos os editores, editoras e proprietários dos<br />
meios de comunicação social para se oporem a esta acção arbitrária. “A decisão<br />
original de dar aos jornalistas instalações no Parlamento teve como base darlhes<br />
a liberdade e as instalações para que pudessem desempenhar as suas<br />
funções. Ao mudá-los para outro local, torna-se óbvio que a sua efectividade<br />
será gravemente reduzida”, disse o MISA num comunicado.<br />
A organização recordou ao Parlamento o discurso que o Ministro na<br />
Presidência, Essop Pahad, fez em 12 de Junho. Ele disse “aqueles que se<br />
preocupam em eleger partidos e os seus representantes para o Parlamento têm<br />
o direito de saber o que estes representantes estão a fazer e a dizer, como se<br />
comportam, e como abordam os vários assuntos que a nação enfrenta. O<br />
Parlamento não é um clube social exclusivo, mas antes um fórum aberto a<br />
toda a nação.” Disse ainda: “É da responsabilidade do parlamento assegurar o<br />
máximo acesso e instalações condignas aos jornalistas para que eles possam<br />
desempenhar as suas funções.” O assunto ainda não está resolvido.<br />
Um enorme passo em frente foi dado no sentido de promover uma maior<br />
diversidade na comunicação social sul africana quando a Agência para a<br />
Diversidade e Desenvolvimento da Comunicação Social (MDDA) foi<br />
finalmente constituída o ano passado. A comunicação social comunitária da<br />
África do Sul que enfrenta dificuldades, falou pela primeira vez nessa agência<br />
em 1995, numa conferência do Fórum Nacional da Comunicação Social<br />
Comunitária. Em 1996, o Gabinete adoptou uma recomendação para o governo<br />
“facilitar o processo de criação de uma agência estatutária de desenvolvimento<br />
da comunicação social reconhecida, que operasse um sistema de subsídio<br />
estatutário que fosse reconhecido para a comunicação social comunitária e<br />
independente na África do Sul”.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 107
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
O Conselho de Administração da MDDA consiste de seis membros nomeados<br />
publicamente e designados por um processo parlamentar. Os seus outros<br />
membros são directamente nomeados pelo Presidente, tendo em consideração<br />
o financiamento da Agência e incluindo um representante para o sector da<br />
imprensa comercial e outro para o sector da radiodifusão comercial. O<br />
Conselho é presidido por Khanyi Mkonza, o anterior Presidente do Fórum<br />
Nacional da Rádio Comunitária. A MDDA, financiada pelo governo e pelo<br />
sector privado, encoraja a diversidade dos meios de comunicação social,<br />
proporcionando apoio e subsídios à comunicação social comunitária e<br />
independente. Trata-se de uma parceria entre o governo, a indústria da<br />
comunicação social e doadores que trabalham conjuntamente para reparar a<br />
herança de desigualdades no acesso à comunicação social.<br />
Promessas de financiamento tanto do governo como da indústria até Junho de<br />
2002, atinge pouco mais de 40 milhões de Randes por ano. Haverá ainda mais<br />
apoio material como formação, acesso a instalações impressoras e de<br />
distribuição ou subsídios e descontos que a MDDA procurará para desenvolver<br />
os pequenos meios de comunicação social. A Agência tem por obrigação ser<br />
claramente independente, o seu conselho de administração ser imparcial e<br />
actuar “sem receios, sem favores, sem ideias preconcebidas e sem qualquer<br />
interferência política ou comercial.”<br />
Contudo, tem havido uma grande preocupação em relação ao facto do processo<br />
público de nomeação os membros do Conselho de Administração da MDDA<br />
ter sido feito rapidamente e envolvido em segredo. O resultado foi que muitas<br />
organizações comunitárias e independentes não tiveram o tempo suficiente<br />
para sugerirem os potenciais membros do Conselho de Administração..<br />
Mais do que isso, o Conselho de Administração tem muito poucos membros<br />
que vieram da comunicação social comunitária ou independente (com excepção<br />
dos membros nomeados pelo presidente).<br />
A comunicação social escrita Sul <strong>Africa</strong>na foi sujeita a alterações dramáticas.<br />
O dono duma editora do Zimbabwe, Trevor Ncube, comprou a parte majoritária<br />
do semanário independente Mail & Guardian que pertencia ao Guardian de<br />
Londres. A decisão de Ncube estremeceu a indústria da comunicação social<br />
escrita da África do Sul, habituada ao facto da propriedade da imprensa Sul<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>na nas mãos de estrangeiros, pertencer a empresários europeus e norte<br />
americanos.<br />
2002<br />
Mas a imprensa sul africana estava a acabar de se recuperar do choque quando<br />
o jornal baseado na Nigéria ThisDay, anunciou que iria lançar um jornal diário<br />
na África do Sul ainda durante o ano de 2003. A grande incógnita,<br />
presentemente, é se ThisDay será ou não sustentável, num país com uma<br />
competição muito intensa entre jornais e onde a principal distribuição e redes<br />
108 So This Is Democracy?
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
de impressão estão nas mãos de alguns monopólios apenas. Os patrocinadores<br />
são também notoriamente inconstantes, com muitos empresários negros<br />
proprietários na indústria local da comunicação social a queixarem-se de que<br />
a indústria de publicidade predominantemente nas mãos de brancos, evita a<br />
colocação de publicidade em jornais predominantemente para negros.<br />
Em Novembro de 2002, foi dito nas audições públicas sobre a indústria de<br />
marketing e de publicidade, conduzidas pela Comissão de Comunicações do<br />
Parlamento, que a indústria de marketing e de publicidade ainda era orientada<br />
e focada, predominantemente, para a população branca.<br />
A indústria da comunicação social actuou com grande preocupação quando<br />
foi descoberto que um aspecto pouco notado da Lei de Promoção de Acesso à<br />
Informação podia ameaçar a liberdade de imprensa – especialmente a<br />
identidade das fontes de informação que pedem para não serem identificadas<br />
– abrindo a porta a pessoas que quisessem exigir as notas escritas dos repórteres<br />
e outra informação escrita. A lei entrou em vigor no final de 2001 mas, questões<br />
foram levantadas em Novembro de 2002, sobre se, de acordo com a lei, uma<br />
vítima de crime tinha o direito de exigir informação guardada pela comunicação<br />
social. Em causa está o direito do público saber, frente à necessidade do<br />
jornalista proteger as suas fontes como um princípio básico da liberdade de<br />
imprensa e de proteger também a segurança física das fontes. A secção relevante<br />
da Lei ainda vai ser testada no tribunal.<br />
O discurso do ódio frente à liberdade artística, foi outra questão que aqueceu<br />
os ânimos. Em meados de 2002, a Comissão de Queixas contra a Radiodifusão<br />
da África do Sul, (BCCSA), recebeu uma queixa da Comissão dos Direitos<br />
Humanos (HRC) sobre uma canção chamada Amandiya por Mbongeni Ngema,<br />
sugerindo que a canção promovia o discurso do ódio. Ngema disse que a<br />
canção tinha sido composta com a intenção de sublinhar alegados problemas<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>undos no KwaZulu Natal, entre os Zulus e os Indianos. Contudo, muitas<br />
pessoas acreditavam que a canção criava o ódio num país que estava ainda a<br />
desenvolver esforços para se recuperar do seu passado racista. Eventualmente<br />
a transmissão canção foi proibida. Ngema foi persuadido por proeminentes<br />
Sul <strong>Africa</strong>nos, incluindo o ex Presidente Nelson Mandela, a retirar a canção<br />
das estações. Contudo, o MISA acredita que Ngema está no seu direito<br />
constitucional de utilizar a sua expressão artística para sublinhar uma<br />
deficiência séria na sociedade.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 109
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-29<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Mail and<br />
Guardian<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened,<br />
legislation<br />
The new vice chancellor <strong>of</strong> the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong> (Unisa) and<br />
former chairperson <strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
Human Rights Commission,<br />
Barney Pityana, who oversaw the<br />
hearings into racism in the media,<br />
has accused the “Mail and Guardian”<br />
newspaper <strong>of</strong> racism and is<br />
threatening to take it to court for<br />
defamation.<br />
In the May 24, 2002, issue <strong>of</strong> the<br />
“Mail and Guardian”, it was reported<br />
that extravagant spending has wiped<br />
out hard-won financial gains at Unisa.<br />
According to the newspaper, Unisa<br />
is spending millions <strong>of</strong> rands on<br />
Pityana’s accommodation in a stately<br />
historic mansion in Pretoria, which is<br />
to be renovated at the cost <strong>of</strong> about<br />
R2-million (approx. US$204 600).<br />
The university had just sold the property<br />
at the time Pityana arrived and<br />
had to pay R1.7-million (approx.<br />
US$173,900) to extricate itself from<br />
the sale. The newspaper also reported<br />
that refurbishment <strong>of</strong> Pityana’s <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
on campus will cost the university<br />
another R1.5-million (approx.<br />
US$153,400).<br />
The newspaper made further allegations<br />
that the university management<br />
and council team organised a trip<br />
to Mauritius, where Pityana and council<br />
chairperson McCaps Motimele<br />
travelled first-class. It also alleges that<br />
the university spent more than R200<br />
000 (approx. US$20 500) on Pityana’s<br />
inauguration ceremony in early 2002.<br />
110 So This Is Democracy?<br />
On Tuesday May 28, Pityana denied<br />
the “Mail and Guardian”’s claims<br />
that he was squandering university<br />
funds, saying the report was part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
racist campaign to discredit him and<br />
other black university leaders.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-19<br />
PERSON(S): Sabelo Ndlangisa<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
On 19 September 19, 2002, Sina<br />
Sebetha, an Edenvale traffic <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
in Gauteng province, threatened<br />
“Sunday Times” journalist Sabelo<br />
Ndlangisa. She told the journalist she<br />
would make him “vanish if he did not<br />
leave her alone.”<br />
Sebetha called the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the<br />
“Sunday Times” and left a recorded<br />
message: “You! You will vanish.<br />
They’ll look all over for and won’t<br />
find you. If you want to do the right<br />
thing, stay out <strong>of</strong> other people’s business.<br />
We will finish you <strong>of</strong>f.”<br />
The threat followed a report in the<br />
Metro section <strong>of</strong> the “Sunday<br />
Times”’s September 15 edition, entitled:<br />
“Traffic cop who asked for a<br />
bribe is still in job”. Sebetha admitted<br />
to making the threatening call but<br />
said she did it out <strong>of</strong> anger.<br />
The newspaper also reported that<br />
Ekurhuleni Mayor Duma Nkonsi<br />
quickly distanced the council from<br />
Sebetha’s threats, stating they were<br />
not acceptable and unfortunate.<br />
MISA’s South <strong>Africa</strong>n chapter regards<br />
this as a direct violation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
journalist’s right to report freely. Such<br />
threats should not be encouraged<br />
within a democratic country such as<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>, which guarantees media<br />
freedom.
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-02<br />
PERSON(S): Mail & Guardian<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
The “Mail & Guardian” newspaper<br />
has scored an important victory in a<br />
R3 million (approx. US$288 000)<br />
defamation suit filed by South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Housing Minister Sankie Mthembi-<br />
Mahanyele against the newspaper. On<br />
September 27, 2002, the court ruled<br />
that a cabinet minister should not have<br />
the standing to sue for defamation<br />
when criticised in relation to the execution<br />
<strong>of</strong> her function as a minister.<br />
The minister launched the suit following<br />
the newspaper’s publication <strong>of</strong><br />
a report in December 1998 evaluating<br />
ministers’ performances. The report<br />
was critical <strong>of</strong> Mthembi-Mahanyele’s<br />
actions at the time. It said she had<br />
“shown she cannot deliver in a key<br />
ministry”, and criticised her for allegedly<br />
awarding a massive housing contract<br />
to a close friend.<br />
The court held that government ministers<br />
could not sue for defamation. It<br />
said parliamentarians had a platform<br />
in the National Assembly, where they<br />
had a privilege and were protected<br />
from legal action for whatever they<br />
said.<br />
The court also suggested the president<br />
could establish a commission <strong>of</strong><br />
inquiry to investigate the factual correctness<br />
<strong>of</strong> the newspaper’s statements<br />
if he so wished. However, the court<br />
also said that the ruling did not signify<br />
that media could tarnish the reputation<br />
<strong>of</strong> cabinet ministers, specifying that<br />
there were other remedies that could<br />
preclude the media from attacking<br />
ministers’ reputations.<br />
A daily newspaper quoted Mthembi-<br />
Mahanyele’s lawyer as commenting,<br />
in response to the ruling, “The effect<br />
<strong>of</strong> that ruling is that no cabinet minister<br />
can ever dream <strong>of</strong> instituting a defamation<br />
suit against anyone. And it<br />
doesn’t matter how libelous the statement<br />
is that has been published.”<br />
Howard Barrel, the outgoing “Mail<br />
& Guardian” editor, told MISA-South<br />
<strong>Africa</strong> that the case has an interesting<br />
effect. “Basically, the judge recalled<br />
that readers <strong>of</strong> the ‘M&G’ tended to<br />
read many other newspapers; this<br />
means by the time they read the alleged<br />
defamatory statement, they had already<br />
read numerous other highly unfavourable<br />
reports about the Minister.<br />
This in turn means that the ‘M&G’ article<br />
did not reduce any further the<br />
reputation <strong>of</strong> the Minister.”<br />
Housing Minister Mthembi-<br />
Mahanyele launched a defamation action<br />
against the “Mail & Guardian” in<br />
the Johannesburg High Court on October<br />
11, 2001, in response to how she<br />
fared in the newspaper’s 1998 cabinet<br />
“report card”.<br />
The report card, which gave<br />
Mthembi-Mahanyele an “F”, claimed<br />
that a controversial housing affair and<br />
her sacking <strong>of</strong> former director general<br />
Billy Cobbett haunted her, the “Mail<br />
& Guardian” reported on October 12,<br />
2001.<br />
With little recent case law in South<br />
<strong>Africa</strong> on this issue, the trial has set an<br />
important precedent.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-25<br />
PERSON(S): South <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting<br />
Corporation’s (SABC)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
A proposed amendment to South Af-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 111
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
rica’s broadcasting law jeopardises<br />
the South <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting Corporation’s<br />
(SABC) fundamental rights<br />
to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and editorial<br />
independence, warns Article 19.<br />
Article 19, the independent and nonpartisan<br />
NGO that works to promote<br />
and protect freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, says<br />
the new Broadcasting Amendment Bill<br />
raises a number <strong>of</strong> concerns. A formal<br />
requirement that SABC’s output be accurate,<br />
accountable and fairly reported<br />
and that staff should act in the best interests<br />
<strong>of</strong> the corporation, “give room<br />
to undue interference with their editorial<br />
independence and journalistic<br />
standards,” the group warns.<br />
The SABC board could be required<br />
to submit their plans to meet these objectives<br />
to the government and discuss<br />
programming issues with ministers.<br />
The bill also proposes to give the minister<br />
the right to pick management<br />
boards from the board.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-18<br />
PERSON(S): South <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting<br />
Corporation’s (SABC)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
A last-minute amendment to the controversial<br />
Broadcasting Amendment<br />
Bill appears to have lessened fears <strong>of</strong><br />
government control <strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(SABC) and prevented a threatened<br />
Constitutional Court challenge by<br />
opposition parties and media freedom<br />
organisations.<br />
Under the amendment, which was<br />
introduced on October 16, 2002, the<br />
SABC Board will fall under the control<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Independent Communications<br />
Authority <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
112 So This Is Democracy?<br />
(ICASA), and not the minister <strong>of</strong><br />
Communications, as originally proposed.<br />
The SABC Board will have to submit<br />
its policies on broadcasting,<br />
which include news editorial policy,<br />
to ICASA. The <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Congress’ committee chairman told<br />
the South <strong>Africa</strong>n Press Agency<br />
(SAPA), “They have created a clause<br />
that expands on the charter <strong>of</strong> the corporation,<br />
that will guarantee [the] independence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the SABC, freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> speech and journalistic integrity.”<br />
The committee chairman also noted<br />
that programmes will have to advance<br />
national and public interest. The<br />
SABC’s policies will have to comply<br />
with ICASA’s code <strong>of</strong> conduct and the<br />
licencing provisions imposed by the<br />
regulator. In addition, before the<br />
SABC’s Board finalises the policies,<br />
it will ensure public participation in<br />
the policy-making process.<br />
In a August 25 statement, MISA<br />
expressed its concern over the South<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n government’s attempt to<br />
compromise the independence <strong>of</strong><br />
SABC News and curtail the broadcaster’s<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
MISA noted that it is important that<br />
public broadcasters, without undue<br />
interference, dedicate themselves to<br />
serving the functions <strong>of</strong> informing<br />
citizens about matters <strong>of</strong> public interest,<br />
including acting as a watchdog<br />
<strong>of</strong> government.<br />
Among the bill’s controversial provisions<br />
was one providing for Communications<br />
Minister Ivy Matsepe-<br />
Casaburri’s approval <strong>of</strong> SABC policies<br />
on news editorials, programming,<br />
local content, education, universal<br />
service and access and language.
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-21<br />
PERSON(S): South <strong>Africa</strong>n Press<br />
Association (SAPA)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Bombed<br />
The South <strong>Africa</strong>n Press Association<br />
(SAPA) <strong>of</strong>fices were robbed in the<br />
early hours <strong>of</strong> October 20, 2002,<br />
bringing editorial operations to a complete<br />
halt.<br />
Reports say that at least five men,<br />
one <strong>of</strong> them armed with a pistol, overpowered<br />
a gate guard and forced their<br />
way into the Greenside-Johannesburg<br />
editorial <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the news agency at<br />
about 2:00 a.m. (local time) on October<br />
20. SAPA editor Mark van der<br />
Velden said Nombuso Dlamini, who<br />
was working the late shift, was tied up<br />
with computer cables. Her younger<br />
brother, who was keeping her company<br />
with two <strong>of</strong> his friends while they<br />
studied for school exams, was also tied<br />
up.<br />
The robbers then went through the<br />
newsroom and computer room and<br />
stole vital equipment, damaging the<br />
agency’s communications system, interrupting<br />
the reception and distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> information. Nobody was injured<br />
in the incident.<br />
At least 16 computer workstations<br />
were either removed or damaged. “All<br />
electronic equipment <strong>of</strong> any value was<br />
taken, right down to the c<strong>of</strong>fee machine<br />
and one <strong>of</strong> our technician’s spectacles,”<br />
the editor said.<br />
It was not immediately possible to<br />
put an accurate value on the stolen<br />
goods, and SAPA staff were still assessing<br />
the damage. However, Van der<br />
Velden estimated that the value <strong>of</strong> the<br />
goods taken could be in the region <strong>of</strong><br />
ZAR200 000 (about US$19 299).<br />
SAPA’s technical staff managed to<br />
cobble together enough <strong>of</strong> a system to<br />
set up a skeleton service by noon on<br />
October 20.<br />
MISA-South <strong>Africa</strong> expressed its<br />
shock at the disturbing incident and the<br />
effect it had on the distribution <strong>of</strong> news<br />
to South <strong>Africa</strong>n citizens and international<br />
subscribers.<br />
SAPA is South <strong>Africa</strong>’s independent<br />
national news agency, owned as a<br />
co-operative by most <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong>’s<br />
major newspapers. It gathers, edits and<br />
distributes news and information<br />
around the clock to supply newspapers,<br />
radio, television and foreign news operations.<br />
The robbery took place as South <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
media practitioners commemorated<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Freedom Day and the 25th<br />
anniversary <strong>of</strong> the banning <strong>of</strong> “The<br />
World” and “Weekend World” newspapers<br />
by the nationalist government.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 113
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Swaziland<br />
By Vusi Sibisi<br />
Human rights activist and media lawyer<br />
The Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Swaziland’s human rights record plummeted to an alltime<br />
low as the curtain fell on 2002 – possibly the worst year ever for<br />
the one million people <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>’s last bastion <strong>of</strong> absolute monarchy.<br />
Precisely because <strong>of</strong> its tiny size and its insignificance in terms <strong>of</strong> global<br />
politics, Swaziland has always avoided and evaded international focus and<br />
scrutiny.<br />
But thanks to a bungling government all that is changing. Swaziland today<br />
ranks alongside Zimbabwe as a place where fundamental human rights and<br />
freedoms have been trampled on and where nepotism and corruption are the<br />
backbone <strong>of</strong> the governing political system known as Tinkhundla.<br />
The year 2002 came to a tumultuous end with Swaziland firmly in the eye <strong>of</strong><br />
the international political storm - attracting the attention <strong>of</strong> the world’s remaining<br />
superpower, the United States <strong>of</strong> America, even in the midst <strong>of</strong> that<br />
country’s sabre-rattling over Iraq. Courtesy <strong>of</strong> Prime Minister Sibusiso<br />
Dlamini, Swaziland is today on the US State Department agenda as one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
few remaining countries in the global village where there is no respect for the<br />
rule <strong>of</strong> law, the judiciary and fundamental human rights.<br />
The international community’s new-found interest in the affairs <strong>of</strong> this landlocked<br />
country stemmed from the government’s public vow (made through<br />
Premier Sibusiso) not to recognise and respect judgments handed down by<br />
the Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal - an act that led to the en-masse resignation <strong>of</strong> all the<br />
judges <strong>of</strong> this court who were loaned from neighbouring South <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
The Appeal Court had questioned and quashed the constitutional right <strong>of</strong> King<br />
Mswati III to rule by decree when there was a parliament that is the legislative<br />
arm <strong>of</strong> government. In the event the court set aside royal Decree No 3 <strong>of</strong><br />
2001, which repealed another decree, Decree No. 2, that the international<br />
community had condemned as dictatorial. Decree No 3, among other things,<br />
made certain crimes, such as high treason, murder, rape, armed robbery, poaching<br />
<strong>of</strong> endangered species and other serious <strong>of</strong>fences non-bailable while the<br />
draconian Decree No 2 essentially sought to curb the power <strong>of</strong> trade unions<br />
and gave government an open licence to shut down newspapers and other<br />
publications.<br />
2002<br />
Earlier controversial Attorney General Phesheya Dlamini had shocked the<br />
114 So This Is Democracy?
SWAZILAND<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
nation and the international community when he led the heads <strong>of</strong> the armed<br />
forces in delivering an ultimatum to the judges <strong>of</strong> the High Court. The ultimatum<br />
demanded the judges either drop a case in which a mother was suing<br />
palace courtiers or resign or be fired. She was demanding the return <strong>of</strong> her<br />
teenage daughter who had been abducted and has since gone through the first<br />
phase <strong>of</strong> becoming Mswati’s tenth wife.<br />
The Director <strong>of</strong> Public Prosecutions Lincoln Ng’arua found himself between<br />
a rock and a hard place when he laid contempt and sedition charges against<br />
the Attorney General for this act. Ng’arua was threatened with the sack should<br />
he proceed with the case against the Attorney General, who received backing<br />
from the Prime Minister and the palace<br />
Government’s blunders did not just trigger <strong>of</strong>f a constitutional crisis but also<br />
united workers and employers into one front while awakening the sleeping<br />
giant that is civil society. They were all alarmed by the gradual and systematic<br />
erosion <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> law and respect for the judiciary. The result was the<br />
formation <strong>of</strong> a broad-based coalition body, the Swaziland Coalition <strong>of</strong> Concerned<br />
Civic Organisations, that included churches, business and employers’<br />
organisations, workers’ federations and non-governmental organisations. The<br />
coalition sought to put pressure on government to embrace democracy and<br />
respect the rule <strong>of</strong> law and the independence <strong>of</strong> the judiciary.<br />
And suddenly, the world’s spotlight had switched onto little Swaziland.<br />
These events and the controversial government decision to purchase an E720<br />
million (US$84,7 million) jet for Mswati’s private use led to US Secretary <strong>of</strong><br />
State Colin Powell saying in a dispatch to Foreign Minister Abednego<br />
Ntshangase:<br />
“The United States is deeply concerned that Prime Minister Dlamini, Attorney-General<br />
Phesheya Dlamini and Swazi National Council member Moi Moi<br />
Masilela, reportedly acting on behalf <strong>of</strong> King Mswati III, visited Director <strong>of</strong><br />
Public Prosecutions Lincoln Ng’arua late at night to coerce him into dismissing<br />
the charges <strong>of</strong> sedition and obstruction <strong>of</strong> justice against the Attorney<br />
General.<br />
“We are similarly troubled by reports <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister’s demands that<br />
parliamentarians approve the King’s request for purchase <strong>of</strong> a new jet or submit<br />
their resignations. These further undercut the rule <strong>of</strong> law in Swaziland,<br />
and call into question the government’s respect for international accepted principles<br />
<strong>of</strong> good governance.”<br />
Even to the perennial optimist the events that unfolded in 2002 put paid to all<br />
dreams <strong>of</strong> a fair and equitable constitution built on a Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights embracing<br />
So This Is Democracy? 115
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
fundamental human rights and freedoms. For how can anyone reconcile government’s<br />
disregard for the rule <strong>of</strong> law and the unprecedented assault on the<br />
judiciary with a truly democratic constitutional dispensation?<br />
The marathon constitution-drafting exercise is now on its last lap following<br />
the appointment <strong>of</strong> the second royal Constitutional Drafting Committee early<br />
in 2002, which was given until October 2002 to have completed its task. This<br />
followed the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the so-called gathering <strong>of</strong> public views on a new<br />
constitution by another royal body, the Constitutional Review Commission<br />
that began its work in 1996.<br />
It is now expected that a draft constitution will be presented to the nation<br />
sometime during the first quarter <strong>of</strong> 2003.<br />
The Internal Security Bill, tabled by the premier in the middle <strong>of</strong> 2002, further<br />
attested to this lack <strong>of</strong> political will to embrace democratic political<br />
changes. The proposed law tightens previous legislation outlawing political<br />
party activities, washes away any remnant <strong>of</strong> civil liberties and criminalises<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Swaziland while reinforcing the police state that has<br />
existed since the abrogation <strong>of</strong> the independence constitution in 1973.<br />
In fact there are fears that the ruling elite might take a cue from the Court <strong>of</strong><br />
Appeal judges’ ruling: “That a king’s decree can only be made once a new<br />
constitution is in place remains an essential requirement.” In the event, the<br />
likelihood is that the leadership will strengthen their stranglehold on power<br />
by giving Mswati the constitutional leverage to rule by decree.<br />
Given the lack <strong>of</strong> political will to democratise Swaziland, another alternative<br />
open to the leadership to retain and reinforce their hold on power is to pilot a<br />
law through the largely ceremonial and loyal parliament that would give the<br />
king the right to rule by decree whenever he so wishes.<br />
Thus the constitutional and legal framework in 2002 remained just as hostile,<br />
if not more so, to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and, therefore, to a free, diverse and<br />
pluralistic media in Swaziland. For if the government <strong>of</strong> the day can openly<br />
and publicly mount an assault on the judiciary and threaten judges <strong>of</strong> the<br />
highest court in the land, what protection and defence do the Swazi media in<br />
general and journalists in particular have?<br />
2002<br />
Significantly, the public’s reaction to events <strong>of</strong> 2002 contrasted sharply to<br />
those <strong>of</strong> previous years, in particular 2001, when the troubled Swazi media<br />
found itself isolated in a crisis brought about by Decree No. 2 and the government’s<br />
shutting down <strong>of</strong> two independent publications. The New Nation, a<br />
monthly magazine, and The Guardian <strong>of</strong> Swaziland weekly newspaper were<br />
both closed down. Ironically indigenous Swazi entrepreneurs own the two<br />
116 So This Is Democracy?
SWAZILAND<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
publications. There was little domestic public sympathy for the two publications’<br />
causes, perhaps due to a lack <strong>of</strong> appreciation <strong>of</strong> how such arbitrary<br />
closures impact negatively on the rights and freedoms <strong>of</strong> the people.<br />
While The Nation is back in business after settling out <strong>of</strong> court with the government,<br />
The Guardian remains closed even though that it won its High Court<br />
case. This is because government filed a notice <strong>of</strong> appeal at the end <strong>of</strong> the case<br />
and over a year later had still not filed the actual appeal.<br />
On October 12, 2002, security forces barred five journalists from covering<br />
the proceedings <strong>of</strong> a prayer meeting called by various political and civic groups<br />
in the country. The five included journalists from the privately owned Times<br />
<strong>of</strong> Swaziland and the state-controlled Swazi Observer. They were Ackel Zwane<br />
(Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland), Phinda Sihlongonyane and Thabile Mdluli (both The<br />
Observer), Bhekie Matsebula (foreign press correspondent), photographer<br />
Simon Shabangu and driver Jethro Jele (both The Observer).<br />
Termed ‘Justice for Peace’, the prayer meeting was held in memory <strong>of</strong> families<br />
that were evicted by force from Macetjeni and KaMkhweli areas in southeastern<br />
Swaziland in October 2000 for their refusal to recognise Prince Maguga,<br />
elder brother to Mswati, as their new chief.<br />
Phinda Sihlongonyane <strong>of</strong> The Observer said the security forces had mounted<br />
roadblocks on all roads leading to Macetjeni and KaMkhweli areas. He said<br />
the Regional Commander <strong>of</strong> the Lubombo Region, Agrippa Khumalo, instructed<br />
junior <strong>of</strong>ficers to search the journalists and turn them away. The security<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer then escorted the journalists to a certain point at which they<br />
took some photographs. This led to a confrontation during which one security<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer forcefully took a digital camera from one journalist and removed its<br />
memory card. The camera was later returned after a lot <strong>of</strong> begging.<br />
In a similar incident police viciously assaulted Ackel Zwane, then a journalist<br />
with the Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland, and confiscated his camera and notebook. He<br />
was forced into a security vehicle and driven to the outskirts <strong>of</strong> Manzini City<br />
where his belongings were handed back to him.<br />
Perhaps the two most interesting if not ironic cases in 2002 were the near<br />
closure <strong>of</strong> the parastatal Swazi TV by an Industrial Court order and the police’s<br />
confiscation <strong>of</strong> a video tape from the largely propagandist Channel Swazi<br />
television station.<br />
The Industrial Court in September issued a writ <strong>of</strong> execution for the attachment<br />
<strong>of</strong> equipment valued at a million Emalangeni (about US$117 000). This<br />
followed an earlier judgement in which the court reinstated and compensated<br />
32 former workers <strong>of</strong> the Swaziland Television Authority who it ruled had<br />
So This Is Democracy? 117
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
been unfairly dismissed in 1999. But police <strong>of</strong>ficers thwarted the Deputy Sheriff’s<br />
attempts to remove the broadcasting equipment from the television station<br />
in defiance <strong>of</strong> the Industrial Court order.<br />
On October 3, 2002, the police armed with a court order invaded the privately-owned<br />
Channel Swazi television station and confiscated a video tape<br />
containing a sermon in which prominent Pastor Justice Dlamini condemned<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the nation’s cultural practices, specifically the annual sacred Incwala<br />
ceremony, as “ungodly”. This alarmed the Swazi government that said the<br />
pastor’s preaching was “threatening the foundation <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom”. Ironically<br />
police <strong>of</strong>ficers had attended the open-air prayer service but only acted<br />
once the local newspapers published a story on some <strong>of</strong> the proceedings.<br />
Mswati’s praise singer and director <strong>of</strong> the royal Outside Broadcast Unit, Qhawe<br />
Mamba, owns Channel Swazi. The television channel is largely perceived to<br />
be a propaganda machine for the state.<br />
<strong>Media</strong> practitioners continued the onerous task <strong>of</strong> formulating a media policy<br />
to regulate the media as well as normalise relations between practitioners and<br />
the government, albeit at a snail’s pace. For the first time such a process involved<br />
all the stakeholders.<br />
Running parallel to this process is the formulation <strong>of</strong> self-regulatory mechanisms.<br />
Both processes, in which MISA Swaziland, the Swaziland National<br />
Association <strong>of</strong> Journalists and the Swaziland Editors Forum are playing<br />
leadings roles, are at advanced stages and it is hoped that they could be operational<br />
in the second quarter <strong>of</strong> 2003.<br />
2002<br />
118 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Suazilândia<br />
Por Vusi Sibisi<br />
Os registos dos direitos humanos no Reino da Suazilândia degredaram<br />
quando as cortinas se desfecharam em 2002 - possivelmente o pior<br />
dos anos o um milhão de pessoas do último baluarte da monarquia<br />
absoluta na <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
Precisamente por causa do seu pequeno tamanho e da insignificância em termos<br />
políticos globais. A Suazilândia sempre evitou e evadiu o foco e escrutínio<br />
minicioso internacional.<br />
Mas graças ao governo confuso tudo isto está a mudar. A Suazilândia hoje se<br />
posiciona ao lado do Zimbabué como sendo um lugar onde os direitos humanos<br />
fundamentais e a liberdade são menosprezados e onde o nepotismo e a<br />
corrupção são a espinha dorsal do sistema político governante do governo<br />
conhecido por Tinkhundla.<br />
O ano de 2002 teve um fim tumultuoso com a Suazilândia firmemente nos<br />
olhos da tempestade politica internacional – atraindo a atenção da única super<br />
potência mundial, os Estados Unidos da América mesmo ainda com a<br />
fanfarronada sobre o Iraque. Pela cortesia do Primeiro-ministro Sibusiso<br />
Dlamini, a Suazilândia hoje está na agenda do Departamento do Estado Norte<br />
Americano, como um dos poucos países que permanece na aldeia global onde<br />
não existe respeito pela lei, pela judiciária e pelos direitos humanos<br />
fundamentais.<br />
O interesse recém-adquirido da comunidade internacional pelos assuntos deste<br />
país rodeado de terra, derivou da promessa pública do governo (feito através<br />
do Primeiro-ministro Sibusiso) ao não ter reconhecido e respeitado os<br />
julgamentos feitos pelo Tribunal de Apelo – um acto que causou a resignação<br />
massiva de todos os juízes deste tribunal que foram recrutados a partir do<br />
<strong>Africa</strong> da Sul.<br />
A Tribunal de Apelo questionou e revogou o direito constitucional do Rei<br />
Mswati III a reinar por decreto quando existe um parlamento que e o braço<br />
legislativo do governo.<br />
No evento do tribunal ter por de lado o decreto real número 3 de 2001 que<br />
repele um outro decreto, o decreto 2 de que a comunidade internacional<br />
condenou como sendo ditatorial. O decreto 3 dentre outros aspectos tornou<br />
certos crimes, tais como alta traição, assassinato, violação, assaltos a mão<br />
armada, a caça de animais raros e outros crimes de natureza grave, não<br />
So This Is Democracy? 119
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
caucionais, enquanto o decreto draconiano numero 2 essencialmente procura<br />
dirimir o poder dos sindicatos de trabalhos e outorga ao governo uma licença<br />
aberta que lhes permite encerrar e jornais e outras publicações.<br />
Antes o controverso procurador-geral Phesheya Dlamini chocou a nação e a<br />
comunidade internacional quando liderou a direcção das Forças Armadas ao<br />
passar o ultimato aos juízes do tribunal supremo. O ultimato exigia os juízes<br />
a abandonar o caso no qual uma mãe tinha que demitir-se ou seria demitida.<br />
Ela exigia a devolução da sua filha que tivera sido raptada e desde então<br />
cumprido a primeira fase para se tornar a décimo esposa<br />
Do rei Mswati.<br />
O Director do Processamento Publico, Lincoln Ngarua, viu-se dentre a espada<br />
e a parede quando menosprezou e acusou insubordinação contra o Procuradorgeral<br />
para este acto.<br />
O Sr. Ng’rua foi ameaçado com despedimento caso prosseguisse com o caso<br />
contra o Procurador-geral, que recebeu apoio do Primeiro-ministro e do palácio.<br />
Os erros do governo não só derivaram a crise constitucional mas também<br />
uniu os trabalhadores e empregadores numa frente enquanto despertou o<br />
gigante adormecido que é a sociedade civil. Foram todos alarmados pela erosão<br />
sistemática gradual sobre decurso da lei e respeito pela judiciária. O resultado<br />
foi a formação de um corpo de ligação de base ampla a Coligação das<br />
Organizações Cívicas Preocupadas, que inclui igrejas organizações de<br />
trabalhadores, federação dos trabalhadores e organizações não governamentais.<br />
A Coligação procurou pressionar o governo de formas a acatar a democracia<br />
e a respeitar a lei e independência da judiciária.<br />
De repente os faróis do mundo viraram-se para pequena Suazilândia.<br />
Estes eventos e a decisão controversa do governo na compra de um avião no<br />
valor de E720 milhões (84,7 milhões) para o uso privado de rei Mswati, obrigou<br />
o Secretario de Estado, Colin Powell a comentar através de despacho ao<br />
Ministro das Relações Exterior, Abenego Ntshangase:<br />
Os Estados Unidos está pr<strong>of</strong>undamente preocupados que o Primeiro Ministro<br />
Dlamini, o Procurador Geral e o Membro do Conselho Nacional da Suazilândia<br />
Moi Moi Masilela, que segundo relatórios agem a favor do rei Mswati III,<br />
visitou o Director do Processamento Publico, Lincoln Ng’arua no fim da noite<br />
para força-lo a abandonar as acusações de insubordinação e obstrução da justiça<br />
contra o Procurador Geral.<br />
2002<br />
“De igual modo estamos preocupados com os relatórios sobre as exigências<br />
do Primeiro-ministro para a aprovação do parlamento para a compra de um<br />
120 So This Is Democracy?
SWAZILAND<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
novo avião ou então que submetesse as suas cartas de demissão. Isto impede<br />
ainda mais o respeito ao curso da lei na Suazilândia, e questiona o respeito<br />
dos governos pelos princípios internacionais aceites da boa governação”.<br />
Até mesmo para o optimista perene, os eventos que se desenrolaram em 2002,<br />
pagos por todos os sonhos e uma constituição equitativa construída sobre uma<br />
Conta sobre Direitos abraçando os direitos humanos fundamentais básicos e<br />
liberdades. Como é que alguém pode reconciliar os desrespeitos dos governos<br />
pelo decurso da lei e o assalto não precedente a judiciaria com uma dispensaçao<br />
total democrata?<br />
O exercício da maratona do esboço da constituição está agora na sua fase<br />
derradeira seguindo-se da nomeação do Segundo Esboço do Comité<br />
Constitucional real no princípio de 2002, que foi dado até Outubro de 2002 para<br />
completar a sua tarefa. Isto seguiu-se da conclusão do que se chamou reunião<br />
das visões públicas sobre uma nova constituído por un outrro corpo real, a<br />
Comissão de Revisão Constitucional que começou com o seu trabalho em 1996.<br />
Espera-se agora que o esboço da constituição seja apresentado à nação durante<br />
o primeiro trimestre de 2003.<br />
A Lei de Segurança Interna, apresentada pelo Primeiro-ministro no meio de<br />
2002, atestou ademais a esta falta de vontade politica de abraçar as novas<br />
mudanças politicas democráticas. As leis propostas tornam cada vez mais<br />
rigoroso as prévias legislações que banem as actividades do partido politico,<br />
elimina qualquer restos de liberdades civis e criminaliza a liberdade de expressão<br />
na Suazilândia enquanto reforça a politica do Estado que existiu desde a<br />
revogação da constituição da independência em 1973.<br />
Existem de facto receios de que a elite que governa pode tirar uma fila do Tribunal<br />
de Apelos de juízes: Permanece um requisito essencial que o decreto de um<br />
rei só pode ser feito uma vez que uma nova constituição estiver no lugar. No<br />
evento, a probabilidade é que a liderança há de fortificar o seu domínio no<br />
poder dando ao Mswati a influência constitucional para governar através de<br />
decretos.<br />
Dada a falta de vontade politica para democratizar a Suazilândia, a outra<br />
alternativa aberta para a liderança reter e reforçar o seu afinco no poder é pilotar<br />
a lei através do parlamento largamente cerimonial e leal que daria ao rei o direito<br />
de governar por decreto quando assim desejar.<br />
Portanto, o padrão constitucional e legal em 2002, permanece hostil, se não<br />
tanto mais, a liberdade de expressão, e por isso, para uma média pluralista e<br />
diversa na Suazilândia. Porque se o governo de hoje pode desencadear ataques<br />
abertamente contra a judiciária e ameaça o principal tribunal do país, que<br />
protecção e defesa têm a imprensa da Suazilândia e em particular os jornalistas?<br />
So This Is Democracy? 121
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Significativamente a reacção pública aos eventos de 2002 esteve em contraste<br />
agudo aos anos anterior e particularmente o ano de 2001, quando a imprensa e<br />
tumulto se viu isolada numa crise criada pelo decreto 2 e o encerramento das<br />
publicações independentes ordenada pelo governo. O “The New Nation” uma<br />
revista mensal e o “The Guardian <strong>of</strong> Suaziland” um semanário foram ambos<br />
encerrados. Ironicamente indígenas empresários Swazis são os proprietários<br />
das duas publicações. Registou-se pouca simpatia pública pelas duas publicações<br />
talvez por causa da falta de apreciação de como tais oclusões arbitrárias<br />
influenciam negativamente os direitos e liberdade dos povos.<br />
Embora o “The Nation” voltou a operar depois de resolver os problemas com o<br />
governo fora do tribunal, o “The Guardian” continua encerrado mesmo depois<br />
de ter ganho o caso no tribunal. Isto é porque o governo compilou uma nota de<br />
apelo no final do caso.<br />
No dia 12 de Outubro de 2002, as forças de segurança impediram cinco jornalistas<br />
a fazer cobertura de uma oração convocada por vários grupos políticos e cívicos<br />
no país. Nos cincos jornalistas estavam inclusos jornalistas do jornal privado<br />
“Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland” e o jornal controlado pelo estado “Swazi Observar”. Eram<br />
Ackel Zwane (Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland), Phinda Sihlongonyane e Thabile Mdluli<br />
(ambos correspondente da imprensa estrangeira), o fotografo Simon Shabangu<br />
e o motorista Jethro Jele ambos do (The Observer).<br />
O encontro para a oração foi realizado em memoria das famílias que foram<br />
destituídas a força nas áreas de Macetjeni e KaMkhweli no sudoeste da<br />
Suazilândia em Outubro de 2000 por terem recusados reconhecer o prince<br />
Maguga, irmão mas velho do rei Mswati como seu chefe.<br />
Phinda Sihlongonyane do “The Observer” disse que as forças de segurança<br />
criaram controis nas estradas em direcção as áreas de Macetjene e KaMkhweli.<br />
Segundo ele, o comandante regional de Lubombo, Agrippa Khumalo instruiu<br />
os seus <strong>of</strong>iciais a revistar os jornalistas e manda-los de volta. O agente de<br />
segurança acompanhou o jornalista até um certo ponto onde tiraram algumas<br />
fotografias. Isto originou confrontação durante a qual um agente de segurança<br />
retirou a força a câmara fotográfica digital de um jornalista e retirou o seu cartão<br />
de memória. A câmara foi devolvida mais tarde depois de muitas súplicas para<br />
a sua devolução.<br />
Num incidente a policia viciosamente assaltou Ackel Zwane na altura jornalista<br />
do “Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland” e confiscaram a sua câmara fotográfica e caderno de<br />
apontamento. Foi forçado numa das viaturas dos agentes de segurança para as<br />
periferias da cidade de Manzini onde lhe foi entregue de volta os seus artigos.<br />
2002<br />
Talvez os dois casos mais interessantes se não irónicos em 2002, foram a<br />
derrapante oclusão da TV Swazi por uma ordem do tribunal industrial e o confisco<br />
122 So This Is Democracy?
SWAZILAND<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
de uma cassete de vídeo do grande propagandista da estação de televisão Swazi.<br />
A ordem do tribunal industrial emitiu a execução do equipamento no valor de<br />
milhões de Emalangeni (quase USD117,000). Esta ordem seguiu-se do<br />
julgamento anterior no qual o tribunal reinstalou e compensou 32 extrabalhadores<br />
das autoridades da televisão de Suazilândia que tinham sido<br />
demitidos injustificadamente em 1999. mas os <strong>of</strong>iciais da polícia impediram o<br />
vice-sherif de remover os equipamentos da radiodifusão em desafio a ordem do<br />
tribunal industrial.<br />
No dia 03 de Outubro de 2002, investidos com a ordem do tribunal invadiram a<br />
estação televisiva privada Swazi e confiscou uma cassete de vídeo que continha<br />
um sermão no qual o proeminente pastor Justice Dlamini condenou algumas<br />
praticas culturais da nação especialmente a cerimonia sagrada Incwala como<br />
“anti-deus”. Isto alarmou o governo Swazi que por sua vez disse que a<br />
aproximação do pastor ameaça a fundação do reino.<br />
Ironicamente os <strong>of</strong>iciais da polícia participaram na oração que foi realizada no<br />
ar livre mas só agiram depois de um jornal local ter publicado a história. O<br />
director da unidade da Radiodifusão Qhawe Mamab é proprietário do Canal<br />
Swazi. O canal de televisão é largamente tido como a máquina de propaganda<br />
do governo.<br />
Os jornalistas continuaram a formular a politica da média para regular a imprensa<br />
assim como para normalizar as relações entre os jornalistas e o governo. Pela<br />
primeira vez tal processo envolveu vários participantes.<br />
Em paralelo a este processo está a formulação do mecanismo auto-regulador.<br />
Ambos os processos no qual o MISA Suazilândia, a Associação Nacional dos<br />
Jornalistas e o Fórum dos Editores estão o jogar papeis liderativos num palco<br />
avançado e espera que possa entrar em operação no segundo trimestre de 2003.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 123
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-09-17<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Swaziland Television<br />
Authority (STVA).<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
124 So This Is Democracy?<br />
On August 30 2002, a court ruled that<br />
former employees <strong>of</strong> the Swaziland<br />
Television Authority (STVA), fired<br />
after walking <strong>of</strong>f the job, be reinstated<br />
and compensated for unfair dismissal.<br />
Following this ruling, the Industrial<br />
Court issued a writ <strong>of</strong> execution (court<br />
order) that Hhohho Deputy Sheriff<br />
Maswazi Nsibandze attach equipment<br />
valued at one million Emalangeni<br />
(approx. US$93 896), which is equal<br />
to the money owed to the former<br />
workers. The STVA management has<br />
appealed the ruling but has been unsuccessful<br />
at the Appeal Court. However,<br />
the money will be placed in a<br />
Trust Account while the appeal is still<br />
being reviewed.<br />
On September 5, 2002, Nsibandze<br />
and Lwazi Hlophe, a former STVA<br />
technician and representative <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Swaziland <strong>Media</strong> and Publishers<br />
Workers Allied Union (SMEPAWU),<br />
went to the station to attach the<br />
equipment. Hlophe claimed to have<br />
assisted by pointing out crucial<br />
equipment to be attached.<br />
STVA Managing Director Celani<br />
Ndzimande and the television station’s<br />
legal advisor, Thulani<br />
Makhubu, called the police to prevent<br />
the deputy sheriff from removing<br />
the broadcasting equipment. The<br />
police stopped Nsibandze from attaching<br />
the equipment. Mandla<br />
Mkhwanazi, the employees’ lawyer,<br />
feels the police were wrong to prevent<br />
the deputy sheriff from carrying<br />
out his duties. However, attaching<br />
the equipment would have resulted<br />
in a complete blackout at the<br />
television station.<br />
The police’s representative, Vusi<br />
Masuku, claims that the police were<br />
only protecting vital government<br />
equipment and not undermining the<br />
court order.<br />
On March 23, 2000, STVA Board<br />
<strong>of</strong> Directors abruptly fired 32 employees<br />
who had gone on strike in<br />
October 1999. The Board’s decision<br />
to sack the employees went against<br />
the findings <strong>of</strong> a one-man commission<br />
<strong>of</strong> inquiry into the workers’ conduct.<br />
On October 28, several STVA<br />
workers took control <strong>of</strong> the television<br />
studios in an apparent illegal strike.<br />
The workers were demanding a 7%<br />
back-pay that management had<br />
promised them in April 1999.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-1009<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Channel S<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On October 3, 2002, the Swaziland<br />
Royal Police, acting on a court order,<br />
raided Channel S, the only privatelyowned<br />
television station in the country,<br />
and confiscated a video tape containing<br />
a sermon that has been termed<br />
by the Swazi government as “threatening<br />
the foundations <strong>of</strong> the kingdom.”<br />
According to local sources, the<br />
footage was <strong>of</strong> a sermon broadcast<br />
nationally and regionally (throughout<br />
the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development<br />
Community, SADC) on September<br />
6. During the sermon, Pastor<br />
Justice Dlamini, <strong>of</strong> the Swaziland As-
SWAZILAND<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
sociation <strong>of</strong> Christian Ministries<br />
(SACM), suggested that some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
cultural practices in the country are<br />
“ungodly.” Dlamini was referring to<br />
the “Incwala”, an annual cultural celebration.<br />
MISWA, MISA’s Swaziland chapter,<br />
condemned the raid on the television<br />
station, saying that it was unwarranted<br />
and impinged on Swazi<br />
citizens’ freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
Moreover, MISWA reported that<br />
Dlamini has suffered harassment by<br />
policymakers in the country, ostensibly<br />
in the name <strong>of</strong> protecting culture<br />
and the monarchy.<br />
MISWA further objected to the police<br />
action and noted that some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers who took part in the raid<br />
were themselves present at the said<br />
church service and had uttered no<br />
concern over the content <strong>of</strong> the sermon,<br />
until they received instructions<br />
to ransack the television station.<br />
The September 6 national prayer<br />
meeting was hosted by interdenominational<br />
ministries to celebrate<br />
Swaziland’s Independence Day. According<br />
to the October 5 edition <strong>of</strong><br />
the “Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland”, a national<br />
independent daily newspaper, the<br />
prayer was “organized to beseech<br />
God to forgive the Swazi nation <strong>of</strong><br />
its sins.”<br />
In Swaziland, the state is embodied<br />
in the person <strong>of</strong> the sovereign<br />
himself, King Mswati III, the 16th<br />
king from the House <strong>of</strong> Dlamini,<br />
which has ruled the Swazis since the<br />
1500s. Swazis do not distinguish between<br />
the nation and the man, and<br />
while the king is not considered divine,<br />
he is the central figure <strong>of</strong> the<br />
month-long sacred “Incwala” (kingship/harvest)<br />
ceremonies, held when<br />
the first fruits ripen in summer.<br />
During the “Incwala”, tens <strong>of</strong> thousands<br />
<strong>of</strong> Swazis in traditional attire<br />
converge on the Queen Mother’s village<br />
and petition the national ancestral<br />
spirits to endow the king with<br />
wisdom, and the nation with good<br />
rains and fortune.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-31<br />
PERSON(S): Ackel Zwane, Phinda<br />
Sihlongonyane, Thabile Mdluli,<br />
Simon Jele, Bheki Matsebula,<br />
Jethro Jele<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten, Censored<br />
On October 12, 2002, security forces<br />
barred five journalists from the<br />
“Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland” and the “Swazi<br />
Observer” and a foreign freelance reporter<br />
from covering the proceedings<br />
<strong>of</strong> a prayer meeting organised by different<br />
political and social groups in<br />
Swaziland.<br />
The prayer meeting, termed Justice<br />
for Peace, was organised in memory<br />
<strong>of</strong> families that were evicted from the<br />
Macetjeni (south-eastern Swaziland)<br />
and KaMkhweli areas in October<br />
2000.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the barred journalists,<br />
Phinda Sihlongonyane <strong>of</strong> “The Observer”,<br />
told MISA-Swaziland that<br />
the law enforcement unit was comprised<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Royal Swaziland Police<br />
(RSP), the Umbutfo Swaziland Defence<br />
Force (USDF) and the Correctional<br />
Service Operational Support<br />
Service Unit (OSSU), and was led by<br />
Station Commander Agrippa<br />
Khumalo, <strong>of</strong> the Lubombo region.<br />
Sihlongonyane reported that the<br />
security <strong>of</strong>ficers had mounted roadblocks<br />
on all roads leading to<br />
So This Is Democracy? 125
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Macetjeni and KaMkhweli. Upon<br />
recognising her and her colleagues as<br />
journalists, the commander instructed<br />
junior <strong>of</strong>ficers to search the<br />
journalists and turn them away. The<br />
journalists were searched and escorted<br />
by the security <strong>of</strong>ficer to a<br />
certain point, after which they took<br />
some photographs. Upon seeing this,<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the security <strong>of</strong>ficers turned<br />
back and forcefully took a digital<br />
camera from one <strong>of</strong> the journalists,<br />
removing the memory card in the<br />
process. The camera was finally returned<br />
after a long exchange.<br />
The five journalists and driver involved<br />
in the incident were<br />
Sihlongonyane, Ackel Zwane, formerly<br />
a “Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland” reporter,<br />
now working for “The Observer”,<br />
“Observer” reporter Thabile<br />
Mdluli, “Observer” photographer<br />
Simon Jele, foreign press reporter<br />
Bheki Matsebula and “Observer”<br />
driver Jethro Jele.<br />
In a related incident, Zwane was<br />
severely beaten by police. According<br />
to the newspaper, his camera and<br />
notebook were also taken from him.<br />
He was forced into a security vehicle<br />
and driven to a junction towards<br />
the Swazi capital, Manzini, where he<br />
was dropped <strong>of</strong>f and his belongings<br />
were returned to him.<br />
MISA-Swaziland condemns the<br />
harassment and intimidation<br />
practiced by the security forces<br />
against journalists who were merely<br />
carrying out their duties. MISA-<br />
Swaziland holds the opinion that this<br />
action is a clear indication that journalists<br />
in the country do not have the<br />
liberty to freely gather and disseminate<br />
information in the public interest.<br />
In October 2000, some 200 villagers<br />
in Macetjeni and KaMkhweli<br />
were evicted from their homes at<br />
gunpoint by soldiers, apparently because<br />
they refused to accept King<br />
Mswati III’s brother, Prince Maguga,<br />
as chief. They were left in the countryside<br />
without shelter or other basic<br />
necessities. The families are now<br />
staying in a refugee camp in Amsterdam,<br />
in the Mpumalanga province.<br />
The families have since taken their<br />
matter to the High Court, where they<br />
won their case, but the government<br />
continues to harass them. The mere<br />
fact that the security forces continue<br />
to ignore the court order makes it<br />
clear that respect for the rule <strong>of</strong> law<br />
does not exist in Swaziland.<br />
2002<br />
126 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Tanzania<br />
By Tuma Abdallah<br />
Journalist<br />
Democracy is a complex tissue <strong>of</strong> mandated power and legal power,<br />
control <strong>of</strong> competition, regulations, and a consensus on basic demo<br />
cratic values. It entails a respect for different opinions and the absolute<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, movement and association.<br />
It is a plain truth that democracy and the media constitute a chicken and egg<br />
relationship. This is mainly because the extent to which a society is democratised<br />
defines the mode <strong>of</strong> media control and the role they perform. Whatever<br />
forms democratic struggles may take, the configuration <strong>of</strong> media is always shaping<br />
and being shaped by the level <strong>of</strong> democratisation.<br />
Tanzania has not been spared by the wind <strong>of</strong> social and economic changes blowing<br />
all over the world. It was the same wind that found the country shifting from<br />
a mono-party system with a state monopolised economy to a multi-party system<br />
with a privatised economy.<br />
Since the media operates within the socio-economic system <strong>of</strong> a country, the<br />
social and economic changes that took place in Tanzania in the late 1980s opened<br />
doors for a pluralistic mass media.<br />
But despite the stated evolution, the government has remained the overseer <strong>of</strong><br />
the functions <strong>of</strong> the media in the country. It guides and regulates both their<br />
establishment and operations through various regulations and pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation.<br />
That has been the case since the country gained its independence from<br />
British rule in 1961, and the last 12 months have been no exception.<br />
The fact that some <strong>of</strong> the laws that govern the industry are too restrictive and<br />
seriously impinge upon freedom <strong>of</strong> expression including media freedom has<br />
been the basis for constant demands by the media community for changes in the<br />
country’s legal and regulatory framework to facilitate the free flow <strong>of</strong> information.<br />
While the year 2002 witnessed no attempt by the government to review the<br />
pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation, the media was not silent. One <strong>of</strong> the steps towards that end<br />
was the media law reform project, which worked with vigour throughout the<br />
year.<br />
Three lawyers from the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam were commissioned during<br />
the year to work on over 10 pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation that affect directly or indi-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 127
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
rectly the operations <strong>of</strong> the media. The objective is to come up with a comprehensive<br />
but media-friendly law to be known as the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
Act.<br />
The laws that are being examined under the project, coordinated jointly by the<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (MCT), MISA-TAN, Tanzania Journalists Union<br />
(TUJ) and the Tanzania <strong>Media</strong> Women Association (TAMWA), include the infamous<br />
Newspapers Act <strong>of</strong> 1976, which retains much <strong>of</strong> the oppressive aspects<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Newspapers Ordinance from colonial times which sought to subjugate,<br />
exploit and tame the colonised.<br />
The proposed law, which would ultimately be handed over to the government<br />
for endorsement, is due to be ready by the end <strong>of</strong> 2003. Once in place, the<br />
legislation is expected to facilitate the implementation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> Policy,<br />
which the government is still sitting on.<br />
The policy document, which is expected to move towards further liberalisation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the media, was initially supposed to be ready during the year under review. It<br />
is now expected to be out during the first half <strong>of</strong> 2003.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the issues that has been holding back the government from endorsing<br />
the document is a demand by the media community that the state be excluded<br />
from media ownership.<br />
The government feels that by doing so it would be breaching the country’s<br />
Union Constitution, in particular Article 18 that guarantees every citizen the<br />
right to freedom <strong>of</strong> opinion and expression, and to seek, receive, impart and<br />
disseminate information and ideas through any media.<br />
The same article, however, does not guarantee an absolute or unrestrained right<br />
to the said freedoms as highlighted in previous editions <strong>of</strong> this publication.<br />
The article and two others, Article 30 and 31, are also being worked on under<br />
the <strong>Media</strong> Law Reform Programme.<br />
Although in general terms the relationship between the government and the<br />
media continued to improve throughout the year, several violations <strong>of</strong> media<br />
freedom, mainly by state organs, were reported as illustrated in the alerts recorded<br />
in this chapter.<br />
Incidents worth mentioning include the harassment <strong>of</strong> two journalists by the<br />
police. The incidents took place while the reporters, a female and a male, were<br />
attempting to question the President and Vice-President.<br />
2002<br />
Another journalist is facing legal action for contempt <strong>of</strong> parliament after writ-<br />
128 So This Is Democracy?
TANZANIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ing an allegedly seditious article against the legislature.<br />
However, there was only one direct attack on the media by the government<br />
throughout the 2002. This was in the form <strong>of</strong> a strong warning that specifically<br />
targeted the media as unethical. It came shortly after legislators lashed<br />
out at such media in a National Assembly session.<br />
Both incidents came at a time when a good proportion <strong>of</strong> the media especially<br />
the yellow press were increasingly diverging from pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism in order to<br />
compete for the market. This involved the publication <strong>of</strong> stories that invaded<br />
people’s privacy, publication <strong>of</strong> semi-pornographic materials and grisly photographs<br />
<strong>of</strong> dead people.<br />
These departures from ethics and pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism were evidenced in the growing<br />
number <strong>of</strong> cases filed at the <strong>Media</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (MCT) against<br />
newspapers and individual reporters. The number increased slightly to 22 in<br />
2002 from 20 the previous year.<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> the cases filed with the MCT concerned defamation and false reporting.<br />
The majority <strong>of</strong> the complaints were lodged by individuals who felt defamed<br />
by the publication <strong>of</strong> such stories and/or photographs.<br />
More and more people and organisations that felt aggrieved by the media<br />
prefer to submit their complaints to MCT which is free and faster at resolving<br />
such cases than the court <strong>of</strong> law. Only one such case was filed at a court in<br />
Kagera region against a freelance journalist.<br />
A step in the right direction on the part <strong>of</strong> the government was the signing <strong>of</strong><br />
the SADC Information, Culture and Sports Protocol. The protocol that seeks<br />
to promote media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in the region, however,<br />
awaits ratification by the government before it can come into force. It might<br />
be ratified anytime in 2003, probably before August when the country will be<br />
hosting a summit for the regional body.<br />
During the year journalists had to deal with a lack <strong>of</strong> transparency on the part<br />
<strong>of</strong> some government leaders. However, there were some improvements compared<br />
to previous years.<br />
Self-censorship was prevalent among both the public and private media regarding<br />
news assumed to be embarrassing to the government. In most cases<br />
editors did so in a bid to protect their positions and or businesses.<br />
The year under review witnessed growth in both the print and electronic media.<br />
Twenty newspapers were registered bringing the number <strong>of</strong> titles in circulation<br />
to 450. A similar trend was recorded in the electronic media, and by<br />
So This Is Democracy? 129
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
the end <strong>of</strong> the year the Tanzania Broadcasting Commission (TBC) had licensed<br />
26 radio stations, 15 TV stations, 20 television operators and 15 cable<br />
operators.<br />
This diversity has, however, not trickled down to help the voiceless majority,<br />
particularly the rural poor. That is mainly because the media is basically concentrated<br />
in urban areas.<br />
On the part <strong>of</strong> the electronic media the situation could be partly attributed to<br />
the government’s policy that limits private terrestrial broadcasters’ coverage<br />
to only 25 percent <strong>of</strong> the country.<br />
Enforcement <strong>of</strong> the policy has, however, been impractical in the wake <strong>of</strong> new<br />
technological developments, which make it difficult to supervise broadcasters<br />
who opt to use satellites as a mode <strong>of</strong> broadcasting. The government has<br />
taken note <strong>of</strong> the trend and is considering relaxing the limitation to 50 percent.<br />
A latest report from the TBC has revealed that the sector is developing very<br />
fast but without a concomitant set <strong>of</strong> rules and regulations. In December the<br />
TBC deliberated on a number <strong>of</strong> policy issues aimed at creating a level playing<br />
field for all. The central points were the questions <strong>of</strong> control and ownership,<br />
content and technical rules, and satellite broadcasting.<br />
The TBC said it would further develop rules and regulations governing the<br />
three areas and respective policy documents would be ready in April 2003 for<br />
discussion by stakeholders before they are endorsed by the Commission.<br />
The broadcasting environment is regulated and supervised by the TBC, which<br />
was established by legislation as an independent regulatory body. Its powers<br />
are not derived from the country’s constitution but rather from the Act itself.<br />
Its independence is, however, questionable as the same legislation empowers<br />
the minister responsible to interfere with the operations <strong>of</strong> the Commission.<br />
The Tanzania Union for Journalists (TUJ), which was established in the second<br />
half <strong>of</strong> 2001, continued to spread its wings by setting up branches at<br />
various media houses. The pace was, however, slow and by the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
year only seven branches had been established.<br />
No effort was undertaken during the year to unite the existing associations.<br />
Currently there are more than 15 journalists associations and about the same<br />
number <strong>of</strong> press clubs.<br />
2002<br />
The year 2002 witnessed no significant change in the legal and constitutional<br />
environment in which the media operate. The atmosphere might improve tre-<br />
130 So This Is Democracy?
TANZANIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
mendously during 2003 if all the positive developments come to fruition.<br />
The challenge that lies ahead is for journalists to enhance the media as a source<br />
<strong>of</strong> empowerment and enlightenment. They should continue with the fight for<br />
a free press system since without due autonomy and a free environment it is<br />
difficult to envision how the media can realise their potential as agents <strong>of</strong><br />
democratisation.<br />
The media should, therefore, look at how best they can fulfil their democratic<br />
functions. They should put public interest ahead <strong>of</strong> other considerations.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 131
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Tanzânia<br />
Por: Tuma Abdallah<br />
Journaliste<br />
ADemocracia é uma teia complexa de poder concedido e poder legal,<br />
de controlo da competição, de regulamentos e dum consenso sobre<br />
valores básicos democráticos. Envolve ainda o respeito por diferentes<br />
opiniões e a absoluta liberdade de expressão, de movimentos e de associação.<br />
É uma verdade inalienável que a democracia e a comunicação social têm um<br />
relacionamento do tipo galinha e o ovo. Isto é principalmente porque a forma<br />
de se definir até que ponto a sociedade é democratizada depende do controlo da<br />
comunicação social e do papel que ela desempenha. Qualquer que seja a forma<br />
que tome a luta democrática, a configuração da comunicação social está<br />
constantemente a moldar e a ser moldada pelo nível de democratização.<br />
A Tanzânia não tem sido poupada pelo vento de mudanças económicas e sociais<br />
que se faz sentir por todo o mundo. Foi este mesmo vento que levou o país a<br />
mudar de um sistema mono partidário com uma economia monopolizada pelo<br />
estado para um sistema multi partidário com uma economia privada.<br />
Uma vez que a comunicação social opera no sistema sócio económico de qualquer<br />
país, as alterações sociais e económicas que se registaram na Tanzânia no final<br />
da década de oitenta abriram as portas para uma comunicação social pluralista.<br />
Mas, apesar de toda esta evolução, o governo continua a ser o supervisor das<br />
funções da comunicação social no país. Orienta e regula a sua criação e as suas<br />
operações através de vários regulamentos e instrumentos legais, o que tem vindo<br />
a acontecer desde que o país alcançou a sua independência da coroa inglesa em<br />
1961. Os últimos doze meses não foram excepção.<br />
O facto de algumas das leis que governam a indústria serem muito restritivas e<br />
violarem gravemente a liberdade de expressão, incluindo a liberdade da<br />
comunicação social, tem sido objecto de constantes exigências pela comunidade<br />
ligada à comunicação social para que se registem alterações no quadro jurídico<br />
e regulador do país para facilitar a circulação livre de informação.<br />
O ano de 2002 não registou qualquer tentativa do governo de rever a legislação<br />
e a comunicação social não se manteve em silêncio. Uma das medidas nesse<br />
sentido, foi o projecto de reforma da lei da comunicação social que foi sustentado<br />
com grande vigor durante todo o ano.<br />
2002<br />
Durante o ano, três advogados da Universidade de Dar-es-Salaam foram<br />
132 So This Is Democracy?
TANZANIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
incumbidos de analisar mais de 10 áreas da lei que afectam duma forma directa<br />
ou indirecta o trabalho da comunicação social, com o objectivo de prepararem<br />
a legislação completa e adequada à comunicação social, a ser conhecida por<br />
Lei da Liberdade de Informação.<br />
As leis que estão a ser examinadas ao abrigo deste projecto, que é coordenado<br />
conjuntamente pelo Conselho da Comunicação Social da Tanzânia, (MCT), o<br />
MISA-TAN, o Sindicato dos Jornalistas da Tanzânia,(TUJ), e a Associação<br />
das Mulheres na Comunicação Social da Tanzânia (TAMWA), incluem a<br />
vergonhosa Lei dos Jornais de 1976, que mantém a maior parte dos aspectos<br />
opressivos do Decreto dos Jornais do tempo colonial, com a pretensão de<br />
subjugar, explorar e domesticar os colonizados.<br />
A proposta lei, que eventualmente será entregue ao governo para aprovação,<br />
deverá estar pronta no final de 2003. Logo que seja promulgada, a legislação<br />
deverá facilitar a implementação da Política da Comunicação Social que está<br />
ainda estagnada em poder do governo.<br />
O documento político que deve fazer avançar uma maior liberalização da<br />
comunicação social, deveria ter ficado pronto durante o ano em análise. Contudo,<br />
espera-se agora que seja publicado no primeiro semestre de 2003.<br />
Um dos assuntos que está a fazer travar o processo do governo endossar o<br />
documento, é a exigência feita pela comunidade ligada à comunicação social<br />
para que o Estado não seja autorizado a ser proprietário de órgãos de comunicação<br />
social.<br />
O governo pensa que ao fazer isso, estaria a violar a Constituição da União,<br />
particularmente o Artigo 18, que garante a todos os cidadãos o direito à liberdade<br />
de opinião e expressão e de procurar, receber, transmitir e disseminar informação<br />
e ideias através de qualquer meio de comunicação.<br />
Contudo, o mesmo artigo não garante um direito absoluto ou sem restrições às<br />
liberdades acima descritas, como se afirma em edições anteriores desta<br />
publicação.<br />
O artigo e dois outros, os Artigos 30 e 31, estão também a ser alterados ao<br />
abrigo do Programa de Reforma da Lei da Comunicação Social.<br />
Apesar do relacionamento entre o governo e a comunicação social ter continuado<br />
a melhorar em termos gerais, durante todo o ano, várias violações da liberdade<br />
da comunicação social, principalmente por parte de organismos estatais, foram<br />
registadas como está ilustrado nos alertas que foram publicados por este capítulo.<br />
Os incidentes que merecem ser mencionados incluem a hostilização de dois<br />
So This Is Democracy? 133
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
jornalistas pela polícia. Os incidentes tiveram lugar quando os jornalistas, um<br />
homem e uma mulher, estavam a tentar fazer algumas perguntas ao Presidente<br />
e ao Vice-presidente.<br />
Outro jornalista enfrenta uma acção em tribunal por desrespeito ao Parlamento<br />
por ter escrito um artigo que se alega ser sedicioso contra a legislatura.<br />
Contudo, durante todo o ano de 2002, só se registou um ataque directo cometido<br />
pelo governo contra a comunicação social, na forma de uma forte advertência<br />
que criticava a comunicação social por não possuir ética. Tal ataque foi feito<br />
pouco depois dos deputados terem acusado essa comunicação social numa<br />
sessão da Assembleia Nacional.<br />
Ambos os incidentes tiveram lugar numa altura quando uma grande proporção<br />
da comunicação social, especialmente a imprensa sensacional, estava cada<br />
vez mais a divergir da ética pr<strong>of</strong>issional de forma a competir para um maior<br />
quinhão do mercado. Tal método envolvia a publicação de histórias invadindo<br />
a privacidade das pessoas, publicação de material semi pornográfico e de<br />
fotografias macabras de pessoas mortas.<br />
Estes desvios da ética e do pr<strong>of</strong>issionalismo, tornaram-se evidentes com o crescente<br />
número de casos apresentados no Conselho da Comunicação Social da Tanzânia,<br />
(MCT), contra os jornais e repórteres individuais. O número aumentou ligeiramente<br />
para 22 em 2002 em comparação com 20 no ano anterior.<br />
Muitos dos casos apresentados no MCT referem-se a difamação e notícias<br />
falsas. A maioria das queixas foram apresentadas por indivíduos que se sentiram<br />
difamados pela publicação de tais notícias e reportagens e / ou fotografias.<br />
Um número crescente de pessoas e organizações que se sentiram horrorizadas<br />
pela comunicação social, preferiram apresentar as suas queixas ao MCT, que<br />
é livre e mais rápido que o próprio tribunal a resolver tais casos. Destes casos,<br />
apenas um contra um jornalista que trabalha a tempo parcial, foi levado a<br />
tribunal na região de Kagera.<br />
Um passo dado pelo governo na direcção certa, foi a assinatura do Protocolo da<br />
SADC para a Informação, Cultura e Desportos. Contudo, o protocolo, que<br />
pretende promover a liberdade da comunicação social e a liberdade de expressão<br />
na região, tem que ser ratificado pelo governo antes de entrar em vigor. Poderá<br />
ser ratificado em qualquer altura durante 2003, provavelmente antes de Agosto,<br />
quando o país vai ser o anfitrião da Cimeira desta organização regional.<br />
2002<br />
Durante o ano os jornalistas tiveram que enfrentar falta de transparência por<br />
parte de alguns governantes. Contudo, registou-se uma melhoria ligeira em<br />
relação aos anos anteriores.<br />
134 So This Is Democracy?
TANZANIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Auto censura foi dominante entre os meios de comunicação social públicos e<br />
privados em relação às notícias que podiam ser consideradas como<br />
embaraçosas para o governo. Na maior parte dos casos, os chefes de redacção<br />
fizerem-no numa tentativa de proteger as suas posições e / ou negócios.<br />
O ano em análise testemunhou crescimento tanto na comunicação social escrita<br />
como electrónica. Vinte jornais foram registados elevando o número de títulos<br />
em circulação para 450. Uma situação idêntica foi registada na comunicação<br />
social electrónica e até ao fim do ano, a Comissão de Radiodifusão da Tanzânia<br />
(TBC) tinha registado 26 estações de rádio, 15 estações de televisão, 20<br />
operadores de televisão e 15 operadores de cabo.<br />
Contudo, esta diversidade não se alargou de forma a ajudar a maioria sem<br />
voz, particularmente os pobres das áreas rurais. Isto porque a comunicação<br />
social está principalmente concentrada nas áreas urbanas.<br />
No que diz respeito à comunicação social electrónica, a situação pode ser<br />
parcialmente atribuída à política do governo, que limita a cobertura das<br />
emissoras privadas terrestres a apenas 25 por cento do país.<br />
Contudo, na prática, a aplicação desta política tem sido impossível devido à<br />
nova tecnologia, o que faz com que se torne difícil supervisar as emissoras que<br />
optam pela utilização de satélites como forma de radiodifusão. O governo tomou<br />
nota da situação e está a considerar relaxar a limitação para 50 por cento.<br />
Um último relatório do TBC, revelou que o sector está a desenvolver-se<br />
rapidamente mas sem os regulamentos que o deveriam orientar. Em Dezembro,<br />
o TBC tomou decisões relacionadas com uma série de assuntos políticos com<br />
o objectivo de equilibrar a situação para todos os intervenientes. Os pontos<br />
centrais foram as questões de controlo e de propriedade, conteúdo e regras<br />
técnicas e a radiodifusão por satélite.<br />
O TBC disse que iria preparar mais regras e regulamentos para governar as<br />
três áreas e os respectivos documentos políticos estariam preparados para serem<br />
apreciados pelas partes interessadas em Abril de 2003 antes de serem<br />
endossados pela Comissão.<br />
O ambiente da radiodifusão é regulado e supervisado pelo TBC que foi<br />
estabelecido por legislação como um organismo regulador independente. Os<br />
seus poderes não são derivados da constituição do país mas da própria lei. A<br />
sua independência, contudo, é questionável uma vez que a mesma legislação<br />
dá poderes ao Ministro responsável para interferir nas operações da Comissão.<br />
O Sindicato de Jornalistas da Tanzânia (TUJ), que foi criado na Segunda metade<br />
de 2001, continuou a alargar as suas asas estabelecendo delegações em várias<br />
empresas da comunicação social. Contudo, o ritmo foi lento e até ao final do<br />
So This Is Democracy? 135
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ano apenas sete delegações estavam a funcionar.<br />
Durante o ano, não foi feito nenhum esforço para unir as associações existentes.<br />
Actualmente há mais de 15 associações de jornalistas e cerca do mesmo número<br />
de clubes da imprensa.<br />
No ano de 2002 não se registou uma alteração significativa no meio legal e<br />
constitucional do país, no qual a comunicação social opera. A atmosfera pode<br />
melhorar substancialmente durante 2003 se todos os desenvolvimentos<br />
positivos forem frutuosos.<br />
O desafio que se enfrenta é o dos jornalistas serem capazes de fortalecer a<br />
comunicação social como forma de conceder poder, informação e<br />
esclarecimentos. Devem continuar com a sua luta por um sistema de imprensa<br />
livre, uma vez que, sem a devida autonomia e um meio livre, é difícil visionar<br />
como a comunicação social poderá realizar o seu potencial como agente da<br />
democratização.<br />
Consequentemente, os meios de comunicação social deveriam procurar como<br />
melhor podem desenvolver as suas funções democráticas. Deveriam colocar<br />
o interesse público acima doutras considerações.<br />
2002<br />
136 So This Is Democracy?
TANZANIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-15<br />
PERSON(S): Jenerali Ulimwengu<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
The government has turned down an<br />
application for naturalisation by<br />
Jenerali Ulimwengu, a veteran journalist<br />
and publisher.<br />
Ulimwengu, aged 53, is chairman<br />
<strong>of</strong> Habari Corporation and publisher<br />
<strong>of</strong> the highly regarded and fiercely independent<br />
newspapers “Rai”,<br />
“Mtanzania” and “The <strong>Africa</strong>n”,<br />
which have <strong>of</strong>ten run foul <strong>of</strong> the government<br />
by writing revealing stories<br />
and biting commentaries about corruption<br />
in high places.<br />
In 2001, in a move that shocked<br />
many, the government announced that<br />
Ulimwengu and three other individuals<br />
had been stripped <strong>of</strong> their citizenship<br />
for allegedly failing to prove their<br />
parents’ citizenship.<br />
The four individuals were all advised<br />
to apply for naturalisation to address<br />
“technical problems.” On<br />
Wednesday February 13, 2002 it was<br />
revealed that all except Ulimwengu<br />
had been granted naturalisation by the<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Home Affairs.<br />
According to MISA’s Tanzanian<br />
chapter (MISA-Tanzania), this move<br />
has confirmed fears, expressed last<br />
year, that the whole affair was organised<br />
to punish Ulimwengu for his journalistic<br />
activities.<br />
Ulimwengu’s ‘s critical newspaper<br />
articles and weekly television programme<br />
have <strong>of</strong>ten irked the authorities.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-08<br />
PERSON(S): George Maziku<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
George Maziku, a correspondent for<br />
“Mwananchi” newspaper, is facing a<br />
criminal case after being interrogated<br />
and detained by the police for several<br />
hours. He is alleged to have displayed<br />
“contempt <strong>of</strong> Parliament” by writing<br />
a seditious article against Parliament.<br />
In his column that appeared on<br />
April 7, 2002, entitled “Mabadiliko ya<br />
Sheria ya Uchaguzi yanakusudia<br />
nini?” (Where does electoral law reform<br />
lead us?), Maziku explained how<br />
the law reform is used to legalise different<br />
election scenarios in favour <strong>of</strong><br />
the ruling Revolutionary Party <strong>of</strong> Tanzania<br />
(CCM).<br />
National Assembly Speaker Pius<br />
Msekwa wrote to the editor <strong>of</strong><br />
“Mwananchi” on April 9, saying that<br />
according to Provision No. 3 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
1988 Parliamentary Immunities, Powers<br />
and Privileges Act, Maziku’s<br />
newspaper article misrepresented the<br />
intentions <strong>of</strong> Parliament. Msekwa explained<br />
that by doing so, the journalist<br />
faces a charge <strong>of</strong> “willful misrepresentation”.<br />
On April 12, Maziku received a letter<br />
from National Assembly Clerk<br />
Kipenka Musa, summoning him to<br />
report to the National Assembly to<br />
explain himself. The attorney general<br />
was instructed by the speaker <strong>of</strong> Parliament<br />
to take legal action against the<br />
journalist. Maziku was detained for<br />
some time by the police and has since<br />
been released on bail.<br />
The correspondent has yet to be <strong>of</strong>ficially<br />
charged but is looking for a<br />
lawyer to assist him. He claims he is<br />
terrified by the potential outcome <strong>of</strong><br />
a court case and is considering seeking<br />
asylum beyond the country’s bor-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 137
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ders.<br />
According to the law on defamation,<br />
the editor, publisher, printer and<br />
distributor <strong>of</strong> a publication are normally<br />
parties who are liable to answer<br />
the charges.<br />
MISA-Tanzania has since called on<br />
journalists, both from Tanzania and<br />
the rest <strong>of</strong> the region, to support<br />
Maziku’s defence.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-31<br />
PERSON(S): Abduel Kenge<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
Journalist Abduel Kenge <strong>of</strong> “The Express”<br />
was arrested and held in police<br />
custody for four hours on Tuesday<br />
May 21, 2002. Kenge was arrested<br />
for allegedly engaging Vice<br />
President Ali Mohamed Shein in a<br />
manner not befitting the public <strong>of</strong>ficial’s<br />
status.<br />
Kenge was attending the <strong>of</strong>ficial release<br />
<strong>of</strong> a book entitled “Nyerere<br />
Legacy and Economic Policy Making<br />
in Tanzania” at the University <strong>of</strong> Dar<br />
es Salaam’s Council Chamber, where<br />
the vice president was the guest <strong>of</strong><br />
honour. Kenge attempted to approach<br />
Shein for a comment at a reception<br />
after the book launch but was prevented<br />
from doing so by the vice<br />
president’s chief bodyguard.<br />
“Who the hell do you think you are<br />
to talk to the vice president this way?”<br />
the bodyguard demanded to know, insisting<br />
that Kenge leave the premises.<br />
A second bodyguard appeared on the<br />
scene and Kenge was escorted from<br />
the reception hall.<br />
Outside, the chief bodyguard told<br />
two senior police <strong>of</strong>ficers to place<br />
Kenge under arrest for harassing the<br />
138 So This Is Democracy?<br />
vice president, a charge the journalist<br />
denied. Kenge was finally released after<br />
four hours without any charges being<br />
pressed.<br />
Press Secretary to the Vice President,<br />
Said Ameir, has since apologised<br />
to Kenge, admitting that the action <strong>of</strong><br />
the bodyguards and police was too severe.<br />
However, he told Kenge that<br />
journalists should approach either the<br />
press secretary or security guards before<br />
speaking to a dignitary. This is<br />
not <strong>of</strong>ficial policy, however.<br />
Commenting on an earlier incident<br />
where another reporter from “The Express”<br />
received similar treatment in<br />
her attempt to engage the president,<br />
Deputy Private Secretary to the President,<br />
Peter Kallaghe, told the “The<br />
Express” that there was nothing<br />
wrong in asking the president (and<br />
other senior government <strong>of</strong>ficials) a<br />
question. He suggested that it was a<br />
“healthy culture.”<br />
Kallaghe said the changing environment<br />
and culture brought in by the<br />
private media is foreign to government<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials, and hence security<br />
guards tend to be nervous. He stated<br />
that newspapers are representatives <strong>of</strong><br />
the public and have the right to hold<br />
the president accountable on behalf <strong>of</strong><br />
the citizens.<br />
However, less than a week after his<br />
comments appeared in the “The Express”,<br />
the culture <strong>of</strong> misunderstanding<br />
the media’s role was again unveiled<br />
with Kenge’s arrest. The journalist’s<br />
arrest was strongly condemned<br />
by journalists, who feel that<br />
it violates media freedom and the right<br />
to information.<br />
“The Express”, published by <strong>Media</strong><br />
Holdings (T) Ltd, is Tanzania’s<br />
biggest selling weekly newspaper. It
TANZANIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
was also the first newspaper in the<br />
country to go online.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-06<br />
PERSON(S): Juma Nkamia<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
Popular radio presenter Juma Nkamia<br />
has been banned from broadcasting<br />
Football Association <strong>of</strong> Tanzania<br />
(FAT) organised matches and competitions<br />
for one year. Nkamia, who<br />
works for the state-run Radio Tanzania<br />
Dar es Salaam (RTD), is being<br />
punished for allegedly hailing Kenya’s<br />
soccer team victory against Tanzania.<br />
The FAT Executive Committee imposed<br />
the ban on Nkamia, claiming<br />
that he announced that FAT should<br />
shoulder the blame for the national<br />
team’s humiliating defeat to Kenya.<br />
MISA has notified RTD management<br />
<strong>of</strong> the stern penalty given to<br />
Nkamia. According to Nkamia, he<br />
appealed the ban to the highest sports<br />
board in the country, Baraza la<br />
Michezo Tanzania (BMT), on May<br />
29, 2002. The BMT’s Executive Committee<br />
denies having received the appeal.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-06-10<br />
PERSON(S): Juma Nkamia<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
State-run Radio Tanzania Dar es Salaam<br />
(RDT) has notified the Football<br />
Association <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (FAT) that it<br />
would not take disciplinary action<br />
against radio presenter Juma Nkamia,<br />
as he has neither violated the Civil<br />
Service Regulations nor breached the<br />
ethical code <strong>of</strong> conduct.<br />
RDT was responding to the FAT’s<br />
May 29, 2002 appeal, in which the<br />
football association urged the broadcaster<br />
to institute disciplinary proceedings<br />
against Nkamia. The letter<br />
<strong>of</strong> appeal also contained notification<br />
<strong>of</strong> the stern penalty that the FAT<br />
slapped on the presenter. The football<br />
association banned Nkamia from<br />
broadcasting FAT-organised matches<br />
and competitions for one year.<br />
RTD explained that its management<br />
could only take disciplinary action<br />
against an employee if there was clear<br />
pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> a violation <strong>of</strong> civil service<br />
regulations or a breach <strong>of</strong> the broadcasting<br />
code <strong>of</strong> ethical conduct. In this<br />
case, RDT management was satisfied<br />
that there were no grounds for disciplinary<br />
action.<br />
MISA reported on June 6 that popular<br />
RTD radio presenter Nkamia was<br />
banned from broadcasting FAT-organised<br />
matches and competitions for one<br />
year, allegedly for hailing Kenya’s<br />
national soccer team after their 5-0<br />
victory against their Tanzanian counterpart.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-09-05<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong><br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
The government has issued a stern<br />
warning against “unethical” news<br />
media, saying that such conduct has<br />
contributed to the fall <strong>of</strong> moral standards<br />
in the country.<br />
On August 20 2002, the Prime Minister’s<br />
Office issued a four-page statement,<br />
warning that the government<br />
would not hesitate to take punitive<br />
measures against any newspaper that<br />
So This Is Democracy? 139
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
publishes material in violation <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
ethics. “It is the hope <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government that all the news media<br />
organs, which have been publishing<br />
materials provoking numerous complaints<br />
from the public, will stop such<br />
conduct forthwith so as to uphold<br />
morality in our society.”<br />
The statement specifically condemns<br />
tabloids that publish semi-pornographic<br />
materials and grisly front<br />
page photographs <strong>of</strong> dead people, ostensibly<br />
to “inform the public” about<br />
what is happening in society. Furthermore,<br />
it states that news media should<br />
respect people’s privacy and that intruding<br />
into an individual’s private life<br />
is only fair if geared towards demonstrable<br />
public interest. The statement<br />
notes that some newspapers have intruded<br />
on people’s privacy with the<br />
flimsy excuse that they were covering<br />
people who were prominent and<br />
hence newsworthy. Moreover, the<br />
government writes that the news that<br />
is published is <strong>of</strong>ten one-sided, exposing<br />
only the ills <strong>of</strong> these so-called<br />
prominent individuals.<br />
Since the advent <strong>of</strong> a free market,<br />
there has been a proliferation <strong>of</strong> private<br />
media outlets from a handful to<br />
over 400. However, a large number<br />
<strong>of</strong> the newer media houses are part <strong>of</strong><br />
the “yellow press,” which <strong>of</strong>ten defies<br />
ethics in order to compete.<br />
On July 26, 2001, the Tanzanian<br />
government banned nine local<br />
Kiswahili weekly magazines and suspended<br />
three tabloids for allegedly<br />
publishing indecent photographs that<br />
corrupt society and thwart campaigns<br />
to combat HIV-AIDS in the country.<br />
The Kiswahili tabloids which were<br />
suspended for six months are “Cheko”<br />
and “Zungu”, while “Kombora” was<br />
suspended for twelve months.<br />
The Kiswahili magazines banned<br />
by the government are “Mama<br />
Huruma”, “Tafrani”, “Chachandu”,<br />
“Mizengwe”, “Maraha”, “Kula Vitu”,<br />
“Penzi Kikohozi”, “Uroda kwa<br />
Foleni” and “Simulizi Kutoka<br />
Chumbani”.<br />
Tanzania has a <strong>Media</strong> Council and<br />
Code <strong>of</strong> Conduct. However, neither<br />
is active nor adhered to due to operational<br />
problems.<br />
MISA’s Tanzanian chapter (MISA-<br />
Tanzania) is currently implementing<br />
a <strong>Media</strong> Freedom Monitoring Project,<br />
which, among other things, will look<br />
at the issue <strong>of</strong> ethics and pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism<br />
in the local media.<br />
MISA opposes any legislative attempt<br />
to regulate the conduct and<br />
practice <strong>of</strong> the media. MISA believes<br />
that regulatory structures should be<br />
voluntary and free from both government<br />
intervention and control, as well<br />
as the control <strong>of</strong> media owners.<br />
2002<br />
140 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Zambia<br />
By Oliver Kanene, Freelance Communications Consultant<br />
On January 3, 2003, the Zambia Broadcasting Corporation Television<br />
(ZNBC-TV) broadcast its annual Events <strong>of</strong> the Year special pro<br />
gramme. This was an in-depth review <strong>of</strong> the major events during the<br />
previous year, in which President Levy Mwanawasa’s swearing-in ceremony<br />
on January 2, 2002 was the start-<strong>of</strong>f point followed by a petition by the major<br />
opposition parties demanding that the High Court declare the elections null<br />
and void because they were not free and fair.<br />
The TV programme repeated President Mwanawasa’s revelations <strong>of</strong> abuses<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice during the reign <strong>of</strong> President Frederick Chiluba, involving some <strong>of</strong><br />
his top government <strong>of</strong>ficials including press aide Richard Sakala, Head <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Zambia Intelligence Service Xavier Chungu, and Chief Justice Mathew<br />
Ngulube - who resigned his position amid incessant calls from the public for<br />
him to relinquish his <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
ZNBC recalled the euphoria which, hot on the heels <strong>of</strong> the shooting down <strong>of</strong><br />
former President Chiluba’s bid for a third term <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice a few months previously,<br />
saw the Zambians make history once again by calling on parliament to<br />
strip Chiluba <strong>of</strong> his immunity. This was reportedly the first time such a move<br />
had been made by a parliament in the Commonwealth.<br />
The removal <strong>of</strong> his immunity was done to ensure that Chiluba could stand<br />
trial for his alleged misdeeds during his ten years in <strong>of</strong>fice and for plundering<br />
the national economy particularly through gross abuse <strong>of</strong> a Zambia Intelligence<br />
Service bank account in London from which dubious payments worth<br />
several millions <strong>of</strong> US Dollars were made by Chungu to Chief Justice Ngulube,<br />
Chiluba’ children and tailor, Zambia’s Ambassador to the United States Athan<br />
Shansonga, and Attorney General Bon Mutale, among others.<br />
Indeed, these were some <strong>of</strong> the events which dominated the media during the<br />
year and the TV programme reviewed the events, from the Chiluba’s political<br />
ups and downs, through government’s rejection <strong>of</strong> genetically modified maize<br />
from donors in the face <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>’s worst food crises, to the<br />
continued hearing <strong>of</strong> the petition in which major opposition parties are demanding<br />
the nullification <strong>of</strong> the elections which brought Mwanawasa to power.<br />
However, it was astonishing that the programme did not mention any <strong>of</strong> the<br />
major events which characterised the media themselves during 2002, the year<br />
which was seen by many as one in which important strides were made by the<br />
media towards achieving a more conducive working environment. The most<br />
So This Is Democracy? 141
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
important achievement was the tabling before parliament <strong>of</strong> three media bills,<br />
which are likely to be passed into law early in 2003.<br />
The ascension <strong>of</strong> legal practitioner Mwanawasa to the presidency and his proclaimed<br />
“New Deal administration <strong>of</strong> laws and not men” gave the media and<br />
general public a glimmer <strong>of</strong> hope that there would be a more responsive government<br />
attitude in the debate on media reform in the country. This was, however,<br />
not forthcoming. The mistreatment <strong>of</strong> journalists by police and political<br />
party cadres continued unabated and Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Penal Code, which creates<br />
the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> criminal libel against the president, continued to be flagrantly<br />
applied. The government was still very eager to keep its hold on ZNBC.<br />
However, this time around the ruling MMD government’s stance on the media<br />
and media reforms was met with a more concerted, determined and unprecedented<br />
opposing force fuelled by a unity <strong>of</strong> purpose on the part <strong>of</strong> media<br />
practitioners.<br />
The differences between the Press Association <strong>of</strong> Zambia (PAZA), which represents<br />
mainly government controlled media organisations and employees,<br />
and the Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association (ZIMA), which comprises<br />
independent media organisations and freelance journalists, were buried and<br />
the two organisations began to work together in the fight for greater press<br />
freedom in Zambia. The Zambia <strong>Media</strong> Women Association (ZAMWA) and<br />
the Association <strong>of</strong> Senior Journalists joined them.<br />
These media organisations collectively intensified the lobbying <strong>of</strong> members <strong>of</strong><br />
parliament where they already had an allies in Dipak Patel, a long time proponent<br />
<strong>of</strong> a free press in Zambia, and Sakwiba Sikota, a vice president in the<br />
major opposition party, the United Party for Development (UPND), and defence<br />
lawyer for many journalists dragged to the courts during Chiluba’s rule.<br />
The result <strong>of</strong> lobbying and other concerted advocacy activities was the proposal<br />
that the ZNBC Act be repealed and replaced by a new Broadcasting Act<br />
under which ZNBC would not have any licensing powers as is currently the<br />
case and would be treated equally with other broadcasters. In addition the<br />
new act would remove the Minister’s powers to appoint the Board <strong>of</strong> Directors<br />
<strong>of</strong> ZNBC and therefore the appointment <strong>of</strong> the chief executive <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
It was further proposed that an Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) be<br />
established to regulate broadcasting and that a Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act<br />
be enacted.<br />
2002<br />
A document was prepared on the proposals and presented to government and<br />
was received with a surprise response. The Ministry <strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting<br />
had already submitted proposals, including the repeal <strong>of</strong> the ZNBC<br />
142 So This Is Democracy?
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Act and establishment <strong>of</strong> a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority, to Cabinet.<br />
The government response, though surprising, was a direct result <strong>of</strong> concerted<br />
advocacy from the media organisations which also won them more support<br />
from opposition members <strong>of</strong> parliament who later put forward a private members<br />
bill in parliament. Again government swept the idea under the carpet.<br />
Government quickly came up with their own bills - although most <strong>of</strong> them<br />
contained “plagiarised” sections <strong>of</strong> the proposals made earlier by the media<br />
and contained in the private members bill. By the end <strong>of</strong> the year the bills had<br />
been tabled in parliament and are to be debated in early 2003. There are,<br />
though, still some contentious issues in the government documents before<br />
parliament.<br />
The unity <strong>of</strong> purpose exhibited by the two main media organisations – PAZA<br />
and ZIMA- also helped media workers look at their own practices. For many<br />
years government’s rejection <strong>of</strong> media reform proposals was based on the<br />
excuse that the media was disorganised and was not speaking with one voice.<br />
The two organisations, midway through the year, agreed to harmonise their<br />
codes <strong>of</strong> ethics and proposed the establishment <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Zambia<br />
(MECOZ). This will unify the Independent <strong>Media</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> ZIMA and<br />
the <strong>Media</strong> Ethics and Complaints Council <strong>of</strong> PAZA. With the minimum <strong>of</strong><br />
controversy, the plan to create a harmonised MECOZ was concluded at the<br />
end <strong>of</strong> the year and registration is likely to be in the first quarter <strong>of</strong> 2003.<br />
The Association <strong>of</strong> Senior Journalists lodged a complaint to ZIMA against<br />
the Today newspaper after the paper alleged that former Home Affairs Minister,<br />
the late Luckson Mapushi, who died in a road accident towards the end <strong>of</strong><br />
the year, was in fact drunk when his vehicle careered <strong>of</strong>f the road and overturned.<br />
The Independent <strong>Media</strong> Council met and summoned the editor,<br />
Masautso Phiri, who is former Chairman <strong>of</strong> ZIMA, and resolved the matter.<br />
The environment for journalists in the country continued to be poor during<br />
the year. Section 69, which is one <strong>of</strong> the biggest hindrances to free media<br />
practice in Zambia, was applied against Post Newspaper Editor, Fred<br />
M’membe, who was charged with defaming President Mwanawasa in a story<br />
which quoted Dipak Patel calling the President “a cabbage”. The People Newspaper<br />
Editor Emmanuel Chilekwa, too, came face to face with Section 69<br />
when he was charged with defaming the President in an article, which alleged<br />
that Mwanawasa was suffering from Parkinson’s Disease.<br />
Other harassment, physical attacks, and interference continued during the year.<br />
At the beginning <strong>of</strong> the year the Clerk <strong>of</strong> the National Assembly, Mwelwa<br />
Chibesakunda, announced that journalists and the public would be barred from<br />
witnessing the election <strong>of</strong> the Speaker during the first sitting <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
under the new administration. Though no reason was given, it was obvious<br />
So This Is Democracy? 143
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
that the election <strong>of</strong> the Speaker was bound to be controversial and the government<br />
wanted the proceedings to be conducted in a secretive manner. The ban<br />
was, however, lifted, without reasons being given.<br />
Throughout the year journalists were threatened, (twice through bomb scares),<br />
physically attacked or verbally abused by overzealous political party cadres,<br />
detained by police even for ‘bailable’ <strong>of</strong>fences as was the case with Chilekwa<br />
and his reporters, and generally despised by government <strong>of</strong>ficials for not supporting<br />
“national development”.<br />
On the other hand, the public and media practitioners still saw the need to<br />
increase media coverage in the country. Former Zambia <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mass<br />
Communication (ZAMCOM) Director, Mike Daka, launched Breeze FM a<br />
privately owned commercial radio station in Chipata, some 600 kilometres<br />
from Lusaka in the Eastern Province. A number <strong>of</strong> similar initiatives were<br />
planned for the year including a Catholic radio station in Mongu in Western<br />
Province, Radio Syuungu in Livingstone, Radio Kariba in Siavonga on the<br />
border with Zimbabwe and two other Catholic stations in Livingstone and<br />
Mansa in the North. It is expected that during the year 2003 at least three <strong>of</strong><br />
the planned radio stations will hit the airwaves.<br />
2002<br />
144 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Zâmbia<br />
Por Oliver Kanene, Consultor de Comunicações em Regime Livre<br />
No dia 3 de Janeiro de 2003, a Corporação de Radiodifusão e Televisão<br />
da Zâmbia (ZNBC-TV) transmitiu o seu programa especial anual<br />
Acontecimentos do Ano. Tratou-se de um programa em pr<strong>of</strong>undidade,<br />
uma retrospectiva dos mais importantes acontecimentos do ano anterior, no<br />
qual a cerimónia de tomada de posse do Presidente Levy Mwanawasa em 2<br />
de Janeiro de 2002, foi o primeiro assunto. Seguia-se uma solicitação feita<br />
pelos principais partidos de oposição para que o Alto Tribunal declarasse as<br />
eleições desprovidas de toda e qualquer validade porque não tinham sido livres<br />
e justas.<br />
O programa de televisão transmitiu também as revelações do Presidente<br />
Mwanawasa sobre os abusos do cargo durante o mandato do Presidente<br />
Frederick Chiluba, envolvendo alguns dos seus altos funcionários, incluindo<br />
o seu adido de imprensa Richard Sakala, o Chefe dos Serviços Secretos da<br />
Zâmbia, Xavier Chungu e do Juiz Presidente Mathew Ngulube – que se demitiu<br />
da sua posição na sequência de pedidos incessantes do público para que ele o<br />
fizesse.<br />
A ZNBC lembrou a euforia que envolveu as páginas da história escritas pelos<br />
Zambianos, logo a seguir à recusa do ex-presidente Chiluba se candidatar a<br />
um terceiro mandato presidencial, alguns meses antes, ao pedirem ao<br />
parlamento para que retirasse a imunidade a Chiluba. De acordo com as<br />
informações, foi esta a primeira vez que tal medida foi tomada por um<br />
parlamento da Commonwealth.<br />
A remoção da sua imunidade foi decretada para garantir que Chiluba pudesse<br />
responder em tribunal pelos alegados delitos que cometeu durante o seu<br />
mandato de dez anos e por ter levado a economia do país quase à banca rota,<br />
particularmente através do grave abuso de uma conta em nome dos Serviços<br />
Secretos da Zâmbia e aberta num banco em Londres, a partir da qual foram<br />
feitos pagamentos duvidosos por Chungu ao Juiz Presidente Ngulube, aos<br />
filhos e alfaiate de Chiluba, ao Embaixador Zambiano nos Estados Unidos<br />
Athan Shansonga, e ao Procurador Geral da República Bon Mutale entre<br />
outros, no valor de vários milhões de dólares americanos.<br />
Na verdade, estes foram alguns dos acontecimentos que dominaram a<br />
comunicação social durante o ano e o programa de televisão fez uma<br />
retrospectiva destes acontecimentos, desde os pontos altos aos pontos baixos<br />
políticos de Chiluba, passando pela rejeição do milho geneticamente<br />
modificado, <strong>of</strong>erecido por doadores frente a uma das piores crises alimentares<br />
So This Is Democracy? 145
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
da África Austral, até à continuação da sessão de audição da petição onde<br />
qual os mais importantes partidos da oposição exigem o cancelamento das<br />
eleições que levaram Mwanawasa ao poder.<br />
Contudo, foi surpreendente que o programa não tivesse mencionado nenhum<br />
dos mais importantes acontecimentos que caracterizaram a própria<br />
comunicação social durante 2002, o ano que foi considerado por muitos como<br />
o que conseguiu importantes avanços alcançados pela comunicação social no<br />
sentido de conseguir um ambiente de trabalho mais conducente. O mais<br />
importante avanço foi a apresentação no parlamento de três projectos de lei,<br />
que deverão ser aprovados no início de 2003.<br />
O subida à presidência do jurista Mwanawasa e do seu proclamado conceito<br />
“Novo processo de administração de leis e não de homens” deu à comunicação<br />
social e ao público em geral um raio de esperança de que se entrava num<br />
período em que a atitude do governo seria mais sensível em relação ao debate<br />
sobre a reforma da comunicação social no país. Contudo, isto não aconteceu.<br />
O abuso no tratamento dos jornalistas pela polícia e pelos quadros políticos<br />
do partido continuou com a mesma intensidade e o Parágrafo 69 do Código<br />
Penal, que estipula que é uma <strong>of</strong>ensa a difamação do Presidente, continua a<br />
ser flagrantemente aplicado. O governo continuava muito interessado em<br />
manter as suas garras na dominação da ZNBC.<br />
Contudo, desta vez, a posição do governo do MMD sobre a comunicação<br />
social e sobre as reformas da comunicação social, foi enfrentada por um<br />
movimento de oposição mais concertado, determinado e sem precedentes e<br />
iniciado por uma unidade de propósito por parte dos pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da<br />
comunicação social.<br />
As diferenças entre a Associação da Imprensa da Zâmbia (PAZA), que<br />
representa principalmente as organizações de comunicação social controladas<br />
pelo governo e os seus empregados, e a Associação da Comunicação Social<br />
Independente da Zâmbia (ZIMA), que envolve organizações da comunicação<br />
social independente e jornalistas em regime livre, foram enterradas e as duas<br />
organizações começaram a trabalhar conjuntamente na luta por uma maior<br />
liberdade de imprensa na Zâmbia. A Associação Zambiana das Mulheres na<br />
Comunicação Social (ZAMWA) e a Associação de Jornalistas Seniores juntouse<br />
às outras.<br />
2002<br />
Estas organizações da comunicação social intensificaram colectivamente o<br />
seu trabalho de “lobbying” dos membros do parlamento onde já possuíam<br />
aliados nas pessoas de Dipak Patel, um defensor de longa data de uma imprensa<br />
livre na Zâmbia e Sakwiba Sikota, um vice-presidente no mais importante<br />
partido da oposição, o Partido Unido para o Desenvolvimento (UPND) e um<br />
advogado de defesa para muitos jornalistas que foram arrastados para os<br />
146 So This Is Democracy?
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
tribunais durante o governo de Chiluba.<br />
O resultado do “lobbying” e de outras actividades concertadas de advocacia foi<br />
a proposta de que a Lei da ZNBC seja anulada e substituída por uma nova Lei<br />
de Radiodifusão ao abrigo da qual a ZNBC não teria qualquer poder de conceder<br />
licenças como é actualmente o caso e seria tratada em igualdade de<br />
circunstâncias com as outras emissoras. Para além disso a nova lei removeria os<br />
poderes do Ministro de nomear o Conselho de Directores da ZNBC e<br />
consequentemente do Chefe Executivo da emissora.<br />
Foi ainda proposto que uma Autoridade Independente de Radiodifusão (IBA)<br />
fosse criada para regular a radiodifusão e que uma Lei de Liberdade de<br />
Informação fosse também criada.<br />
Foi preparado um documento sobre as propostas e apresentado ao governo que<br />
lhe deu uma resposta surpreendente. O Ministério da Informação e Radiodifusão<br />
já tinha apresentado ao gabinete certas propostas, incluindo a revogação da Lei<br />
da ZNBC e a criação de uma Autoridade Reguladora da Radiodifusão.<br />
A resposta do governo, apesar de surpreendente, foi o resultado directo da<br />
campanha concertada de advocacia das organizações da comunicação social<br />
que também lhes trouxe mais apoio dos deputados membros da oposição, que<br />
mais tarde apresentaram no parlamento o projecto de lei dos membros privados.<br />
De novo o governo pôs a ideia de lado. O governo rapidamente apresentou os<br />
seus próprios projectos de lei - apesar da maioria deles conterem artigos<br />
“plagiados” das propostas feitas anteriormente pela comunicação social e<br />
contidas no projecto de lei dos membros privados. Por alturas do final do ano,<br />
os projectos de lei tinham sido apresentados no Parlamento e devem ter sido<br />
debatidos nos princípios de 2003. Contudo, há ainda alguns pontos de<br />
contencioso nos documentos apresentados pelo governo ao Parlamento.<br />
A unidade de propósito demonstrada pelas duas principais organizações da<br />
comunicação social – a PAZA e a ZIMA- ajudou também os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da<br />
comunicação social a olharem para as suas próprias práticas. Durante muitos<br />
anos, a rejeição das propostas de reforma da comunicação social por parte do<br />
governo, foi baseada na desculpa de que a comunicação social estava<br />
desorganizada e não falava com uma só voz.<br />
As duas organizações, em meados do ano, concordaram em harmonizar os<br />
seus códigos de ética e propuseram a criação do Conselho da Comunicação<br />
Social da Zâmbia (MECOZ). Isto irá fazer a unificação do Conselho da<br />
Comunicação Social Independente da ZIMA e o Conselho de Ética e Queixas<br />
da Comunicação Social da PAZA. Com o mínimo de controvérsia, o plano<br />
harmonizado para criar o MECOZ foi completado no final do ano e o registo<br />
poderá ser feito no primeiro trimestre de 2003.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 147
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
A Associação de Jornalistas Seniores apresentou uma queixa à ZIMA contra<br />
o Jornal “Today” depois do jornal ter alegado que o antigo Ministro do Interior,<br />
o falecido Luckson Mapushi, que morreu num acidente de viação quase<br />
no fim do ano, estava de facto bêbado quando o seu veículo saiu da estrada<br />
e capotou. O Conselho da Comunicação Social Independente reuniu-se e<br />
convocou o Chefe da Redacção, Masautso Phiri, que é o antigo Presidente<br />
da ZIMA, e resolveu o assunto.<br />
Durante o ano, o ambiente para os jornalistas no país continuou a ser fraco.<br />
O Parágrafo 69, que é um dos principais obstáculos à prática da liberdade<br />
de imprensa na Zâmbia, foi invocado contra o Chefe da Redacção do Jornal<br />
“ Post ”, Fred M’membe, que foi acusado de difamar o Presidente<br />
Mwanawasa numa reportagem que citava Dipak Patel apelidando o presidente<br />
de “repolho”. O Chefe da Redacção do jornal “The People Newspaper”<br />
Emmanuel Chilekwa, também teve que enfrentar o Parágrafo 69 quando foi<br />
acusado de difamar o Presidente num artigo, que alegava que Mwanawasa<br />
s<strong>of</strong>ria da Doença de Parkinson.<br />
Outras perseguições, assaltos físicos e interferência continuaram durante o<br />
ano. No início do ano, o Secretário da Assembleia Nacional, Mwelwa<br />
Chibesakunda, anunciou que os jornalistas e o público seriam proibidos de<br />
assistir à eleição do Presidente do novo Parlamento durante a sua primeira<br />
sessão. Apesar de não ter sido dada nenhuma razão, foi óbvio que a eleição<br />
do Presidente do Parlamento iria ser controversa e o governo queria que os<br />
trabalhos fossem conduzidos de forma secreta. Contudo, a proibição foi<br />
levantada sem terem sido dadas nenhuma razões.<br />
Durante o ano, houve jornalistas que foram ameaçados, (duas verses com<br />
ameaças de bombas), atacados fisicamente ou insultados por quadros muito<br />
zelosos de partidos políticos e detidos pela polícia, até mesmo por violações<br />
“caucionáveis” como foi o caso com Chilekwa e os seus repórteres e duma<br />
forma geral desprezados pelos funcionários do governo por não apoiarem o<br />
“desenvolvimento nacional”.<br />
2002<br />
Por outro lado, o público e os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da comunicação social acharam<br />
necessário aumentar a cobertura informativa no país. O Director do antigo<br />
Instituto de Comunicação de Massas da Zâmbia (ZAMCOM), Mike Daka,<br />
lançou em Chipata, na Província Oriental e a cerca de 600 Km de Lusaka, o<br />
“Breeze FM”, uma estação de rádio comercial de propriedade privada. Várias<br />
outras iniciativas idênticas foram planeadas para o ano, incluindo uma estação<br />
de rádio Católica em Mongu na Província Ocidental, a Rádio Syuungu em<br />
Livingstone, a Rádio Kariba em Siavonga na fronteira com o Zimbabwe e<br />
duas outras estações de rádio Católicas em Livingstone e em Mansa no Norte.<br />
Espera-se que durante o ano de 2003, pelo menos três das planeadas estações<br />
de rádio comecem a transmitir.<br />
148 So This Is Democracy?
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-11<br />
INSTITUTION(S): National Mirror<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
On February 7, 2002, bomb scares<br />
were received at about the same time<br />
at Multimedia Zambia, a media complex<br />
housing the weekly “National<br />
Mirror” newspaper, and Multichoice<br />
Zambia, a subscription television provider<br />
situated nearby. Both bomb<br />
scares forced operations to grind to a<br />
halt for several hours.<br />
A report in the February 9 to 15 edition<br />
<strong>of</strong> “National Mirror” explained<br />
that an anonymous caller called the<br />
two organisations at about 11:00 a.m.<br />
(local time) and warned that bombs<br />
had been planted there. The calls<br />
prompted the immediate evacuation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the premises, while bomb disposal<br />
experts were called in. The newspaper<br />
reports that police declared the<br />
premises safe after combing them for<br />
about two hours.<br />
Police spokesman Lemmy Kajoba<br />
told “National Mirror” that police<br />
were investigating the possible source<br />
<strong>of</strong> the bomb hoaxes and that the perpetrators<br />
faced stiff penalties if<br />
caught. Two other bomb hoaxes were<br />
recorded on 2 January, when an<br />
anonymous caller phoned the Lusaka<br />
High Court and the Zambia Revenue<br />
Authority, warning the occupants that<br />
bombs had been planted there.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-11<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in<br />
Zambia, general public<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On January 24, 2002, Zambian Parliament<br />
Clerk Mwelwa Chibesakunda<br />
announced that journalists and members<br />
<strong>of</strong> the public would be barred<br />
from witnessing the election <strong>of</strong> the<br />
speaker, scheduled for January 25.<br />
The ban remained in force until February<br />
5.<br />
The ban was announced in an <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
notice from Parliament, broadcast<br />
on the state-owned Zambia National<br />
Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC)<br />
television, summoning Parliament for<br />
its first <strong>of</strong>ficial sitting since the December<br />
27 general elections, during<br />
which a new president, Parliament and<br />
councillors were elected.<br />
Though no reason was given for<br />
barring the media and public from the<br />
sitting, which has previously been<br />
open to the public, it is possible that<br />
the move was taken by the clerk to<br />
avoid adverse publicity from an election<br />
that was expected to be controversial,<br />
in view <strong>of</strong> the sharp differences<br />
between the opposition and the<br />
ruling Movement for Multiparty Democracy<br />
(MMD) on both the choice<br />
<strong>of</strong> speaker and mode <strong>of</strong> voting. The<br />
opposition favoured an open system<br />
<strong>of</strong> voting for fear <strong>of</strong> manipulation by<br />
the ruling party if the voting were secret,<br />
while the MMD insisted on a<br />
secret ballot.<br />
An un<strong>of</strong>ficial transcript <strong>of</strong> the proceedings<br />
in Parliament obtained clandestinely<br />
and published in the January<br />
26 issue <strong>of</strong> the privately owned<br />
“Post” revealed that the speaker’s<br />
election was violently disrupted by<br />
opposition members <strong>of</strong> parliament,<br />
who assaulted Chibesakunda when he<br />
announced that voting would be held<br />
by secret ballot. Parliament was then<br />
adjourned indefinitely pending an application<br />
to the High Court for a rul-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 149
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ing on the mode <strong>of</strong> voting.<br />
In a January 31 statement, the Zambia<br />
Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA) called for the lifting <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ban against the media and the public<br />
from observing the proceedings.<br />
“We find the Clerk’s decision draconian,<br />
unacceptable and totally uncalled<br />
for, because it is a direct impingement<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Constitutional guarantee<br />
<strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, which<br />
the Zambian media are entitled to. In<br />
the interest <strong>of</strong> transparency and good<br />
governance, we urge the Clerk to allow<br />
the media to cover the election <strong>of</strong><br />
the Speaker the next time the House<br />
sits to resolve this issue,” said ZIMA<br />
Chairman Masautso Phiri in a statement.<br />
When Parliament reconvened on 5<br />
February, after the state abruptly withdrew<br />
the High Court petition, the media<br />
and public were allowed to witness<br />
the proceedings. In a 4 February<br />
statement, Chibesakunda announced<br />
the lifting <strong>of</strong> the ban. No reason was<br />
given for the change <strong>of</strong> heart, though<br />
it is thought that it might have been in<br />
response to criticisms over the earlier<br />
ban.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-12<br />
PERSON(S): Fred M’membe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
On February 11, 2002, Fred<br />
M’membe, editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> the privately-owned<br />
“Post” newspaper, was<br />
arrested and charged with defaming<br />
newly-elected Zambian President<br />
Levy Mwanawasa. “Defamation <strong>of</strong><br />
the President” is forbidden under Section<br />
69 <strong>of</strong> the Zambian Penal Code.<br />
150 So This Is Democracy?<br />
M’membe appeared before Principal<br />
Resident Magistrate Frank Tembo<br />
on 12 February, only to be informed<br />
that his case had been reallocated to<br />
another magistrate. No plea was<br />
taken. M’membe is out on police bond<br />
and is due in court again on February<br />
14.<br />
Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Penal Code makes<br />
it an <strong>of</strong>fence to defame the Zambian<br />
president. Under this section, it is illegal<br />
for anyone, “with intent to bring<br />
the President into hatred, ridicule, or<br />
contempt, to publish any defamatory<br />
matter insulting <strong>of</strong> the President”. The<br />
“insulting matter” may be in writing,<br />
print, word <strong>of</strong> mouth or any other form<br />
or manner. If convicted, an accused<br />
person faces a maximum jail sentence<br />
<strong>of</strong> three years, without the option <strong>of</strong> a<br />
fine.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> M’membe’s lawyers,<br />
Mutembo Nchito, described his client’s<br />
arrest as “intimidation.” He wondered<br />
why the state was in such a<br />
hurry to bring M’membe to trial that<br />
it flouted normal judicial procedures<br />
by bringing him to court prematurely.<br />
Nchito said that ordinarily, the case<br />
should have been allocated to a magistrate<br />
first, before his client was summoned<br />
to court for plea and setting <strong>of</strong><br />
trial dates.<br />
“They are just trying to intimidate<br />
him. This is evidenced by their earlier<br />
refusal to grant him bail,” Nchito<br />
said.<br />
According to the February 12 issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> “Post” newspaper, M’membe was<br />
briefly detained the previous day at<br />
Woodlands police station in Lusaka,<br />
where he had presented himself for<br />
questioning, in compliance with a<br />
police summons. He was initially denied<br />
release on police bond, but this
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
was granted after his lawyers intervened.<br />
M’membe was being sought by<br />
police for questioning about a story<br />
published in his newspaper on January<br />
25, which quoted opposition Forum<br />
for Democracy and Development<br />
(FDD) Member <strong>of</strong> Parliament (MP)<br />
for Lusaka Central Dipak Patel allegedly<br />
referring to President<br />
Mwanawasa as a “cabbage.”<br />
Patel was commenting on the government’s<br />
alleged scheme to manipulate<br />
the election <strong>of</strong> the speaker <strong>of</strong> Parliament,<br />
scheduled for January 25,<br />
through bribing opposition MPs and<br />
arbitrarily changing the mode <strong>of</strong> voting<br />
from one <strong>of</strong> acclamation to secret<br />
ballot, when he allegedly told the<br />
newspaper, “This is happening when<br />
this cabbage keeps saying this is a<br />
government <strong>of</strong> laws and not men.”<br />
On several occasions in recent<br />
weeks, Mwanawasa has said that his<br />
government would be <strong>of</strong> “laws” and<br />
not <strong>of</strong> “men.”<br />
Earlier, the February 9 issue <strong>of</strong><br />
“Post” hinted at M’membe’s impending<br />
arrest along with Patel, when it<br />
reported that his lawyer, Nchima<br />
Nchito, was approached by police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
from the Woodlands police station<br />
in Lusaka, demanding that<br />
M’membe and Patel present themselves<br />
at the station. The lawyer promised<br />
that the two men would do so on<br />
February 11.<br />
During the campaign leading to the<br />
presidential polls <strong>of</strong> December 27,<br />
2001, Mwanawasa’s opponents described<br />
him repeatedly as a “cabbage,”<br />
an apparent reference to his<br />
supposed diminished mental capabilities<br />
due to a near fatal accident suffered<br />
almost ten years earlier, in which<br />
he suffered severe head injuries. He<br />
has admitted that as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />
accident he has developed a stammer<br />
and his speech is slower. However, he<br />
denies that he is mentally impaired.<br />
Mwanawasa, a lawyer by training,<br />
dismissed the taunts from his opponents<br />
as baseless, arguing that he was<br />
<strong>of</strong> very sound mind, as evidenced by<br />
his continued practise <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-02-15<br />
PERSON(S): Fred M’membe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
On February 14, 2002, the editor-inchief<br />
<strong>of</strong> the privately owned “Post”<br />
newspaper, Fred M’membe, appeared<br />
in a Lusaka magistrate’s court for<br />
mention, following his February 11<br />
arrest for allegedly defaming newly<br />
elected President Levy Mwanawasa,<br />
an <strong>of</strong>fence under Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Penal Code.<br />
M’membe appeared before Magistrate<br />
Handson Hampande at the Boma<br />
courts. No plea was taken because the<br />
prosecution is awaiting consent from<br />
the director <strong>of</strong> public prosecution before<br />
proceeding with the case. Mention<br />
is a legal formality whereby an<br />
accused person appears in court at intervals<br />
before trial begins. M’membe<br />
is expected to make his next appearance<br />
in court on March 18.<br />
His lawyer, Mutembo Nchito,<br />
charged that the state was wasting<br />
time by trying to prosecute a case<br />
which would lead nowhere because<br />
his client was innocent. “[M’membe]<br />
has been charged in his capacity as<br />
editor <strong>of</strong> the ‘Post’ for words he did<br />
not mention,” Nchito said.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 151
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-19<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Zambia National<br />
Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZNBC), Zambia Information<br />
Services (ZIS), Zambia News<br />
Agency (ZANA)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Operations at the state-owned Zambia<br />
National Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZNBC), Zambia Information<br />
Services (ZIS) and Zambia News<br />
Agency (ZANA) ground to a halt for<br />
about one hour on 15 February 2002<br />
due to a bomb scare at Mass <strong>Media</strong><br />
Complex in Lusaka, where the three<br />
organisations are based.<br />
A report in the February 16 issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> “Times <strong>of</strong> Zambia” said an anonymous<br />
caller phoned Timothy Mwale,<br />
a duty technician in the ZNBC radio<br />
control room, at 6:50 a.m. (local time)<br />
and told him that a bomb had been<br />
planted in the building.<br />
Mwale said the caller neither specified<br />
the location <strong>of</strong> the bomb nor the<br />
time it would explode. He simply advised<br />
him to alert security <strong>of</strong>ficers and<br />
suggested that everyone vacate the<br />
premises as a safety precaution.<br />
Mwale then phoned ZNBC Director<br />
General Eddie Mupeso, who in turn<br />
called bomb experts to comb the<br />
building.<br />
The building was declared safe after<br />
a combined team <strong>of</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
and bomb disposal experts<br />
searched it for about one hour.<br />
Mupeso, who addressed employees<br />
from the three institutions after the<br />
search, advised them to be vigilant and<br />
report suspicious looking objects to<br />
the police. He also said ZNBC was<br />
taking measures to tighten security at<br />
152 So This Is Democracy?<br />
its studios.<br />
This bomb hoax came a week after<br />
two bomb scares were reported at two<br />
other media houses, Multimedia Zambia,<br />
publishers <strong>of</strong> the weekly “National<br />
Mirror” and MultiChoice Zambia,<br />
a subscription television service<br />
operator. In January, two other bomb<br />
scares were recorded in Lusaka.<br />
Meanwhile, on February 15, police<br />
spokesman Lemmy Kajoba said that<br />
police were closing in on the people<br />
suspected <strong>of</strong> being behind the bomb<br />
threats.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-19<br />
PERSON(S): Jerry Nkwendeenda<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
On February 14, 2002, Jerry<br />
Nkwendeenda, a reporter who works<br />
for Mazabuka community radio station,<br />
situated in Mazabuka (about 120<br />
kilometres south <strong>of</strong> Lusaka), was illegally<br />
detained for about one hour<br />
by three police <strong>of</strong>ficers for allegedly<br />
“interfering with their work.”<br />
Nkwendeenda, aged 32, was held<br />
at a shop selling mealie meal, Zambia’s<br />
staple food, which is currently<br />
in short supply, when he went to investigate<br />
a commotion surrounding<br />
the sale <strong>of</strong> the food. What aroused his<br />
curiosity was the fact that the commodity<br />
was being sold at an unusual<br />
hour, 7:30 p.m. (local time), when the<br />
shop would ordinarily be closed.<br />
The three police <strong>of</strong>ficers were hired<br />
by the shop owner to help bring order<br />
at the premises, where confusion<br />
reigned for some time due to a stampede<br />
for stocks <strong>of</strong> the scarce commodity,<br />
which was being sold cheaply.<br />
Nkwendeenda saw a police <strong>of</strong>ficer
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
at the scene demanding and receiving<br />
a sum <strong>of</strong> K10 000 (US$2) as payment<br />
for assisting a buyer to purchase six<br />
bags <strong>of</strong> mealie meal. “I was suspicious<br />
that mealie meal was being sold at<br />
night. When I arrived at the shop, I<br />
was even more surprised to witness a<br />
police <strong>of</strong>ficer demand and receive<br />
K10 000,” the reporter said.<br />
When Nkwendeenda queried the<br />
buyer about the money he had <strong>of</strong>fered<br />
the police <strong>of</strong>ficer, all three <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
attacked him, grabbed him by the<br />
shoulders, confiscated his note book<br />
and threw him into a disused room<br />
without any windows, he told the<br />
Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA) on February 15.<br />
“They read my notes and then demanded<br />
an explanation [as to] why I<br />
had written them,” Nkwendeenda<br />
said. “They accused me <strong>of</strong> being<br />
cheeky and detained me for an hour<br />
to teach me a lesson,” he explained.<br />
Nkwendeenda, who had his mobile<br />
phone at the time, then phoned<br />
Mazabuka District Administrator<br />
Munyati Hanambe and asked for help.<br />
Hanambe secured the journalist’s release<br />
within one hour. In an 18 February<br />
interview, Hanambe confirmed<br />
the events to ZIMA, adding that two<br />
<strong>of</strong> the police <strong>of</strong>ficers fled the scene<br />
when he arrived.<br />
Hanambe said he was upset with the<br />
level <strong>of</strong> corruption among public <strong>of</strong>ficials,<br />
especially the Mazabuka police.<br />
He also said the <strong>of</strong>ficers involved<br />
in the incident should be “removed.<br />
They are public <strong>of</strong>ficers and are not<br />
supposed to get extra payment for<br />
their work.”<br />
Mazabuka community radio station<br />
supervisor Kelvin Chibomba said the<br />
station had lodged an <strong>of</strong>ficial complaint<br />
with the <strong>of</strong>ficer-in-charge at<br />
Mazabuka police, who said the matter<br />
would be investigated and the culprits<br />
brought to book.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-02-25<br />
PERSON(S): Fred M’membe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
On Friday February 22, 2002, Fred<br />
M’membe, editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> the privately<br />
owned “Post” newspaper, was<br />
“put on his defence” in a case where<br />
he was charged with defaming former<br />
president Frederick Chiluba.<br />
His lawyer, Mutembo Nchito, told<br />
the Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA) that this means<br />
M’membe’s defence team now has to<br />
give evidence to support the claim<br />
published in the “Post” in 2001 that<br />
Chiluba was a thief.<br />
Nchito said he was not surprised<br />
with the magistrate’s ruling and was<br />
happy because, “it will enable the<br />
public to know what Chiluba and his<br />
friends were doing while he was in<br />
government.”<br />
He was optimistic that he would be<br />
able to successfully defend his client,<br />
though he added, “one cannot be 100<br />
percent sure.”<br />
M’membe is alleged to have defamed<br />
former Zambian president<br />
Frederick Chiluba in an editorial titled<br />
“A thief for president”, published<br />
in the August 17, 2001 edition <strong>of</strong> “The<br />
Post”, when he alleged that Chiluba<br />
had stolen public funds.<br />
He is charged under Section 69 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Zambian Penal Code, which<br />
makes it an <strong>of</strong>fence “to publish anything,<br />
in any form, deemed as tend-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 153
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ing to bring the <strong>of</strong>fice and person <strong>of</strong><br />
the president into hatred, ridicule or<br />
contempt”. The <strong>of</strong>fence carries a<br />
maximum penalty <strong>of</strong> three years in jail<br />
without the option <strong>of</strong> a fine.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-28<br />
PERSON(S): Fred M’membe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
Zambian Director <strong>of</strong> Public Prosecutions<br />
(DPP) Mukelebai Mukelebai<br />
told the Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong><br />
Association (ZIMA) on February 27,<br />
2002 that he had instructed police on<br />
February 11 to drop the “defamation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the President” charge against Fred<br />
M’membe, editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> the privately<br />
owned “Post” newspaper.<br />
Mukelebai said that having studied<br />
the docket sent to him by the police<br />
shortly after M’membe’s arrest, he<br />
had concluded that “the case was neither<br />
here nor there” and advised them<br />
to drop the charge. He said the case<br />
will be formally withdrawn on 14<br />
March, when M’membe is next due<br />
to appear in court.<br />
However, when contacted for comment,<br />
M’membe’s lawyer Mutembo<br />
Nchito told ZIMA that although he<br />
had read about the DPP’s statement<br />
in the press, he had received no <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
communication about the development.<br />
The intended withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the case<br />
follows an appeal to the DPP by President<br />
Levy Mwanawasa, asking him to<br />
consider withdrawing the charge<br />
against M’membe because Dipak<br />
Patel, the opposition member <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
who allegedly referred to him<br />
as a “cabbage”, had since apologised<br />
to him.<br />
154 So This Is Democracy?<br />
M’membe was arrested on February<br />
11 and charged with defaming<br />
President Mwanawasa. This followed<br />
his newspaper’s publication <strong>of</strong> a story<br />
on 25 January in which Patel was said<br />
to have referred to President<br />
Mwanawasa as a “cabbage.”<br />
M’membe was briefly detained. However,<br />
he was released on police bond<br />
the same day after the DPP intervened.<br />
“Defamation <strong>of</strong> the President” is an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence under Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Penal<br />
Code.<br />
In a February 13 statement, ZIMA<br />
demanded that the charge against<br />
M’membe be dropped, and described<br />
his arrest as “a worrying indication<br />
that the honeymoon between President<br />
Mwanawasa’s ‘New Deal’ government<br />
and the independent media<br />
is over.”<br />
ZIMA Chairperson Masautso Phiri<br />
described Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Penal<br />
Code as “an obnoxious and archaic<br />
piece <strong>of</strong> legislation” and demanded its<br />
repeal, along with the abolishment <strong>of</strong><br />
other repressive press laws.<br />
Under Section 69, it is illegal for<br />
anyone “to bring the President into<br />
hatred, ridicule, or contempt by publishing<br />
or broadcasting any defamatory<br />
matter that insults the President”.<br />
If convicted, an accused person faces<br />
a maximum jail sentence <strong>of</strong> three<br />
years, without the option <strong>of</strong> a fine.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-06<br />
PERSON(S): Thomas Nsama<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On February 24, 2002, Thomas<br />
Nsama, a photographer working for<br />
the privately owned “Post” newspaper,<br />
was beaten by ruling Movement
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
for Multiparty Democracy (MMD)<br />
supporters. They were angered by<br />
Nsama photographing them forcibly<br />
moving a “Post” newspaper editorial<br />
vehicle from where it was parked<br />
along the driveway <strong>of</strong> the Mulungushi<br />
International Conference Centre in<br />
Lusaka onto the centre’s lawn, about<br />
a metre away.<br />
The party supporters decided to lift<br />
the “Post” vehicle, along with about<br />
five other vehicles parked along the<br />
same driveway, to create more room<br />
for the arrival <strong>of</strong> MMD party President<br />
Frederick Chiluba and his entourage<br />
for a membership card renewal<br />
exercise.<br />
Nsama told the Zambia Independent<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Association (ZIMA) that he<br />
was beaten in full view <strong>of</strong> the police<br />
who did nothing to rescue him from a<br />
mob <strong>of</strong> about fifteen party members.<br />
“The beating started when I took a<br />
photo <strong>of</strong> the cadres as they lifted the<br />
‘Post’ vehicle from where it was<br />
parked to the lawn. A female cadre<br />
who saw me take the photograph<br />
alerted the group that I had taken a<br />
photo <strong>of</strong> them and that I was from the<br />
‘Post’. When they heard that, they<br />
suspended their action and descended<br />
upon me, beating and punching me in<br />
full view <strong>of</strong> the police,” Nsama said.<br />
He said the attackers tried to grab<br />
his camera, but he quickly gave it to a<br />
fellow photographer who bolted with<br />
it to safety. Nsama complained that his<br />
whole body was aching as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
the severe beating he had undergone.<br />
He also complained about having difficulties<br />
hearing out <strong>of</strong> his left ear.<br />
Nsama said he reported the assault<br />
to Lusaka Central police station on the<br />
same day. Police <strong>of</strong>ficers were, however,<br />
reluctant to open a docket, saying<br />
“they were too junior” to handle<br />
the case. As <strong>of</strong> February 25, a docket<br />
had not been opened despite the fact<br />
that Nsama obtained a medical report<br />
from a government hospital confirming<br />
that he had been assaulted.<br />
Police spokesperson Lemmy<br />
Kajoba confirmed receiving a report<br />
<strong>of</strong> the beating and the difficulties<br />
Nsama was having getting a docket<br />
opened. However, Kajoba said he had<br />
referred Nsama back to the Lusaka<br />
Central police station. “It takes time<br />
to open a docket. Maybe the complainant<br />
did not have money to open<br />
the docket,” Kajoba said.<br />
Nsama disputed Kajoba’s claim,<br />
saying he had the money to pay for<br />
opening the docket, but the police<br />
were reluctant to do so.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-29<br />
PERSON(S): Owen Miyanza<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On April 17, 2002, Owen Miyanza, a<br />
photojournalist from the privatelyowned<br />
newspaper “The Monitor”,<br />
had his camera briefly seized and film<br />
confiscated by police after he took<br />
pictures <strong>of</strong> opposition party supporters<br />
protesting at a police station in<br />
Lusaka.<br />
Miyanza, aged 26, said the incident<br />
took place in the corridors <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Lusaka Central Police station as he<br />
was taking snapshots <strong>of</strong> opposition<br />
United National Independence Party<br />
(UNIP) President Tilyenji Kaunda,<br />
who had been summoned to the police<br />
station for questioning.<br />
“I was taking photos <strong>of</strong> the UNIP<br />
president and his supporters, who had<br />
invaded the police station in an ap-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 155
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
parent show <strong>of</strong> solidarity with their<br />
leader, who had been called for questioning.<br />
They were holding placards<br />
and chanting anti-government slogans<br />
both outside and along corridors <strong>of</strong> the<br />
police station. A police <strong>of</strong>ficer saw me<br />
taking the photos inside the station,<br />
grabbed my camera and forced me<br />
into one <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fices, where I was<br />
kept for about 20 minutes while police<br />
decided what to do with me,” he<br />
told the Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong><br />
Association (ZIMA).<br />
Miyanza said the police ordered<br />
him to accompany them to a film<br />
processing shop in town to develop<br />
the film. When it was developed, they<br />
decided to keep the pictures taken<br />
both outside and inside the station,<br />
claiming the film included pictures <strong>of</strong><br />
sensitive areas <strong>of</strong> the police station.<br />
However, Miyanza protested this<br />
claim, saying “I have taken shots before<br />
in the police station.”<br />
Goodson Machona, assistant editor<br />
<strong>of</strong> “The Monitor”, confirmed<br />
Miyanza’s story. However, he denied<br />
that it was the result <strong>of</strong> his<br />
photojournalist’s mistake. “Miyanza<br />
is a good photojournalist who keeps<br />
himself out <strong>of</strong> trouble. I suppose his<br />
only mistake is that he wants to get<br />
the best picture when some people<br />
don’t want him to,” Machona said.<br />
Lusaka Division Police Commanding<br />
Officer Francis Kabonde told<br />
ZIMA that his <strong>of</strong>fice was holding<br />
Miyanza’s pictures. “The photos are<br />
on my desk. I will release only those<br />
that I feel are not putting the nation’s<br />
security at risk,” he said.<br />
Miyanza’s lawyer Leah Mtonga<br />
said efforts to retrieve the photos from<br />
the police had failed. “We went to the<br />
police and found that Kabonde and his<br />
156 So This Is Democracy?<br />
deputy had gone out on an assignment<br />
to State House,” she said.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-30<br />
PERSON(S): Emmanuel Chilekwa<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
On May 28 2002, police ordered<br />
Emmanuel Chilekwa, editor <strong>of</strong> the<br />
privately-owned “People” weekly, to<br />
report to police headquarters in<br />
Lusaka on May 29 for questioning.<br />
Police said the questioning was related<br />
to an article that alleged President<br />
Levy Mwanawasa is suffering<br />
from Parkinson’s disease.<br />
On May 29, Chilekwa was informed<br />
by police that they were investigating<br />
a “defamation <strong>of</strong> the president”<br />
complaint. “Defamation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
president” is an <strong>of</strong>fence under Section<br />
69 <strong>of</strong> the Zambian Penal Code. Under<br />
its provision, it is an <strong>of</strong>fence to<br />
bring hatred, ridicule or contempt to<br />
the reputation <strong>of</strong> the president, to publish<br />
any defamatory matter, whether<br />
in writing, print, word <strong>of</strong> mouth, or<br />
any other form or manner. A conviction<br />
carries a jail term <strong>of</strong> up to three<br />
years without the option <strong>of</strong> a fine.<br />
Norman Sampa, a lawyer who accompanied<br />
Chilekwa to the police<br />
headquarters, told the Zambia Independent<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Association (ZIMA)<br />
that police merely read out the facts<br />
<strong>of</strong> the case to his client. Chilekwa refused<br />
to answer any questions and was<br />
told that he may be required to appear<br />
before the police again in the future<br />
“if [the] need arose.” He was then allowed<br />
to go.<br />
Chilekwa informed ZIMA that he<br />
stands by his story because the issues<br />
being raised in his newspaper are <strong>of</strong>
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
national interest. “This is a constitutional<br />
matter. We believe it is in the<br />
best interest <strong>of</strong> this nation and not a<br />
crime to ask how fit the President is<br />
because he is in charge <strong>of</strong> everything<br />
in the nation,” he said. “The constitution<br />
says that a person aspiring to be<br />
president should be physically and<br />
mentally fit. Lack <strong>of</strong> fitness is ground<br />
for someone to lose his position,” he<br />
noted.<br />
The police appear to be motivated<br />
by a complaint from President<br />
Mwanawasa, who complained that his<br />
character was maligned by the allegation<br />
that he has Parkinson’s. President<br />
Mwanawasa has accused dissidents<br />
within the ruling Movement for<br />
Multiparty Democracy (MMD) <strong>of</strong><br />
wanting to tarnish his reputation and<br />
that <strong>of</strong> his five-month old administration<br />
with the allegation.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-04<br />
PERSON(S): Emmanuel Chilekwa,<br />
Jane Chirwa, Shadreck Banda<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, Beaten<br />
On May 31, Emmanuel Chilekwa,<br />
managing editor <strong>of</strong> the privatelyowned<br />
“People” weekly, his assistant<br />
editor Shadreck Banda and student<br />
reporter Jane Chirwa were picked up<br />
by police. Police questioned them<br />
about a story “People” was investigating<br />
concerning alleged links between<br />
a government minister and<br />
criminal elements.<br />
Chilekwa and Banda told the Zambia<br />
Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA) that they were assaulted and<br />
verbally abused by police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
while transported to police headquarters<br />
in Lusaka.<br />
Tisah Mashow, a reporter at “The<br />
People”, told ZIMA that three plainclothes<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers arrived at their <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
just before 9:00 a.m. (local time). The<br />
police had orders to take Chirwa to<br />
police headquarters. Banda did not let<br />
the police take Chirwa, arguing that<br />
police needed to give her sufficient<br />
notice before taking her into custody.<br />
After an angry exchange <strong>of</strong> words the<br />
police <strong>of</strong>ficers left.<br />
The same <strong>of</strong>ficers returned an hour<br />
later, accompanied by another <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
who seemed to be in charge. They hit<br />
Banda with the butt <strong>of</strong> their guns,<br />
slapped him across the face and<br />
punched him until he was bleeding<br />
from the mouth. They took Banda and<br />
drove him to the site where the newspaper<br />
was being printed. There, they<br />
found Chilekwa and also assaulted and<br />
verbally abused him. He was forced<br />
into a police vehicle and handcuffed<br />
to Banda.<br />
Banda told ZIMA that they were<br />
then driven to police headquarters,<br />
where Chilekwa was taken out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
car and questioned. Banda was told to<br />
remain in the vehicle and help the <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
locate Chirwa. She was found<br />
about one hour later and taken to police<br />
headquarters. The journalists were<br />
held for approximately three hours.<br />
Only Chirwa and Chilekwa were questioned.<br />
Chirwa said police questioned her<br />
about a query she had sent to an individual<br />
regarding an investigation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
government minister. She was released<br />
after about one hour <strong>of</strong> questioning and<br />
after signing a statement. Chilekwa<br />
was questioned for about 30 minutes.<br />
He complained that police denied him<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> a phone to call his lawyers.<br />
On May 29, police informed<br />
So This Is Democracy? 157
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Chilekwa that he was being investigated<br />
and faces a possible charge <strong>of</strong><br />
“defamation <strong>of</strong> the president” for a<br />
report published in the May 25-31 edition<br />
<strong>of</strong> his newspaper. The report alleged<br />
that President Mwanawasa was<br />
suffering from Parkinson’s disease.<br />
“Defamation <strong>of</strong> the president” is an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence under Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Penal<br />
Code. A conviction carries a jail term<br />
<strong>of</strong> up to three years without the option<br />
<strong>of</strong> a fine.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-07<br />
PERSON(S): Emmanuel Chilekwa,<br />
Jane Chirwa, Shadreck Banda,<br />
Kings Lweendo<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, Legislation<br />
On June 5, 2002, Emmanuel<br />
Chilekwa, managing editor <strong>of</strong> the privately-owned<br />
newspaper “The People”,<br />
his assistants Shadreck Banda<br />
and Kings Lweendo, and student journalist<br />
Jane Chirwa were arrested and<br />
formally charged with “Defamation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the President”.<br />
Chilekwa, Banda and Lweendo are<br />
being detained at Longacres Police<br />
Post. Chirwa is detained at Lusaka<br />
Central Police Station. On June 7, they<br />
were denied bail by Lusaka Principal<br />
Resident Magistrate Frank Tembo.<br />
Tembo told defence lawyers<br />
Nicholas Chanda and Alfreda<br />
Mwamba that he would make a ruling<br />
on the bail application on June 25,<br />
when the case comes up again.<br />
Chilekwa and his co-accused have<br />
been remanded in custody.<br />
On May 28, Zambian police ordered<br />
Chilekwa to report to police headquarters<br />
in Lusaka for questioning on 29<br />
158 So This Is Democracy?<br />
May, in connection with an article published<br />
in his newspaper’s May 25-31<br />
issue, which alleged that President<br />
Levy Mwanawasa was suffering from<br />
Parkinson’s disease.<br />
The police subsequently informed<br />
Chilekwa that he was being investigated<br />
in connection with a complaint<br />
<strong>of</strong> “Defamation <strong>of</strong> the President”. On<br />
May 31, Chilekwa and his colleagues<br />
were picked up, assaulted and verbally<br />
abused while being interrogated on a<br />
story “People” was investigating concerning<br />
alleged links between a government<br />
minister and criminal elements..<br />
The move by police follows a complaint<br />
by President Mwanawasa that<br />
his character was being maligned by<br />
people alleging that he was suffering<br />
from Parkinson’s disease. He blamed<br />
this on his political opponents within<br />
the ruling Movement for Multiparty<br />
Democracy (MMD), whom he said<br />
wanted to tarnish his reputation and<br />
that <strong>of</strong> his five-month old administration.<br />
“Defamation <strong>of</strong> the President” is an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence under Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Zambian<br />
Penal Code. It is an <strong>of</strong>fence under<br />
this provision for anyone to “bring<br />
hatred, ridicule or contempt to the<br />
reputation <strong>of</strong> the president, to publish<br />
any defamatory matter, whether in<br />
writing, print, word <strong>of</strong> mouth, or any<br />
other form or manner”. A conviction<br />
carries a jail term <strong>of</strong> up to three years<br />
without the option <strong>of</strong> a fine.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-13<br />
PERSON(S): Masautso Phiri<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
Masautso Phiri, editor <strong>of</strong> “Today”
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
newspaper and chairman <strong>of</strong> Zambia<br />
Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA), was briefly detained by a<br />
Lusaka magistrate on June 10, 2002.<br />
This follows the same magistrate’s<br />
dismissal <strong>of</strong> his application for a case<br />
in which he was found in contempt<br />
<strong>of</strong> court to be referred to the High<br />
Court for determination <strong>of</strong> constitutional<br />
issues.<br />
On May 17, Magistrate John<br />
Njapau found Phiri in contempt <strong>of</strong><br />
court for publishing an article commenting<br />
on a matter that was before<br />
the court. Phiri was then summoned<br />
to appear before the magistrate on 4<br />
June to show why he should not be<br />
jailed for the alleged <strong>of</strong>fence.<br />
During his June 4 court appearance,<br />
Phiri, who represented himself, argued<br />
that since the alleged contempt<br />
was not committed in court, the matter<br />
should be referred to the Director<br />
<strong>of</strong> Public Prosecutions (DPP), who<br />
would be the right person to prosecute.<br />
Alternatively, he argued, the matter<br />
was to be referred to the High Court<br />
for determination <strong>of</strong> constitutional issues,<br />
because the case infringed on<br />
press freedom.<br />
But in his June 10 ruling, the magistrate<br />
said a matter became active<br />
when an individual was arrested. By<br />
publishing the article, the magistrate<br />
said, Phiri was in contempt <strong>of</strong> court.<br />
He rejected the notion that he should<br />
refer the matter to the DPP or the High<br />
Court.<br />
After the ruling, Phiri applied for<br />
an adjournment because his leading<br />
defence lawyer was out <strong>of</strong> town. The<br />
magistrate granted the application but<br />
ordered that Phiri be remanded in custody<br />
until his lawyer was present in<br />
court.<br />
Phiri was only saved from further<br />
detention when his lawyer applied for<br />
bail, which was granted. Phiri was<br />
released about two hours later, when<br />
the bail formalities were concluded.<br />
The case has been adjourned until<br />
June 26.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-13<br />
PERSON(S): Newspaper vendors<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On June 6, 2002, several newspaper<br />
vendors were violently attacked and<br />
injured by a group <strong>of</strong> people believed<br />
to be members <strong>of</strong> the ruling Movement<br />
<strong>of</strong> Multiparty Democracy<br />
(MMD), in a bid to stop them from<br />
selling newspapers believed to be<br />
critical <strong>of</strong> President Levy<br />
Mwanawasa.<br />
Eyewitnesses identified Norman<br />
Sakala, an MMD member, as the<br />
group’s leader. The group, armed with<br />
knives, machetes, chains and<br />
knobkerries, attacked newspaper vendors<br />
selling the privately-owned publications<br />
“The Post”, “Today” and<br />
“The People” at the Lusaka City Centre<br />
and in surrounding areas.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the victims, Julius Mulenga,<br />
told “The Post” newspaper that he was<br />
forced into a minibus used by the attackers<br />
and severely beaten. Another<br />
victim, Robby Chasaya, told the<br />
newspaper that his hands were slashed<br />
with a knife and he sustained a broken<br />
tooth. Other vendors reportedly<br />
had cuts on their heads, faces and<br />
hands.<br />
Police spokesperson Lemmy<br />
Kajoba confirmed receiving a report<br />
<strong>of</strong> the attacks against the vendors. He<br />
also stated that the police had<br />
So This Is Democracy? 159
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
launched an investigation into the attack.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-06-26<br />
PERSON(S): Emmanuel Chilekwa,<br />
Shadreck Banda, Kings Lweendo,<br />
Jane Chirwa<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, Legislation<br />
160 So This Is Democracy?<br />
On June 25 2002, the Lusaka-based<br />
“People” newspaper editor,<br />
Emmanuel Chilekwa, assistant editor<br />
Shadreck Banda, reporter Kings<br />
Lweendo and student journalist Jane<br />
Chirwa pleaded not guilty to a charge<br />
<strong>of</strong> defaming President Levy<br />
Mwanawasa. The case has been adjourned<br />
to 9 July for trial.<br />
The journalists, who appeared before<br />
Principal Resident Magistrate<br />
Frank Tembo, were charged with<br />
“defamation <strong>of</strong> the president” for publishing<br />
a story headlined<br />
“Mwanawasa has brain disease?” in<br />
the May 25 to 31 edition <strong>of</strong> the “People”<br />
newspaper. The article alleged<br />
that President Mwanawasa was suffering<br />
from Parkinson’s disease, an<br />
incurable brain disorder.<br />
Defamation <strong>of</strong> the president is prohibited<br />
under Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Zambian<br />
Penal Code. If convicted, an accused<br />
person faces a jail term <strong>of</strong> three<br />
years without the option <strong>of</strong> a fine.<br />
The journalists were arrested on 5<br />
June and are still detained because<br />
their bail application was denied.<br />
Magistrate Tembo, in a June 17 ruling<br />
made in his chambers, said he was<br />
denying the journalists bail because<br />
defamation <strong>of</strong> the president cases were<br />
prevalent in Zambia. “Bail is granted<br />
at the discretion <strong>of</strong> the court and having<br />
taken several factors into consideration,<br />
including the prevalence <strong>of</strong><br />
this <strong>of</strong>fence, I will not grant the application<br />
for bail,” he said.<br />
However, the decision was greeted<br />
with consternation by defence lawyer<br />
Nicholas Chanda, who accused the<br />
magistrate <strong>of</strong> abusing his discretion.<br />
He also wondered why the magistrate<br />
had not informed the defence team <strong>of</strong><br />
the ruling until his clients appeared in<br />
court on June 25. He said he would<br />
appeal the decision to the High Court.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-06-27<br />
PERSON(S): Emmanuel Chilekwa,<br />
Shadreck Banda, Kings Lweendo,<br />
Jane Chirwa<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, Legislation<br />
On Thursday June 27 2002, the<br />
Lusaka High Court granted bail to<br />
four journalists from the “People”<br />
newspaper following a successful petition<br />
by their lawyers. The journalists<br />
are charged with “defamation <strong>of</strong><br />
the president”.<br />
The four journalists are editor<br />
Emmanuel Chilekwa, assistant editor<br />
Shadreck Banda, reporter Kings<br />
Lweendo and student reporter Jane<br />
Chirwa.<br />
High Court Judge Gregory Phiri<br />
quashed the ruling <strong>of</strong> Principal Resident<br />
Magistrate Frank Tembo, who<br />
denied the journalists bail on 17 June,<br />
arguing that the magistrate erred in his<br />
decision. Phiri granted each <strong>of</strong> the four<br />
journalists bail <strong>of</strong> K500,000 (US$125)<br />
with two working sureties, each worth<br />
K500 000. The journalists are required<br />
to pay the court a total <strong>of</strong> K6 000,000<br />
(US$1,500) before being released.
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
The Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA) has secured the bail<br />
money for journalists.<br />
The journalists were arrested on<br />
June 5 and placed in police custody.<br />
On June 7, they appeared before<br />
Tembo for mention. An application for<br />
bail by their lawyer, Nicholas Chanda,<br />
was not granted pending a ruling by<br />
the magistrate. The journalists were<br />
then sent to jail until their next court<br />
appearance on June 25.<br />
Tembo made his ruling on June 17<br />
and denied the journalists bail, arguing<br />
that cases <strong>of</strong> “defamation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
president” had become prevalent in<br />
Zambia. The journalists’ lawyers only<br />
learned about the ruling on June 25,<br />
when the journalists appeared in court<br />
to plea their case. They indicated that<br />
they would appeal the ruling immediately.<br />
Tembo set July 9 as the trial<br />
date for the journalists.<br />
“Defamation <strong>of</strong> the president” is<br />
prohibited under Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Zambian Penal Code. If convicted, a<br />
person faces a jail term <strong>of</strong> three years<br />
without the option <strong>of</strong> a fine.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-16<br />
PERSON(S): Kabanda Chulu,<br />
Happy Kabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On September 11, 2002, Kabanda<br />
Chulu, a reporter working for the privately<br />
owned “The Monitor” newspaper,<br />
was ejected from Arrakan barracks<br />
in Lusaka because he was allegedly<br />
spying. The reporter had gone<br />
to cover the closing ceremony <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Zambian army inter-unit drill competition.<br />
Chulu told MISA’s Zambia chapter,<br />
ZIMA (Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong><br />
Association), that he was singled<br />
out by a military police <strong>of</strong>ficer while<br />
he was sitting with other reporters in<br />
the press section before the event began.<br />
Chulu stated that he was escorted<br />
out after a lieutenant from the military<br />
police announced that the army<br />
did not deal with reporters from private<br />
newspapers. The reporter tried to<br />
explain that he came to cover the event<br />
because the Zambia Information Services,<br />
the government’s public relations<br />
wing, had notified his newspaper that<br />
it was an event that could be covered<br />
by all media organisations. However,<br />
he was told his ejection was “normal<br />
procedure.”<br />
Chulu said the military police <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
told him: “Maybe you have just<br />
come to spy or you won’t cover this<br />
event but write something else.”<br />
Reacting to the ejection <strong>of</strong> his reporter,<br />
“The Monitor” newspaper’s<br />
chief reporter Chali Nondo condemned<br />
the army’s act as “harassment.”<br />
In another incident, on August 23,<br />
2002, Happy Kabwe, a freelance journalist<br />
who writes for the “Post” newspaper,<br />
was barred from covering a<br />
government department heads’ meeting<br />
addressed by Guston Sichilima,<br />
Mbala member <strong>of</strong> parliament for the<br />
ruling Movement for Multiparty Democracy<br />
(MMD) party. However,<br />
Kabwe’s colleague from the Zambia<br />
Information Services was allowed to<br />
cover the same event.<br />
Kabwe said in a letter to ZIMA that<br />
he was not told why he was being<br />
ejected from the meeting. According<br />
to the journalist’s information, the<br />
meeting was about the disbursement<br />
<strong>of</strong> funds for road building.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 161
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-16<br />
PERSON(S): Arthur Simuchoba,<br />
Chali Nondo<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislated<br />
162 So This Is Democracy?<br />
On September 16, 2002, editor Arthur<br />
Simuchoba and chief reporter Chali<br />
Nondo, both <strong>of</strong> the privately owned<br />
bi-weekly “The Monitor” newspaper,<br />
were summoned to the Supreme<br />
Court for the commencement <strong>of</strong> contempt<br />
<strong>of</strong> court proceedings against<br />
them.<br />
The two were called to court following<br />
an application by lawyer<br />
Michael Mundashi, on behalf <strong>of</strong> President<br />
Levy Mwanawasa, citing the<br />
journalists with contempt <strong>of</strong> court for<br />
publishing an article in the August 16-<br />
19, 2002 edition <strong>of</strong> “The Monitor”.<br />
The article alleged that Mwanawasa<br />
had increased the salaries <strong>of</strong> supreme<br />
court judges “to s<strong>of</strong>ten the judiciary<br />
ahead <strong>of</strong> the Presidential petition hearing.”<br />
Mwanawasa’s election in December<br />
2001 is being challenged by<br />
three opposition party leaders who<br />
allege that he was dubiously elected.<br />
Mundashi told the seven judges <strong>of</strong><br />
the Supreme Court that the story entitled<br />
“Levy back-pedals on early polls”<br />
casts aspersions on the integrity <strong>of</strong> his<br />
client and the judicial process. He argued<br />
that the newspaper should have<br />
avoided making comments suggesting<br />
that the president had used the<br />
salary increase to persuade the court<br />
to rule in his favour in the election<br />
petition case. The president’s lawyer<br />
requested that Simuchoba and Nondo<br />
be cited for contempt <strong>of</strong> court.<br />
James Shonga, the journalists’ legal<br />
representative, asked the court to<br />
give him time to study the case before<br />
replying to Mundashi’s claims.<br />
The case was adjourned until 20 September.<br />
Simuchoba told MISA’s Zambian<br />
chapter (Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong><br />
Association, ZIMA) that Mwanawasa<br />
is “very unhappy with us [‘The Monitor’].”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-17<br />
PERSON(S): Henry Salim<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On September 16, 2002, freelance<br />
photographer Henry Salim sustained<br />
a deep cut near his left eye from a<br />
stone thrown by supporters <strong>of</strong> the opposition<br />
United Party for National<br />
Development (UPND), during a skirmish<br />
with ruling Movement for Multiparty<br />
Democracy (MMD) supporters<br />
outside the Supreme Court in<br />
Lusaka.<br />
The two parties’ supporters had<br />
gathered outside the court to show<br />
support for their leaders at the start <strong>of</strong><br />
a presidential election petition hearing,<br />
where three opposition party<br />
presidents are challenging the election<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zambian President Levy<br />
Mwanawasa during presidential polls<br />
held in December 2001.<br />
Salim told MISA’s Zambian chapter<br />
(Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association,<br />
ZIMA) that the stone that<br />
struck him came from UPND supporters<br />
who were throwing stones at the<br />
MMD supporters as police fired tear<br />
gas to disperse the rival groups. “I was<br />
taking a photograph <strong>of</strong> police firing<br />
tear gas at the MMD supporters when<br />
I was struck by the stone which made<br />
me bleed severely,” he said. The photographer<br />
reported the matter to the
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
police who gave him a medical form<br />
to seek treatment.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-11-06<br />
PERSON(S): Opposition political<br />
parties, media in Zambia<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
The government has temporarily<br />
blocked efforts by Zambian opposition<br />
political parties to present three<br />
private members’ bills relating to freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> information (FOI), broadcasting,<br />
and the Independent Broadcasting<br />
Authority (IBA).<br />
The government blocked the bills<br />
by invoking Article 81 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution,<br />
which requires bills with financial<br />
implications to be approved by the<br />
president, through the vice-president<br />
or finance minister, before they can<br />
be brought to Parliament. National<br />
Assembly Speaker Amusaa<br />
Mwanamwambwa gave this as an explanation<br />
as to why the three private<br />
members’ bills, which were expected<br />
to be tabled on 5 November 2002, had<br />
been struck <strong>of</strong>f the day’s order paper,<br />
despite Vice-President Enock<br />
Kavindele’s 1 November announcement<br />
that the bills would be tabled.<br />
Mwanamwambwa said Article 81<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Zambian constitution and National<br />
Assembly Standing Order 76<br />
required that all bills with financial<br />
implications be cleared by the executive<br />
before being brought to Parliament.<br />
He explained that unless the<br />
movers <strong>of</strong> the concerned bills received<br />
executive approval, the bills would<br />
not be considered.<br />
Meanwhile, the government has<br />
gazetted and published its own versions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the FOI and IBA bills in the<br />
media. Both borrow heavily from the<br />
private members’ bills. However,<br />
rather than repealing the current Zambia<br />
National Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZNBC) Act and replacing it with<br />
a Broadcasting Act, as proposed in the<br />
private members’ bills, the government<br />
has merely chosen to amend the<br />
ZNBC Act. The proposed amendment<br />
includes provisions for removing the<br />
minister <strong>of</strong> information and broadcasting<br />
services’ licencing powers and allowing<br />
ZNBC to collect television licence<br />
fees. Speaking on ZNBC Television<br />
on 3 November, Legal Affairs<br />
Minister George Kunda said the government<br />
was preparing to present its<br />
bills to Parliament.<br />
Lusaka Central Member <strong>of</strong> Parliament<br />
Dipak Patel, who has been spearheading<br />
the private members’ bills,<br />
has accused the government <strong>of</strong> deliberately<br />
refusing to give its consent. He<br />
says the opposition would get a court<br />
order compelling the minister <strong>of</strong> finance<br />
to approve the bills.<br />
“The Government is uncomfortable<br />
with the private members’ bills simply<br />
because they are generated by the<br />
opposition,” Patel noted in a letter to<br />
Finance Minister Emmanuel<br />
Kasonde.<br />
A November 4 joint statement by<br />
the Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA), the Press Association<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zambia (PAZA), the Zambia<br />
Women <strong>Media</strong>’s Association<br />
(ZAMWA), the Society <strong>of</strong> Senior<br />
Zambian Journalists (SSZJ) and the<br />
Zambia Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists (ZUJ)<br />
expressed disappointment at the government’s<br />
lack <strong>of</strong> commitment to relinquish<br />
political control <strong>of</strong> ZNBC.<br />
“We regret that the government is<br />
not interested in transforming ZNBC<br />
So This Is Democracy? 163
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
from a state-owned and controlled<br />
broadcaster to a public service, independent<br />
and pr<strong>of</strong>essionally run broadcaster.<br />
It is an indisputable fact that in<br />
its current form, and as suggested by<br />
government in their bill, ZNBC is a<br />
propaganda machinery <strong>of</strong> the ruling<br />
Movement for Multiparty Democracy<br />
(MMD),” the statement read.<br />
The initiative to introduce the private<br />
members’ bills has been driven<br />
by MISA’s Zambian chapter, known<br />
locally as ZIMA.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-11-14<br />
PERSON(S): Arthur Simuchoba,<br />
Chali Nondo<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
On November 12, 2002, the Supreme<br />
Court dismissed an application made<br />
by President Levy Mwanawasa’s lawyer,<br />
Michael Mundashi. Mundashi<br />
was seeking the citation <strong>of</strong> Arthur<br />
Simuchoba, editor <strong>of</strong> the privatelyowned<br />
newspaper “The Monitor”,<br />
and Chali Nondo, his chief reporter,<br />
for “contempt <strong>of</strong> court”, for commenting<br />
on an ongoing election petition<br />
against Mwanawasa’s election in December<br />
2001.<br />
On September 16, Mundashi applied<br />
to the court to cite the journalists<br />
for “contempt <strong>of</strong> court” in relation<br />
to an article published in the 16<br />
to 19 August edition <strong>of</strong> “The Monitor”,<br />
which alleged that Mwanawasa<br />
had increased Supreme Court judges’<br />
salaries “to s<strong>of</strong>ten the judiciary ahead<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Presidential petition hearing.”<br />
Mundashi told all seven Supreme<br />
Court judges that the story, entitled<br />
“Levy back-pedals on early polls”,<br />
had cast doubt on the integrity <strong>of</strong> his<br />
164 So This Is Democracy?<br />
client and the judicial process. He<br />
further argued that the newspaper<br />
should have avoided publishing comments<br />
suggesting that the president<br />
had influenced the court into ruling<br />
in his favour through the salary increment,<br />
because such reporting was<br />
prejudicial to a fair trial.<br />
However, in his November 12 ruling,<br />
Chief Justice Ernest Sakala said<br />
that though he found the report to be<br />
“very sarcastic,” the matter could not<br />
be dealt with by the court. He suggested<br />
that the case be handled by the<br />
Director <strong>of</strong> Public Prosecutions, using<br />
relevant Penal Code provisions.<br />
Justice Sakala noted that both the<br />
media and politicians with an interest<br />
in the election petition had made<br />
comments about the proceedings that<br />
might be prejudicial to a fair trial.<br />
“We view with grave concern the<br />
ongoing statements in the press and<br />
comments by the media and some individuals<br />
on this particular petition.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> these statements and comments<br />
in fact tend to cast aspersions<br />
on the court itself while others are<br />
deliberately calculated opinions on<br />
what individuals think the final verdict<br />
in this petition should be,” Justice<br />
Sakala said. He warned all parties<br />
to limit their comments on the<br />
trial to factual statements or risk being<br />
cited for contempt.<br />
President Mwanawasa’s December<br />
2001 election is being challenged<br />
in the Supreme Court by three opposition<br />
party leaders, who allege that<br />
he was dubiously elected.<br />
The case has attracted widespread<br />
comment in the media, with both the<br />
president and those challenging his<br />
election saying they would win the<br />
case.
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-11-26<br />
PERSON(S): Opposition political<br />
parties, media in Zambia<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On November 22, 2002, Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
Information and Broadcasting Services<br />
Newstead Zimba presented three<br />
media bills being put forward by the<br />
government for first reading in Parliament.<br />
The bills being presented are<br />
the Zambia National Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZNBC) [Amendment]<br />
Bill, the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
(FOI) Bill and the Independent<br />
Broadcasting Authority (IBA) Bill.<br />
The bills were originally scheduled<br />
to be presented on 8 November. However,<br />
Zimba deferred them until a later<br />
date, without <strong>of</strong>fering any explanation.<br />
The deferral came a day after<br />
media associations, which had been<br />
championing private members’ bills<br />
on similar subjects, wrote to the minister<br />
demanding that amendments be<br />
made to the government bills in exchange<br />
for the media associations’<br />
support.<br />
Following the bills’ deferral, Ministry<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting<br />
Services <strong>of</strong>ficials held consultations<br />
with media associations and various<br />
other stakeholders in order to reconcile<br />
their differences on the bills. A<br />
second reading <strong>of</strong> the ZNBC [Amendment]<br />
Bill was to be held on November<br />
26, while the second reading <strong>of</strong><br />
the FOI and IBA Bills was scheduled<br />
for November 27.<br />
The ZNBC [Amendment] Bill removes<br />
the power to issue broadcasting<br />
licences from the minister <strong>of</strong> information<br />
and broadcasting services<br />
and transfers it to the IBA, which will<br />
be created under the proposed IBA<br />
Bill. The IBA would regulate all aspects<br />
<strong>of</strong> broadcasting in Zambia. In<br />
addition, the ZNBC [Amendment]<br />
Bill gives the current ZNBC, which<br />
is a cash-strapped, governmentowned<br />
and controlled broadcaster,<br />
power to collect television licence fees<br />
in an effort to boost its revenue.<br />
The FOI Bill aims to give Zambian<br />
citizens and residents, for the first time<br />
ever, the legal right to seek information<br />
from government ministries and<br />
departments and any organisations<br />
operating in the public domain. However,<br />
defence and security organisations<br />
have been exempted from the<br />
bill’s provisions.<br />
The opposition had initially intended<br />
to present their own versions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the bills, namely the Broadcasting<br />
Bill, FOI Bill and IBA Bill, as private<br />
members’ bills on 5 November. However,<br />
they were prevented from doing<br />
so by National Assembly Speaker<br />
Amusaa Mwanamwambwa, who<br />
cited Article 81 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution.<br />
Article 81 stipulates that bills with financial<br />
implications must be cleared<br />
by the president before being brought<br />
to Parliament. The opposition accused<br />
the government <strong>of</strong> deliberately frustrating<br />
them by using the provision<br />
even though the financial implications<br />
<strong>of</strong> their bills were similar to those <strong>of</strong><br />
the government.<br />
The media associations which have<br />
been advocating for the private members’<br />
bills, including the MISA’s Zambia<br />
Chapter, known locally as the<br />
Zambia Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association<br />
(ZIMA), have agreed to support<br />
the government’s FOI and IBA bills,<br />
as long as the government incorporates<br />
amendments which will bring<br />
So This Is Democracy? 165
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
the bills in line with international<br />
standards.<br />
While the media associations welcome<br />
the removal <strong>of</strong> the Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
Information’s powers to issue broadcasting<br />
licences, they reject the minister’s<br />
continued control <strong>of</strong> ZNBC and<br />
would prefer that the ZNBC be separated<br />
from the executive.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-12-18<br />
PERSON(S): Opposition political<br />
parties, media in Zambia<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On December 13, 2002, the revised<br />
Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZNBC) Amendment Bill<br />
passed a second reading in Parliament,<br />
indicating that it will be enacted<br />
into law, despite strong objections by<br />
the opposition.<br />
The bill was originally introduced<br />
by Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and Broadcasting<br />
Services Newstead Zimba on<br />
November 22, along with the Freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information (FOI) and Independent<br />
Broadcasting Authority<br />
(IBA) Bills. However, Zimba withdrew<br />
the original ZNBC Amendment<br />
Bill, when it became clear that it<br />
would be defeated because it did not<br />
go far enough in transforming ZNBC<br />
into a public service broadcaster.<br />
In the original ZNBC Amendment<br />
Bill, the government sought only two<br />
amendments to the ZNBC Act <strong>of</strong><br />
1997: namely, the removal <strong>of</strong> the Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information’s power to issue<br />
broadcasting licences and allowing<br />
ZNBC to collect licence fees to finance<br />
its operations. However, opposition<br />
members <strong>of</strong> Parliament and<br />
media associations, which had been<br />
166 So This Is Democracy?<br />
campaigning for media law reforms,<br />
felt the measures did not go far enough<br />
in reforming ZNBC.<br />
“Further changes to the law must<br />
be made to enable ZNBC [to] operate<br />
as a truly independent, public service<br />
broadcaster, while ownership is retained<br />
by the government,” read a<br />
November 21 letter to Information<br />
and Broadcasting Services Permanent<br />
Secretary David Kashweka, signed by<br />
MISA’s Zambian Chapter (Zambia<br />
Independent <strong>Media</strong> Association,<br />
ZIMA), the Press Association <strong>of</strong> Zambia<br />
(PAZA), the Zambia Union <strong>of</strong><br />
Journalists (ZUJ), the Society <strong>of</strong> Senior<br />
Zambian Journalists (SSZJ) and<br />
the Zambia <strong>Media</strong> Women’s Association<br />
(ZAMWA).<br />
Outlining his objection to the original<br />
ZNBC Amendment Bill, Lusaka<br />
Central Member <strong>of</strong> Parliament (MP)<br />
Dipak Patel expressed concern about<br />
the government’s determination to<br />
control ZNBC. “It is worrying to see<br />
[the] government’s resolve not to let<br />
go <strong>of</strong> ZNBC,” he said.<br />
Following further criticism from<br />
the opposition, on November 27<br />
Zimba withdrew the ZNBC Amendment<br />
Bill to include amendments that<br />
the opposition had circulated in Parliament.<br />
He re-introduced the revised<br />
ZNBC [Amendment] Bill on 11 December.<br />
The opposition welcomed it<br />
as “a first attempt to transform ZNBC<br />
into a public service broadcaster.”<br />
Patel commended the government<br />
for taking into account some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
objections to the original ZNBC<br />
[Amendment] Bill. However, he wondered<br />
why government wanted the<br />
minister to approve the appointment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ZNBC director general when<br />
this was supposed to be the job <strong>of</strong> an
ZAMBIA<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
autonomous board.<br />
Opposition Kabwata MP Given<br />
Lubinda objected to licence fees, saying<br />
that this system would be difficult<br />
to implement and would probably<br />
cost ZNBC more money to collect<br />
than would be realised. He said the<br />
answer to ZNBC’s survival and<br />
recapitalisation did not lie in licences<br />
but in making it a public institution,<br />
and added, “people in Zambia are<br />
starved <strong>of</strong> information and should not<br />
be charged for watching television at<br />
a time when the world is trying to<br />
bridge the digital divide.”<br />
The proposed television license fee<br />
is K3 000 (approx. US$0.60) per<br />
month.<br />
The FOI and IBA Bills, which are<br />
largely borrowed from what the media<br />
associations proposed, passed<br />
through the crucial second reading<br />
without much difficulty on 28 November.<br />
However, the major objection<br />
to the FOI Bill is the blanket exemption<br />
given to defiance, intelligence and<br />
security organs such as the police<br />
service, army, national service, Interpol<br />
and the Zambia Intelligence Security<br />
Service (ZISS).<br />
The IBA Bill seeks to establish an<br />
independent broadcasting body that<br />
will issue broadcast licences as well<br />
as regulate broadcasting in Zambia,<br />
while the FOI Bill seeks to protect<br />
Zambian citizens’ right to access public<br />
information from public <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
On November 5, an attempt by opposition<br />
MPs to present private members’<br />
bills on FOI, the IBA and Broadcasting<br />
were thwarted by Speaker <strong>of</strong><br />
the National Assembly Amusaa<br />
Mwanamwambwa, who said the bills<br />
could not be tabled because consent<br />
had not been obtained from the president<br />
in view <strong>of</strong> their financial implication.<br />
However, MP Patel said this was<br />
just a ploy by the government to prevent<br />
the opposition from being the<br />
first to table the much talked-about<br />
media bills. He said the financial implications<br />
in the private members bills<br />
were similar to the ones in the government’s<br />
bills.<br />
ZIMA has been spearheading the<br />
campaign along with PAZA,<br />
ZAMWA, ZUJ and SSZJ.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 167
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
By Irene Petras.<br />
Petras is lawyer by pr<strong>of</strong>ession and a human rights activist. Presently she is<br />
working for the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights as a Coordinator. She<br />
also works as a consultant for various organisations in Zimbabwe.<br />
“... Negative publicity has damaged the economy <strong>of</strong> this country... The<br />
negative reports that were relied upon by the international community<br />
were mostly fabricated or exaggerated or sensationalised stories <strong>of</strong> violence...<br />
In the interest <strong>of</strong> protecting public security and economic well-being<br />
it is necessary ... to make such potentially disastrous journalistic practices<br />
criminal at the strict liability level.”<br />
Affidavit <strong>of</strong> Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity, Jonathan Moyo,<br />
in Association <strong>of</strong> Independent Journalists <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe & 2 Ors -v-<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State for Information and Publicity & 2 Ors SC 252/02)<br />
Such statements were indicative <strong>of</strong> the government’s attitude in handling the<br />
private media in 2002. Independent media practitioners strove to expose corruption,<br />
maladministration and socio-economic decay in Zimbabwe. The State,<br />
however, refused to tolerate critical analysis <strong>of</strong> a disputed electoral process,<br />
state-sponsored political violence and a flawed land reform programme; it<br />
utilised publicly owned information machinery to apologise for its policies<br />
and <strong>of</strong>ten misled its readers/listeners.<br />
The private media was threatened and attacked throughout 2002, particularly<br />
by Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, the Army-General, the police and<br />
even President Mugabe, who accused the sector <strong>of</strong> “peddling lies, exaggerations<br />
and manufacturing news” (Alert Update 18/03/02). This occurred usually<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> articles considered detrimental to the respectability and<br />
authority <strong>of</strong> the ruling party and State organs.<br />
2002<br />
Journalists’ homes were raided; several were barred from, or assaulted whilst,<br />
covering public events. The violence did not spare public media journalists<br />
who were on some occasions harassed by opposition party supporters and a<br />
ZBC cameraperson was once severely beaten by soldiers. Several foreign<br />
journalists were denied accreditation to cover the presidential elections in<br />
March. The Daily News <strong>of</strong>fices and community radio stations Voice <strong>of</strong> the<br />
People (VOP) and Radio Dialogue were raided; documentation and tapes were<br />
illegally removed. Most seriously the Daily News’ Bulawayo <strong>of</strong>fices were<br />
petrol-bombed, as was the printing press <strong>of</strong> a company that produced opposition<br />
campaign material. A bomb destroyed the entire VOP premises in August.<br />
Police have failed to charge a single person in any attack.<br />
During 2002 the private media was forced to operate in the most restrictive<br />
168 So This Is Democracy?
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
legislative environment since independence. The Public Order and Security<br />
Act (POSA) was enacted in January and marked the commencement <strong>of</strong> a<br />
determined assault on constitutional freedoms <strong>of</strong> speech and association.<br />
Amongst other provisions it criminalises reports undermining the authority<br />
<strong>of</strong> the President and publication <strong>of</strong> false statements prejudicial to the State.<br />
The enactment <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act<br />
(AIPPA) in mid-March dealt the greatest blow to freedom <strong>of</strong> speech and press<br />
freedom. In its Bill form the Parliamentary Legal Committee described it as<br />
“the most calculated and determined assault on our [constitutional] liberties”.<br />
(Per Chairman, Dr EJ Zvobgo)<br />
Although AIPPA permits access to information relating to public bodies, it<br />
bars reporting on substantive issues such as cabinet deliberations and government<br />
policy issues. Release <strong>of</strong> third party information is also left to the discretion<br />
<strong>of</strong> public <strong>of</strong>ficials. The Act creates an all-powerful government-appointed<br />
<strong>Media</strong> and Information Commission (MIC), which is non-representative<br />
<strong>of</strong> diverse journalistic interests. The MIC has quasi-judicial and investigative<br />
powers, which usurp the function <strong>of</strong> the courts and the police respectively,<br />
and which allow it to unjustifiably and unconstitutionally intrude in<br />
the affairs <strong>of</strong> media houses and pr<strong>of</strong>essionals.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> AIPPA accreditation <strong>of</strong> journalists and registration <strong>of</strong> media houses<br />
is mandatory for the practice <strong>of</strong> journalism, and the spectrum <strong>of</strong> those affected<br />
is so wide that it may encompass advertisers, publishers, non-governmental<br />
organisations (NGOs) and web-related industries. Foreign ownership<br />
<strong>of</strong> the media is outlawed and foreign correspondents are only permitted to<br />
register for “a limited period”. Finally, the provisions and penalties relating to<br />
false news and abuse <strong>of</strong> “journalistic privilege” are harsher than those found<br />
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the since-repealed Law and Order<br />
(Maintenance) Act.<br />
The enforcement <strong>of</strong> these two Acts has greatly contributed to the increased<br />
assault on the private media and the denial <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and it<br />
has further impeded the free flow <strong>of</strong> information to the public inside and<br />
outside Zimbabwe.<br />
POSA was strictly enforced immediately after promulgation. During 2002<br />
five journalists were arrested and charged, notably under provisions relating<br />
to public gatherings and publishing information prejudicial to the State. To<br />
date, none <strong>of</strong> the cases have been prosecuted to completion. A disturbing<br />
trend also emerged: police <strong>of</strong>ten detained journalists covering opposition<br />
rallies, student and other demonstrations and some were assaulted by police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers whilst in custody. They were initially arrested for contravening POSA,<br />
only to be released without formalisation <strong>of</strong> charges after hours (or days) in<br />
So This Is Democracy? 169
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
detention.<br />
Once AIPPA was enacted 14 journalists and editors found themselves in<br />
custody at various times, charged with the crime <strong>of</strong> “publishing falsehoods”.<br />
This carries a maximum two-year imprisonment term. In all, 44 media practitioners<br />
were arrested in 2002. Of these, two cases were prosecuted to completion,<br />
six had charges withdrawn, 22 were released without charge, one<br />
was deported and 13 cases are pending. Despite several false stories in statefunded<br />
newspapers, however, not one journalist or editor from this sector<br />
was arrested and charged.<br />
The first prosecution was that <strong>of</strong> Andrew Meldrum, a Guardian correspondent.<br />
In a victory for press freedom and under immense government pressure<br />
Magistrate Godfrey Macheyo dismissed the charges, highlighting the inadequate<br />
drafting <strong>of</strong> the false news provision and ruling that strict liability was<br />
not intended. Meldrum was immediately served with deportation papers<br />
signed by the Home Affairs minister. He has challenged the constitutionality<br />
<strong>of</strong> his removal and remains in Zimbabwe pending the outcome <strong>of</strong> his case.<br />
The only other matter pursued under the false news provision has been referred<br />
to the Supreme Court for argument on its constitutionality and the<br />
matter remains outstanding. The Information Ministry has, however, effectively<br />
conceded the unconstitutionality <strong>of</strong> this and several other sections by<br />
placing revised provisions before Parliament in the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Amendment Bill.<br />
Journalists were also persecuted under other legislation. Two journalists filming<br />
the leader <strong>of</strong> the opposition who was on his to a police station situated<br />
near the State House were detained and charged under the Protected Areas<br />
Act for having filmed the State House. The Attorney General refused to<br />
prosecute. The Zimbabwe Independent editor was charged under the Censorship<br />
Act for publishing a photograph <strong>of</strong> an Amazonian in (scant) traditional<br />
attire. A Daily Mirror reporter, Tawanda Majoni, was arrested for writing<br />
a story questioning the state <strong>of</strong> health <strong>of</strong> the Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Police. As<br />
a former policeman, the journalist was prosecuted, convicted and jailed for<br />
desertion under the Police Act. He is however out <strong>of</strong> custody pending the<br />
hearing <strong>of</strong> an appeal he made. Two AFP journalists were forced to leave<br />
Zimbabwe after their re-registration applications were denied.<br />
2002<br />
Criminal defamation charges were laid against several independent journalists<br />
and editors for various articles, including a report on the First Lady’s<br />
brother soliciting her help to resolve a labour dispute, and one relating to the<br />
beheading <strong>of</strong> an opposition supporter by ZANU-PF members (which was<br />
later found to be false and retracted). Public <strong>of</strong>ficials lodged personal claims<br />
based on articles exposing their corrupt practices. Due to the State’s refusal<br />
170 So This Is Democracy?
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
to prosecute under AIPPA <strong>of</strong>fenders against the opposition party, NGOs and<br />
their <strong>of</strong>ficials these parties were also forced to file many defamation claims.<br />
During 2002 magistrates showed great courage and did not shy away from<br />
making decisions unfavourable to the State, nor from questioning the constitutionality<br />
<strong>of</strong> media-related legislation. The High Court and Supreme Court,<br />
however, were unconvincing. When approached to stop the accreditation<br />
procedure until the information required in the application form was made<br />
less invasive <strong>of</strong> journalists’ privacy rights, the High Court dismissed the<br />
matter as “not urgent”. It was within the judge’s discretion to make a substantive<br />
ruling despite the lack <strong>of</strong> urgency in view <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
matter, but this was overlooked. A similar ruling was made in the Supreme<br />
Court when the Foreign Journalists’ Association challenged the constitutionality<br />
<strong>of</strong> several sections <strong>of</strong> AIPPA. The Supreme Court has reserved judgment<br />
in two other constitutional challenges - one <strong>of</strong> AIPPA and the other <strong>of</strong><br />
the Broadcasting Services Act. These are unacceptable tactics, which delay<br />
and thus severely compromise an applicant’s constitutional right to a fair<br />
hearing and determination within a reasonable time.<br />
The State’s monopoly in the broadcasting sector continued in 2002. Two<br />
applications for satellite broadcasting licences by local companies were rejected<br />
without reason or right <strong>of</strong> appeal. Government interfered in the affairs<br />
<strong>of</strong> Joy TV, a second television channel leased from the Zimbabwe Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZBC). First it was made to cease its broadcasts <strong>of</strong> BBC<br />
World News; then after a few live interviews <strong>of</strong> personalities who included<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the opposition, civic leaders, ruling party <strong>of</strong>ficials, and entertainment<br />
celebrities, its lease was not renewed after it expired. The government<br />
argued that leasing <strong>of</strong> ZBC assets or stations violated the Broadcasting<br />
Services Act. The Broadcasting Act however has a pending Supreme Court<br />
judgment challenging its constitutionality. The ZBC defied a court order to<br />
broadcast a live talk show featuring diverse political representation. Instead,<br />
public radio and television were utilised to promote the ruling party’s electoral<br />
and land reform policies and, together with publicly-funded newspapers,<br />
the vicious hate campaign against the opposition MDC, various NGOs<br />
and the farming and business community has intensified. The editorial and<br />
operational independence <strong>of</strong> the public broadcaster have been irreparably<br />
compromised.<br />
Several new newspapers were launched in 2002, <strong>of</strong> note being the Business<br />
and Weekend Tribune, which were launched by <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Group. A businessman<br />
with ties to the government took a controlling interest in the Financial<br />
Gazette. The privately owned Daily News faced some internal problems<br />
at the end <strong>of</strong> the year leading to the dismissal <strong>of</strong> its internationally acknowledged<br />
editor, Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota, in December.<br />
The media environment has deteriorated dramatically in 2002. Government<br />
So This Is Democracy? 171
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
and independent media workers continue to be highly polarised and cannot<br />
find common ground. Considering the minefield <strong>of</strong> legislation facing media<br />
practitioners, they have performed admirably in informing the public at great<br />
personal risk. Their task has been made more difficult by pervasive state broadcasting<br />
and information machinery, and a minister wielding too much power<br />
and an open disdain for journalism critical <strong>of</strong> the ruling party and its policies.<br />
A great struggle lies ahead in convincing an intimidated judiciary to repeal<br />
<strong>of</strong>fensive legislation, in ensuring that police prosecute true <strong>of</strong>fenders, including<br />
those who deny people their right to freely impart and receive information<br />
<strong>of</strong> their choice, and in attempting to convince an aggressive government that<br />
constructive criticism should be welcomed rather than punished. Only if this<br />
is achieved will independent voices survive in Zimbabwe in 2003.<br />
2002<br />
172 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
Por Irene Petras.<br />
Irene Petras é advogada de pr<strong>of</strong>issão e activista dos direitos humanos.<br />
Actualmente trabalha para a organização Advogados para os Direitos<br />
Humanos do Zimbabwe como Coordenadora. Trabalha ainda como consultora<br />
para várias organizações no Zimbabwe.<br />
“... A publicidade negativa prejudicou a economia deste país... As<br />
reportagens negativas que foram credíveis para a comunidade<br />
internacional eram, na sua maioria, fabricações ou exageros ou histórias<br />
de violência transformadas em sensacionais... No interesse de proteger a<br />
segurança pública e o bem estar económico, é necessário … fazer com que<br />
tais práticas jornalísticas potencialmente desastrosas sejam consideradas<br />
criminosas a um nível estritamente de responsabilidade.”<br />
Depoimento escrito, feito sob juramento, pelo Ministro de Informação e<br />
Propaganda, Jonathan Moyo, na Associação dos Jornalistas Independentes<br />
do Zimbabwe & 2 Ors -v-Minister <strong>of</strong> State for Information and Publicity &<br />
2 Ors SC 252/02)<br />
Tais afirmações são indicativas da atitude do governo no tratamento da<br />
comunicação social privada em 2002. Os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da comunicação social<br />
independente empenharam-se pr<strong>of</strong>undamente para expor a corrupção, a<br />
má administração e a decadência sócio económica no Zimbabwe. O Estado,<br />
contudo, recusou-se a tolerar a análise crítica de um processo eleitoral<br />
disputado, da violência política patrocinada pelo Estado e um programa<br />
deficiente de reforma agrária; utilizou a maquinaria de informação de<br />
propriedade pública para pedir desculpas pelas suas políticas e muitas vezes<br />
enganou até os seus ouvintes / leitores.<br />
A comunicação social privada foi ameaçada e atacada durante todo o ano de<br />
2002, particularmente pelo Ministro da Informação e Propaganda Jonathan<br />
Moyo, pelo Comando do Exército, a polícia e mesmo o próprio Presidente<br />
Mugabe, que acusaram o sector de serem “vendilhões de mentiras, exageros e<br />
de fabricação de notícias” (Alert Update 18/03/02). Isto ocorreu normalmente<br />
como resultado de artigos considerados prejudiciais ao respeito e autoridade<br />
do partido no poder e dos órgãos estatais.<br />
Residências de jornalistas foram revistadas; vários jornalistas foram proibidos<br />
de fazer a cobertura de acontecimentos públicos ou foram agredidos enquanto<br />
estavam a fazê-lo. A violência não poupou os jornalistas dos meios de<br />
comunicação públicos que em algumas ocasiões foram assaltados pelos<br />
simpatizantes dos partidos da oposição e um operador de câmara da Corporação<br />
de Radiodifusão do Zimbabwe (ZBC) foi uma vez agredido violentamente<br />
So This Is Democracy? 173
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
por soldados. Foi recusada a vários jornalistas estrangeiros a sua acreditação<br />
para fazerem a cobertura das eleições presidenciais em Março. Os escritórios<br />
do jornal Daily News e de rádios comunitárias Voz do Povo (VOP) e Rádio<br />
Diálogo foram revistados de surpresa pela polícia e documentação e fitas foram<br />
apreendidas ilegalmente. Mais grave ainda, os escritórios do Daily News de<br />
Bulawayo foram incendiados com bombas de gasolina, tendo acontecido o<br />
mesmo à impressora de uma companhia que produziu material da campanha<br />
eleitoral da oposição. Uma bomba incendiária destruiu completamente as<br />
instalações da Rádio VOP em Agosto. A polícia não conseguiu ou não quis<br />
acusar ninguém em relação a todos estes ataques.<br />
Durante 2002 a comunicação social privada foi obrigada a operar sob as mais<br />
restritivas condições legislativas de que há memória desde a independência.<br />
A Lei da Ordem Pública e Segurança (POSA) foi aprovada em Janeiro e marcou<br />
o início dum assalto sistemático às liberdades constitucionais de expressão e<br />
de associação. Entre outras cláusulas, esta considera criminosas as reportagens<br />
ou notícias que enfraqueçam insidiosamente a autoridade do Presidente e a<br />
publicação de depoimentos falsos que sejam prejudiciais ao Estado.<br />
A promulgação da Lei do Acesso à Informação e Protecção da Privacidade,<br />
(AIPPA), em meados de Março, foi o principal golpe contra a liberdade de<br />
expressão e liberdade de imprensa. Na sua forma de projecto de lei, a Comissão<br />
Parlamentar para Assuntos Legais descreveu-a como “o assalto mais calculado<br />
e determinado contra as nossas liberdades (constitucionais).” (Per Chairman,<br />
Dr EJ Zvobgo). Apesar da AIPPA permitir o acesso à informação relacionada<br />
com os organismos públicos, proíbe a informação sobre assuntos substantivos<br />
como as deliberações do gabinete e assuntos de política do governo. A circulação<br />
de informação de terceiras partes é deixada à discrição de funcionários públicos.<br />
A lei cria uma Comissão de Comunicação Social e Informação, (MIC), toda<br />
poderosa e nomeada pelo governo, que não representa os vários interesses<br />
jornalísticos. A MIC tem poderes quase judiciais e de investigação que usurpam<br />
a função tanto dos tribunais como da polícia, permitindo-a intrometer-se de<br />
forma inconstitucional e injustificada nos assuntos das organizações de<br />
comunicação social e dos pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da comunicação social.<br />
2002<br />
Nos termos da AIPPA é obrigatória para a prática do jornalismo a acreditação<br />
dos jornalistas e o registo das empresas de comunicação social. Mas o espectro<br />
dos que são afectados é tão vasto que pode inclusivamente envolver organizações<br />
de publicidade, organizações não governamentais (ONG’s) e indústrias<br />
relacionadas com web. É ilegal a propriedade estrangeira de meios da<br />
comunicação social e os correspondentes estrangeiros só são autorizados a<br />
registar-se por “um período limitado”. Finalmente, as disposições e multas<br />
relacionadas com as notícias falsas e abuso do “privilégio jornalístico” são mais<br />
duras do que aquelas que foram já consideradas inconstitucionais pelo Tribunal<br />
Supremo ao abrigo da Lei já revogada da (Manutenção) da Lei e da Ordem.<br />
174 So This Is Democracy?
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
A entrada em vigor destas duas leis tem contribuído em muito para o aumento<br />
do assalto à comunicação social privada e a negação da liberdade de expressão,<br />
tendo contribuído também para um aumento das dificuldades com a livre<br />
circulação de informação pelo público tanto no interior como no exterior do<br />
Zimbabwe.<br />
A POSA foi estritamente aplicada imediatamente após a sua entrada em vigor.<br />
Durante o ano de 2002, cinco jornalistas foram presos e acusados,<br />
especificamente ao abrigo das disposições relacionadas com ajuntamentos<br />
públicos e publicação de informação prejudicial ao Estado. Até à data, não foi<br />
terminada nenhuma das acções judiciais. Uma outra tendência perturbadora<br />
também emergiu: muitas vezes a polícia deteve jornalistas que faziam a cobertura<br />
de comícios da oposição, de estudantes e outras manifestações, tendo alguns<br />
dos jornalistas sido agredidos pela polícia durante a sua detenção. Inicialmente<br />
os jornalistas foram presos por transgredirem a POSA, para a seguir, depois de<br />
horas (ou dias) em detenção, saírem liberdade sem culpa formada.<br />
Logo que a AIPPA foi promulgada 14 jornalistas e chefes de redacção foram<br />
detidos em várias alturas, acusados pelo crime de “publicarem falsidades”. Tal<br />
crime é punível com uma pena máxima de dois anos de cadeia. Ao todo foram<br />
presos 44 jornalistas em 2002. Destes, dois casos foram julgados até ao fim; em<br />
seis outros, a acusação desistiu da acção em tribunal; 22 jornalistas foram<br />
libertados sem culpa formada e um foi deportado; outros 13 casos aguardam<br />
solução. Contudo, apesar de várias notícias falsas terem sido publicadas em<br />
jornais financiados pelo estado, nenhum jornalista ou chefe de redacção deste<br />
sector foi preso ou acusado.<br />
A primeira acção judicial foi instaurada contra Andrew Meldrum, um dos<br />
correspondentes do Guardian. Numa vitória para a liberdade de imprensa e sob<br />
enorme pressão governamental, o Magistrado Godfrey Macheyo rejeitou a<br />
acusação, sublinhando a redacção inadequada da cláusula sobre notícias falsas<br />
e determinando que a responsabilidade estrita não era intencional.<br />
Andrew Meldrum recebeu imediatamente os documentos para a sua deportação<br />
assinados pelo Ministro do Interior. O Jornalista desafiou o aspecto constitucional<br />
da sua remoção e está ainda no Zimbabwe a aguardar o resultado desta causa.<br />
A única outra acção lançada ao abrigo da cláusula de notícias falsas, foi referida<br />
ao Tribunal Supremo para análise da sua constitucionalidade e a questão ainda<br />
não foi resolvida. Contudo, o Ministro da Informação aceitou a<br />
inconstitucionalidade deste e de outros parágrafos, ao apresentar ao Parlamento<br />
o Projecto de Alterações da Lei de Acesso à Informação e Protecção da<br />
Privacidade.<br />
Houve jornalistas que foram também importunados ao abrigo de outra legislação.<br />
Dois jornalistas que filmavam o líder da oposição que estava a caminho de uma<br />
So This Is Democracy? 175
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
estação de polícia situada perto da State House, foram detidos e acusados ao<br />
abrigo da Lei das Áreas Protegidas por terem filmado a State House. O procurador<br />
Geral da República recusou-se a processar os jornalistas. O Editor do Zimbabwe<br />
Independent foi acusado ao abrigo da Lei de Censura por publicar uma<br />
fotografia de uma habitante do Amazonas em trajo muito sumário, num vestido<br />
tradicional. Um repórter do Daily Mirror, Tawanda Majoni, foi preso por escrever<br />
uma reportagem questionando o estado de saúde do Comissário da Polícia.<br />
Como antigo polícia, o jornalista foi , processado, considerado culpado e<br />
sentenciado por deserção ao abrigo da Lei da Polícia. Contudo, está em liberdade<br />
à espera da sessão do apelo que fez contra a sentença. Dois jornalistas da Agence<br />
France Press foram forçados a abandonar o Zimbabwe depois dos seus pedidos<br />
para se registarem de novo, terem sido recusados.<br />
Processos de difamação criminal foram instaurados contra vários jornalistas e<br />
chefes de redacção independentes por vários artigos, incluindo uma reportagem<br />
sobre o irmão da Primeira Dama que lhe pediu ajuda para resolver uma disputa<br />
de trabalho e outra relacionada com um partidário da oposição que foi decapitado<br />
por membros da ZANU-FP (que mais tarde se descobriu ser uma informação<br />
falsa e anunciada como tal pelo jornal). Funcionários públicos instauraram<br />
processos de indemnização, baseados em artigos publicados, que expunham as<br />
suas práticas corruptas. Devido ao facto do Estado se ter recusado a processar<br />
os transgressores da AIPPA contra os partidos da oposição, ONG’s e seus<br />
funcionários, estas pessoas viram-se na obrigação de instaurarem muitos<br />
processos de indemnização por difamação.<br />
Durante 2002, os magistrados mostraram grande coragem e não fugiram à sua<br />
responsabilidade de tomarem decisões contra o Estado, nem de porem em dúvida<br />
em termos constitucionais, a legislação relacionada com a comunicação social.<br />
Contudo, o Alto Tribunal e o Supremo Tribunal foram pouco convincentes.<br />
Quando abordado para suspender o procedimento de acreditação até que a<br />
informação necessária e requerida pelos formulários não invadisse tão<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>undamente os direitos de privacidade dos jornalistas, o Alto Tribunal<br />
considerou o assunto como “não sendo urgente”. Devido à importância do<br />
assunto, o Juiz devia ter tomado uma decisão substantiva apesar da falta de<br />
urgência, mas tal responsabilidade foi ignorada. Uma decisão idêntica foi feita<br />
pelo Tribunal Supremo quando a Associação de Jornalistas Estrangeiros pôs<br />
em causa a constitucionalidade de vários artigos da AIPPA. O Tribunal Supremo<br />
reservou a sua decisão em duas outras questões constitucionais – uma<br />
relacionada com a AIPPA e a outra relacionada com a Lei de Serviços de<br />
Radiodifusão. Trata-se de tácticas não aceitáveis, que atrasam e<br />
consequentemente comprometem muito o direito constitucional do requerente<br />
a ser ouvido de forma justa dentro de um período razoável.<br />
2002<br />
O monopólio do Estado no sector da radiodifusão continuou em 2002. Dois<br />
pedidos para licenças de radiodifusão via satélite apresentados por companhias<br />
176 So This Is Democracy?
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
locais foram rejeitadas sem qualquer razão apresentada nem direito a apelo. O<br />
Governo interferiu nos assuntos da Joy TV, um Segundo canal de televisão que<br />
foi alugado à Corporação de Radiodifusão do Zimbabwe (ZBC). Primeiro foi<br />
forçada a parar as suas transmissões das Notícias Internacionais da BBC e depois,<br />
na sequência de várias entrevistas feitas ao vivo, com várias personalidades,<br />
incluindo membros da oposição, líderes cívicos, funcionários do partido no poder<br />
e celebridades da cena de entretenimento, a sua licença não foi renovada depois<br />
de ter expirado. O governo defendeu a posição de que o aluguer de bens ou<br />
estações da ZBC violavam a Lei dos Serviços de Radiodifusão Contudo, uma<br />
decisão do Tribunal Supremo sobre a Lei da Radiodifusão não ser aceite em<br />
termos constitucionais, continua pendente. A ZBC desafiou uma ordem do tribunal<br />
para que transmitisse um debate ao vivo com várias representações<br />
políticas. Em vez disso, a rádio e televisão pública foram usadas para promover<br />
as políticas eleitorais e de reforma agrária do partido no poder e, juntamente<br />
com os jornais financiados por fundos públicos, intensificaram a perversa<br />
campanha contra o partido da oposição o MDC, contra várias ONG’s e contra<br />
a comunidade de agricultores e de empresários. A indepedência editorial e<br />
operacional dos serviços públicos de radiodifusão ficou irreparavelmente<br />
comprometida.<br />
Vários jornais novos foram lançados em 2002, sendo de notar o Business e o<br />
Weekend Tribune, que foram lançados pelo <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Group. Num outro<br />
desenvolvimento, um empresário com ligações com o governo comprou a<br />
maioria das acções do Financial Gazette. O Daily News, de propriedade privada,<br />
enfrentou alguns problemas internos no final do ano, o que levou, em Dezembro,<br />
à demissão do seu Editor, Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota , reconhecido internacionalmente.<br />
O ambiente da comunicação social deteriorou-se dramaticamente em 2002. Os<br />
trabalhadores da comunicação social do governo e independente continuam a<br />
estar intensamente polarizados e não conseguem encontrar uma base comum.<br />
Considerando a legislação altamente explosiva que os pr<strong>of</strong>issionais da<br />
comunicação social enfrentam, estes pr<strong>of</strong>issionais actuaram de forma admirável<br />
pois, com enorme risco pessoal, conseguiram informar o público. O seu trabalho<br />
foi dificultado pela subtil radiodifusão e maquinaria de informação e por um<br />
ministro que possui muito poder e um desdenho total pelo jornalismo crítico do<br />
partido no poder e suas políticas. Apresenta-se para o futuro uma enorme luta<br />
para convencer um sistema judicial que se encontra intimidado, a revogar a<br />
legislação <strong>of</strong>ensiva, a garantir que a polícia só intente processos contra<br />
verdadeiros criminosos, incluindo aqueles que negam às pessoas o seu direito<br />
de circularem e receberem livremente informação da sua escolha e para tentar<br />
convencer um governo agressivo de que a crítica construtiva deve ser bem<br />
recebida em vez de punida. As vozes independentes só poderão sobrevier no<br />
Zimbabwe de 2003, se tudo isso for alcançado.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 177
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-09<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Zimbabwe’s President Robert<br />
Mugabe told church leaders that journalists<br />
who write what he termed “libelous<br />
reports” would be arrested.<br />
Mugabe said this in a meeting with<br />
Zimbabwe’s church leaders at his <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
on December16, 2001.<br />
The church leaders asked Mugabe<br />
to uphold press freedom, especially the<br />
right to balanced reporting. However,<br />
Mugabe replied that journalists and<br />
editors should not enjoy more rights<br />
and freedoms than other citizens. “The<br />
media has been assaulting the integrity<br />
<strong>of</strong> private citizens and public citizens.<br />
In my view, an assault on one’s<br />
integrity is even worse than an assault<br />
in physical terms,” said Mugabe.<br />
Mugabe made reference to “libelous”<br />
reports, which were not properly<br />
attributed or attributed to “unreliable<br />
sources.” “If these sources are reliable,<br />
let them be reliable enough to come<br />
and rescue you when you are arrested,”<br />
boasted Mugabe.<br />
Mugabe also made reference to foreign<br />
funding <strong>of</strong> the media that he said<br />
was destabilising the country. He said<br />
that this was not peculiar to Zimbabwe,<br />
but was happening in Zambia as<br />
well. Mugabe said he is particularly incensed<br />
by media reports that he has<br />
properties in Europe, particularly Scotland.<br />
“Why should I go and buy property<br />
there? I have not a single cent outside<br />
the country. I have told them to<br />
take that money and give it to charity,<br />
if they find it. If I have any money I<br />
would keep it here,” said Mugabe.<br />
178 So This Is Democracy?<br />
The Zimbabwean government is in<br />
the process <strong>of</strong> enacting an Access to<br />
Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Bill and a Public Order and Security<br />
Bill. These two bills will significantly<br />
limit and restrict the operations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
media in Zimbabwe. Journalists and<br />
media houses would have to be licensed,<br />
foreign correspondents would<br />
be banned and a number <strong>of</strong> limitations<br />
put on what journalists can report on.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-09<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Daily<br />
News, newspaper vendors<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
Youths from the ruling Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
National Union - Patriotic Front<br />
(ZANU-PF) party have destroyed<br />
hundreds <strong>of</strong> copies <strong>of</strong> the independent<br />
“The Daily News” in the town <strong>of</strong><br />
Masvingo during a demonstration<br />
against alleged misinformation by the<br />
paper.<br />
On December 27, 2001, the youths,<br />
numbering over 100, took to the streets<br />
in Masvingo to protest what they alleged<br />
to be lies being published by the<br />
newspaper about the Zimbabwean<br />
government. The demonstrating<br />
youths, who were addressed by<br />
Masvingo’s Provincial Governor<br />
Josiah Hungwe, spent the whole day<br />
chasing “The Daily News” vendors<br />
from the streets <strong>of</strong> Masvingo.<br />
A spokesperson for the group who<br />
was quoted in “The Herald” said that<br />
the demonstration was a warning to the<br />
newspaper that negative publicity<br />
would not be tolerated. “We want the<br />
paper and its white supporters and<br />
black puppets to know that we will not<br />
watch while they continue telling lies
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
about our country,” said the unidentified<br />
spokesperson.<br />
According to the December 28 edition<br />
<strong>of</strong> “The Daily News”, the youths,<br />
some as young as ten years old, said<br />
they had taken their instructions from<br />
ZANU-PF Chairperson for Masvingo<br />
and Higher Education, Minister<br />
Samuel Mumbengegwi.<br />
Mumbengegwi is reported to have<br />
watched the mayhem from a distance.<br />
“We have banned the sale <strong>of</strong> ‘The<br />
Daily News’ from Masvingo. The paper<br />
is writing bad news about the ruling<br />
party and we no longer want to see<br />
it on the streets,” said some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
youths quoted in “The Daily News”.<br />
The newspaper reports that some <strong>of</strong><br />
the hired youths were not even sure<br />
why they were destroying copies <strong>of</strong><br />
“The Daily News”. “We were hired to<br />
do this, but I am sure we are demonstrating<br />
against corruption,” said one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the youths quoted in “The Daily<br />
News”.<br />
Although a report was made to the<br />
police about the destruction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
newspapers, the police stood by idly<br />
as the youths continued their rampage.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-09<br />
INSTITUTION(S): CNN<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
Zimbabwe’s Minister <strong>of</strong> State for Information<br />
and Publicity Jonathan<br />
Moyo has banned a CNN news bulletin<br />
from being aired by the national<br />
broadcaster, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZBC). The twentyminute<br />
programme was aired daily.<br />
In response to a question from an<br />
opposition member <strong>of</strong> parliament in<br />
parliament on Wednesday December<br />
20, 2001, Moyo said that CNN was<br />
dropped in line with government<br />
policy. Moyo said that the ban is also<br />
in line with the restructuring <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ZBC.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-10<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Independent<br />
media, foreign correspondents<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Zimbabwean Army General Vitalis<br />
Zvinavashe has warned the independent<br />
media and foreign correspondents<br />
<strong>of</strong> dire consequences if they continue<br />
to report negatively about the Zimbabwean<br />
government, human rights<br />
abuses and the security forces’ actions.<br />
Addressing a press conference attended<br />
by Zimbabwe’s top military,<br />
police and intelligence brass,<br />
Zvinavashe said the independent media<br />
and foreign correspondents are involved<br />
in a campaign to demonise the<br />
security forces by undermining Zimbabwe’s<br />
security and peace.<br />
Zvinavashe claimed that over the<br />
past two years there has been an increase<br />
in speculative, imaginary and<br />
false articles by both the independent<br />
media and foreign journalists. “The<br />
statements have caused insecurity, uncertainty,<br />
confusion, and tarnished the<br />
credibility <strong>of</strong> the country’s security<br />
arms,” he stated.<br />
He also said that there is a need for<br />
the media to make a distinction between<br />
political and security institutions.<br />
Zvinavashe cited examples <strong>of</strong><br />
what he claimed were false reports,<br />
including the alleged looting <strong>of</strong> resources<br />
in the Democratic Republic <strong>of</strong><br />
Congo by the Zimbabwean government<br />
and top military <strong>of</strong>ficers, includ-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 179
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
180 So This Is Democracy?<br />
ing himself, allegations <strong>of</strong> political victimisation<br />
<strong>of</strong> prison <strong>of</strong>ficers who support<br />
the opposition, and the story on<br />
the assassination attempt <strong>of</strong> “The Daily<br />
News”’s editor-in-chief by intelligence<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer Bernard Masala.<br />
“Whilst it is known that media<br />
houses are in business, they must not<br />
generate pr<strong>of</strong>its out <strong>of</strong> false reports that<br />
discredit security organisations, which<br />
are sensitive by nature and have rights<br />
like any other institutions,” said<br />
Zvinavashe. “In these cited stories, no<br />
iota <strong>of</strong> evidence was provided. We are<br />
therefore advising all citizens <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
that the full force <strong>of</strong> the law will<br />
meet any reports and actions designed<br />
to create instability in Zimbabwe. This<br />
will include enforcement, where it is<br />
deemed necessary. Individuals will be<br />
answerable for their actions,” he<br />
warned.<br />
“The law will take its place to ensure<br />
that Zimbabwe’s independence,<br />
territorial integrity and sovereignty -<br />
which to [a] large extent depend on upholding<br />
the values and good name <strong>of</strong><br />
the security organisations - are preserved,”<br />
warned Zvinavashe. He added<br />
that there was therefore a need to respect<br />
the security forces, which were<br />
constitutionally established to safeguard<br />
Zimbabwe’s hard-won independence.<br />
A failure to do so would result<br />
in instability, lawlessness and ultimately<br />
anarchy, he said.<br />
At the same press conference,<br />
Zvinavashe announced that the army<br />
would not support any president who<br />
does not suit their requirements. In<br />
apparent reference to the leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
opposition Movement for Democratic<br />
Change, Morgan Tsvangirai,<br />
Zvinavashe said the army would not<br />
accept, support and salute any president<br />
who did not fight in the war <strong>of</strong><br />
independence.<br />
“We wish to make it very clear to<br />
all Zimbabwean citizens that the security<br />
organisations will only stand in<br />
support <strong>of</strong> those political leaders that<br />
will pursue Zimbabwean values, traditions<br />
and beliefs, for which thousands<br />
<strong>of</strong> lives were lost, in pursuit <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe’s hard-won independence,<br />
sovereignty, territorial integrity and national<br />
interests,” said Zvinavashe. “To<br />
this end, let it be known that the highest<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice in the [country] is a straitjacket,<br />
whose occupant must observe<br />
the objectives <strong>of</strong> the liberation struggle.<br />
We will therefore not accept, let<br />
alone support anyone, or salute anyone,<br />
with a different agenda that threatens<br />
the very existence <strong>of</strong> our sovereignty,<br />
our country and our people,”<br />
he added.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-14<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On Thursday January 10, 2002, the<br />
Zimbabwean Parliament passed the<br />
Public Order and Security Bill, which<br />
contains repressive provisions on the<br />
operations <strong>of</strong> the media. The bill was<br />
passed after a vote was taken, pitting<br />
the ruling Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-<br />
PF) party against the opposition<br />
Movement for Democratic Change<br />
(MDC). MDC members <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
opposed the bill but lost the vote.<br />
The bill now awaits President<br />
Robert Mugabe’s signature before it<br />
is put into effect. Parliament pushed<br />
the controversial bill through despite
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
wide protests by civic organisations<br />
and the international community.<br />
Specific clauses <strong>of</strong> the act that stifle<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, speech<br />
and that <strong>of</strong> the media include Clause<br />
15, which makes it a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence<br />
to publish or communicate false<br />
statements prejudicial to the state.<br />
Under this clause, a person may be<br />
fined or imprisoned for up to five<br />
years for publishing a false statement<br />
likely to promote public disorder, or<br />
undermining public confidence in the<br />
police, armed forces or prison <strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />
Clause 16 makes it an <strong>of</strong>fence to<br />
make a public statement with the intention<br />
to, or knowing there is a risk<br />
<strong>of</strong> “undermining the authority <strong>of</strong> or<br />
insulting” the president. This includes<br />
statements likely to engender<br />
feelings <strong>of</strong> hostility towards the<br />
president, cause “hatred, contempt or<br />
ridicule” <strong>of</strong> the president, or any<br />
“abusive, indecent, obscene or false<br />
statement” about him personally or<br />
his <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
Clauses 23 to 31 regulate the organisation<br />
and conduct <strong>of</strong> public<br />
gatherings. A senior police <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
will be the regulating authority and<br />
has powers to disperse people, ban a<br />
meeting and use reasonable force if<br />
necessary to achieve his/her goals.<br />
The Public Order and Security Act,<br />
combined with the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Bill, to be debated next week, will<br />
result in the most repressive media<br />
laws in Zimbabwe.<br />
However, journalists in Zimbabwe<br />
have taken a position not to honour<br />
the laws and take the government to<br />
court in the event the bill is passed<br />
next week.<br />
ANNEX<br />
The Zimbabwe chapter <strong>of</strong> MISA<br />
(MISA-Zimbabwe) placed the following<br />
advertisement in daily newspapers<br />
as part <strong>of</strong> their public<br />
awareness and advocacy campaign:<br />
SILENCING THE PEOPLE<br />
PUBLIC ORDER AND SECURITY<br />
ACT VIOLATES FREEDOM OF<br />
SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND<br />
RIGHTS OF JOURNALISTS AND<br />
ZIMBABWEANS<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
- Zimbabwe Chapter (MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe) expresses its deep reservations<br />
and outright disapproval over<br />
some sections <strong>of</strong> the Public Order and<br />
Security Bill that was passed by Parliament<br />
on 10 January 2002.<br />
The Act contains sections that seriously<br />
impinge on the rights <strong>of</strong> Zimbabweans<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> speech,<br />
expression and media rights. Journalists,<br />
for example, will not be able to<br />
report on the activities <strong>of</strong> our leaders.<br />
Members <strong>of</strong> the public will need clearance<br />
from the police to hold meetings<br />
on any business.<br />
The normal life and democracy ushered<br />
in at independence in 1980 is<br />
threatened by this Act.<br />
Clause 15 <strong>of</strong> the Act makes it a<br />
criminal <strong>of</strong>fence to publish or communicate<br />
false statements prejudicial to<br />
the state. A person may be fined or<br />
imprisoned up to five years for publishing<br />
a false statement likely to promote<br />
public disorder, or undermining<br />
public confidence in the police, armed<br />
forces or prison <strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />
Clause 16 makes it an <strong>of</strong>fence to<br />
make a public statement with the in-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 181
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
tention to, or knowing there is a risk<br />
<strong>of</strong> “Undermining the authority <strong>of</strong> or<br />
insulting” the President. This includes<br />
statements likely to engender feelings<br />
<strong>of</strong> hostility towards the President,<br />
cause “hatred, contempt or ridicule” <strong>of</strong><br />
the President, or any “abusive, indecent,<br />
obscene or false statement” about<br />
him personally or his <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
Clauses 23 to 31 regulate the organisation<br />
and conduct <strong>of</strong> public gatherings.<br />
A senior police <strong>of</strong>ficer will be the<br />
regulating authority and has powers to<br />
disperse people, ban a meeting and use<br />
reasonable force if necessary to<br />
achieve his/her goals.<br />
The position <strong>of</strong> MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
is that:<br />
The new law gives too much power<br />
to the police. Besides maintaining law<br />
and order by detecting and arresting<br />
criminals, police can now tell us when<br />
to and not to meet for personal business<br />
even if we are not committing<br />
any crime.<br />
There is no need for special laws to<br />
protect the President, his honour or<br />
dignity. The new law gives protection<br />
to public figures that is not available<br />
to the rest <strong>of</strong> Zimbabweans. This<br />
means that public figures are now protected<br />
even from standing accountable<br />
for heinous deeds and they have their<br />
own laws that do not apply to the rest<br />
<strong>of</strong> us.<br />
Having sought public <strong>of</strong>fice, public<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials, be it the President or Members<br />
<strong>of</strong> Parliament, become servants<br />
<strong>of</strong> the people, not its masters. The law<br />
makes public <strong>of</strong>ficials masters <strong>of</strong> the<br />
people <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe by making it a<br />
criminal <strong>of</strong>fence for journalists to report<br />
the shortcomings <strong>of</strong> our leaders.<br />
182 So This Is Democracy?<br />
The law provides that the leaders<br />
themselves will determine and decide<br />
how and when they feel that they have<br />
been “<strong>of</strong>fended”, “insulted” or when<br />
their dignity and reputation is undermined.<br />
This means that journalists can<br />
be arrested for reporting on any kind<br />
<strong>of</strong> wrongdoing by a public <strong>of</strong>ficial.<br />
The shielding <strong>of</strong> public <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
from scrutiny violates the notion <strong>of</strong><br />
transparency and accountability, which<br />
must underline the conduct <strong>of</strong> all state<br />
business. The law is therefore meant<br />
to stifle all Zimbabweans. Government<br />
business, which must be subject to<br />
controls and participation by the rest<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabweans, is now a preserve <strong>of</strong><br />
the leaders.<br />
It is the position <strong>of</strong> MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that the ultimate objective <strong>of</strong> a free<br />
media is to provide a healthy check on<br />
centers <strong>of</strong> power (public and private)<br />
in order to maintain a free and enlightened<br />
Zimbabwe. People usually talk<br />
<strong>of</strong> a free media in line with democracy,<br />
meaning that a free media is the cornerstone<br />
<strong>of</strong> democracy. Actions <strong>of</strong> government,<br />
which is only the trustee <strong>of</strong><br />
the collective will <strong>of</strong> the people, are<br />
expected to be regulated by the force<br />
<strong>of</strong> public opinion. Newspapers, television,<br />
radio, magazines and public<br />
meetings are important tools for gauging<br />
and reflecting public opinion. The<br />
important task <strong>of</strong> informing the public<br />
cannot be entrusted to the rulers for<br />
they will only tell the people what they<br />
want them to know and not the rest.<br />
Unfortunately, the Public Order and<br />
Security Act will silence Zimbabweans.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe therefore calls<br />
upon the Parliament to revisit the<br />
whole Act, so that the freedoms Zimbabweans<br />
fought for are maintained
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
and preserved for the good <strong>of</strong> the nation.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-14<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Broadcasters<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
Zimbabwe’s Minister <strong>of</strong> State for Information<br />
and Publicity Jonathan<br />
Moyo wants the European Union<br />
(EU) to urge the British and Netherlands<br />
governments to stop sponsoring<br />
short wave radio stations that<br />
broadcast in Zimbabwe.<br />
On Friday January 11, 2002, Moyo<br />
was talking to “The Sunday Mail”<br />
about the current deliberations between<br />
the EU and Zimbabwe taking<br />
place in Brussels, Belgium. He said<br />
that Britain and the Netherlands are<br />
sponsoring illegal short wave radio station<br />
broadcasts in Zimbabwe. “The<br />
British are funding their citizen, Jerry<br />
Jackson, who in September 2000 ran<br />
a pirate radio station calling itself<br />
“Capital Radio”, working with [Movement<br />
for Democratic Change, MDC]<br />
legislator and Rhodesian war veteran<br />
David Coltart, Mike Auret Jnr. and<br />
other Rhodesians,” said Moyo. “Who<br />
else is having access to the EU sponsored<br />
illegal broadcasts besides the<br />
treacherous MDC?” asked Moyo.<br />
The “Voice <strong>of</strong> the People” and “SW<br />
Radio <strong>Africa</strong>” are the two radio stations<br />
to which Moyo was referring in<br />
his attack. Both are operating shortwave<br />
stations broadcasting news on<br />
the situation in Zimbabwe. Moyo accuses<br />
the two <strong>of</strong> being pro-opposition.<br />
Jackson is the former director <strong>of</strong> Capital<br />
Radio; the first station to challenge<br />
the monopoly <strong>of</strong> the state-owned and<br />
run Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC) at the Supreme Court.<br />
ZBC’s monopoly was subsequently<br />
overthrown, deemed unconstitutional.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-15<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
On January 14, 2002, an all-night<br />
vigil at the Zimbabwean Parliament,<br />
organised by journalists working for<br />
the independent media in Zimbabwe,<br />
was cut short as police threatened the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> force if the journalists defied<br />
an order to vacate. The vigil was organised<br />
in protest <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Bill, which is set to be passed on 15<br />
January.<br />
The journalists, numbering between<br />
30 and 40, gathered at the Parliament<br />
as <strong>of</strong> 7:30 p.m. (local time), in the capital<br />
Harare. Parliament security immediately<br />
ordered the journalists to leave,<br />
stating that the Parliament building is<br />
a protected security area. The police<br />
said that no one is allowed near the<br />
building after 6:00 p.m. and that anyone<br />
who defied this risked being shot.<br />
Parliament security and police who<br />
guard the premises threatened to confiscate<br />
cameras and video cameras<br />
from journalists who were taking pictures<br />
<strong>of</strong> the peaceful protest.<br />
The leaders <strong>of</strong> the demonstrating<br />
journalists, Basildon Peta and Abel<br />
Mutsakani, were briefly whisked into<br />
the Parliament building by police and<br />
Parliament security, where they were<br />
warned not to defy the order to leave.<br />
A police inspector in charge <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Central Business District was called<br />
and indicated that if the journalists re-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 183
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
fused to leave he would immediately<br />
mobilise the riot police to “deal with<br />
them”.<br />
The police advised the journalists to<br />
hold their protest on 15 January instead,<br />
and to present their grievances<br />
when Parliament opened for business.<br />
The police also said that the demonstration<br />
was illegal since the journalists<br />
had not applied for permission<br />
from the police. As more and more<br />
truckloads <strong>of</strong> police and intelligence<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers continued to arrive at the Parliament<br />
building, the journalists decided<br />
to call <strong>of</strong>f the protest and decide<br />
on a way forward for January 15. By<br />
10:00 p.m., the journalists had dispersed.<br />
The Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill is expected to<br />
be passed on January 15. The bill contains<br />
draconian provisions that would<br />
virtually signal the end <strong>of</strong> the independent<br />
media in Zimbabwe. The bill<br />
has been largely condemned by journalists,<br />
including the president <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists (ZUJ),<br />
Mathew Takaona, who works for the<br />
state-owned “The Sunday Mail”.<br />
Takaona was quoted in the 15 January<br />
edition <strong>of</strong> “The Daily News” as stating<br />
that the bill must be thrown out.<br />
“ZUJ’s position on the bill has never<br />
changed from the first time we learnt<br />
<strong>of</strong> it. We have raised cries over it and<br />
with other media stakeholders. We will<br />
be holding workshops on the way forward,”<br />
said Takaona.<br />
The statement by Takaona is seen<br />
by analysts as significant because it<br />
breaks the divide between state and<br />
independent media journalists that<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Information Jonathan<br />
Moyo is largely seen as fanning in order<br />
to promote acceptance <strong>of</strong> the bill.<br />
184 So This Is Democracy?<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-17<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Bulawayo Dialogue,<br />
Radio Dialoque FM<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
Zimbabwe’s Information and Publicity<br />
Minister Jonathan Moyo has said<br />
that he will not issue a licence to<br />
Bulawayo Dialogue, a civic grouping<br />
based in Bulawayo (Zimbabwe’s second<br />
biggest city), “The Daily News”<br />
reported on January 16 2002.<br />
Twenty civic groups based in the<br />
city endorsed the community radio station<br />
project to be known as “Radio<br />
Dialogue FM”. The Bulawayo City<br />
Council, the Zimbabwe Teachers Association<br />
and the Confederation <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe Industries are among some<br />
<strong>of</strong> the prominent bodies that had approved<br />
the community radio station<br />
project. The project was in an advanced<br />
stage with some broadcasting<br />
equipment already on the ground in<br />
anticipation <strong>of</strong> a licence.<br />
Moyo said that he would not issue a<br />
licence to Bulawayo Dialogue because<br />
the organisation was donor-funded.<br />
“We can say in advance that organisations<br />
and individuals which are foreign-funded<br />
will not be licensed,” said<br />
Moyo. Moyo said that the Konrad<br />
Adenauer Foundation and George<br />
Soros were sponsoring Bulawayo Dialogue,<br />
hence it was not eligible for a<br />
licence.<br />
In response to Moyo’s statement,<br />
Jethro Mp<strong>of</strong>u, a coordinator <strong>of</strong> the<br />
“Radio Dialogue FM” project, said that<br />
the people <strong>of</strong> Matebeleland were consulted<br />
extensively and are driving the<br />
radio initiative. Speaking to MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe on January 16, Mp<strong>of</strong>u said<br />
that they had been denied a licence
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
even before they had applied for it.<br />
“This government always talks <strong>of</strong><br />
putting the people first. Now we are<br />
surprised by what they mean when<br />
they deny the same people a licence to<br />
run their own station,” noted Mp<strong>of</strong>u.<br />
“We now realise that the licence will<br />
have to be a product <strong>of</strong> our struggle,<br />
not a donation from the government,”<br />
he added. Mp<strong>of</strong>u also said that citizens<br />
would be mobilised and urged to take<br />
to the streets to protest the denial <strong>of</strong><br />
the radio station’s licence.<br />
Although the Broadcasting Authority<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe has invited aspiring<br />
broadcasters to apply for licences, the<br />
authority has not licenced anyone to<br />
date.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-01-18<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
Parliamentary debate on Zimbabwe’s<br />
controversial Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill has<br />
been deferred to the week <strong>of</strong> January<br />
21, 2002 as Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity Jonathan Moyo considers<br />
proposed amendments to the bill.<br />
The bill was expected to be debated<br />
and passed on January 15. “The Daily<br />
News” reported that a number <strong>of</strong> members<br />
<strong>of</strong> parliament (MPs) from the ruling<br />
Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Union<br />
- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party<br />
felt that the bill was embarrassing because<br />
it included a number <strong>of</strong> provisions<br />
that violated the constitution and<br />
rights <strong>of</strong> journalists and ordinary people.<br />
“Most people within the party have<br />
voiced their concern at the way the bill<br />
was embarrassingly infringing on most<br />
<strong>of</strong> the fundamental clauses in the constitution,”<br />
a ZANU-PF MP was quoted<br />
as saying by “The Daily News”.<br />
“There are going to be some major<br />
amendments [that] have been given to<br />
the Department <strong>of</strong> Information and<br />
Publicity. In other words, you can say<br />
the party has given itself an adverse<br />
report on the bill,” the MP added.<br />
The newspaper also reports that<br />
MPs from both the ruling party and the<br />
opposition felt that the bill was drafted<br />
without the involvement <strong>of</strong> legal experts.<br />
ZANU-PF Chief Whip Joram<br />
Gumbo confirmed that the bill was<br />
being “patched up” after several<br />
amendments were proposed by people<br />
both within and outside the ZANU-<br />
PF.<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Justice and Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
House Patrick Chinamasa said the bill<br />
was being amended after some<br />
“lengthy consultations” on amendments<br />
proposed by “some objective<br />
minded” organisations and individuals.<br />
“The Minister <strong>of</strong> Information is<br />
currently going through the submissions<br />
that I have given him and I hope<br />
he will be ready next Tuesday [January<br />
22],” said Chinamasa.<br />
In a statement carried by “The Herald”<br />
on January 17, Information Minister<br />
Moyo attacked his detractors, including<br />
Andrew Meldrum, a foreign<br />
correspondent in Zimbabwe, as “confused<br />
people.”<br />
“The record will show that all the<br />
so-called foreign correspondents, led<br />
by the confused Andrew Meldrum<br />
and their local running dogs, approached<br />
the bill with open mouths<br />
and shut minds and what a pity that<br />
has been,” said Moyo. “While the<br />
empty vessels have been making<br />
So This Is Democracy? 185
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
noise, we have been making law. Fortunately,<br />
the majority <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwean<br />
journalists and editors, most <strong>of</strong> them<br />
from the so-called public media, have<br />
quietly given us very useful submissions<br />
which we are seriously considering<br />
with a view to taking them on<br />
board,” he added. Moyo also said that<br />
all submissions would be made public<br />
on Tuesday January 22 in the form<br />
<strong>of</strong> amendments to the bill.<br />
“That would serve as a reminder to<br />
our thoughtless detractors that in a<br />
constitutional democracy such as<br />
ours, a bill is a discussion paper until<br />
it becomes law. That is why bills are<br />
gazetted - for the public to debate<br />
them and contribute to their refinement.<br />
We are happy that some <strong>of</strong> our<br />
citizens understand this. You either<br />
participate constructively in the discussion<br />
by making specific contributions<br />
or you shut up,” Moyo said.<br />
MISA notes, however, that despite<br />
Moyo’s statements, the Minister ignored<br />
all the submissions that were<br />
proposed by media organisations, including<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe. MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe made its first submission<br />
to Minister Moyo as far back as August<br />
2001. The allegation that people<br />
were making noise without making<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial submissions is therefore<br />
without merit.<br />
In addition to making submissions<br />
to the Minister, MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
and other organisations have also<br />
made submissions and had interviews<br />
with the Parliamentary Portfolio<br />
Committee on Transport and<br />
Communications over the bill.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-20<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Financial<br />
186 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Gazette, The Daily News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On Thursday January 10, 2002, a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> the ruling Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
National Union - Patriotic Front<br />
(ZANU-PF) party’s supporters tore<br />
up and burnt copies <strong>of</strong> the independent<br />
weekly newspapers “The Financial<br />
Gazette” and “The Daily News”,<br />
according to a report in the 17 January<br />
edition <strong>of</strong> “The Financial Gazette”.<br />
The incident occurred while<br />
the ZANU-PF supporters were on<br />
their way to Harare International Airport<br />
in hired buses to welcome Congolese<br />
President Joseph Kabila.<br />
While on its way to the airport, a<br />
crew from “The Financial Gazette”<br />
witnessed the destruction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
newspapers. The ruling party youths,<br />
who were wearing t-shirts with the<br />
ZANU-PF logo, got <strong>of</strong>f a ZUPCO<br />
(Zimbabwe United Passenger Company<br />
Limited) bus with registration<br />
number 438-108 M on Chiremba<br />
road in the suburb <strong>of</strong> Hatfield. They<br />
then forced newspaper vendors to<br />
hand over large bundles <strong>of</strong> “The<br />
Daily News” and “The Financial<br />
Gazette”, which they burnt publicly.<br />
The youths, who were visibly<br />
drunk, chased some vendors and anyone<br />
seen with a copy <strong>of</strong> the two newspapers.<br />
Motorists were also forced to<br />
stop and their newspapers were confiscated<br />
and burnt.<br />
ZANU-PF has accused the independent<br />
media <strong>of</strong> writing lies about<br />
events in the country and President<br />
Mugabe. Incidences <strong>of</strong> ZANU-PF<br />
youths destroying independent media<br />
newspapers are becoming widespread<br />
as the country prepares for the<br />
March presidential elections.
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-01-30<br />
PERSON(S): Cornelius Nduna , Foster<br />
Dongozi, Rhodah Maschavane<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Three journalists were arrested in<br />
Harare on the afternoon <strong>of</strong> January 30,<br />
2002. The arrests occurred during a<br />
demonstration outside Parliament,<br />
where the Access to Information and<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill was being<br />
discussed.<br />
“The Daily News” journalists Foster<br />
Dongozi and Rhodah Maschavane<br />
and “The Standard” news editor<br />
Cornelius Nduna were arrested when<br />
armed police <strong>of</strong>ficers rushed the<br />
crowd. The demonstration, organised<br />
by MISA-Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwean<br />
Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists (ZUJ),<br />
was attended by approximately fifty<br />
journalists, mostly from independent<br />
media outlets. MISA-Zimbabwe has<br />
secured legal counsel for the journalists.<br />
Bruce Mujeye <strong>of</strong> the legal firm<br />
Gollop & Blank and Tawanda<br />
Hondora <strong>of</strong> the Kantor & Immerman<br />
firm will act on their behalf<br />
The journalists were taken to the<br />
police’s Law and Order Section and<br />
were to be charged during the afternoon<br />
<strong>of</strong> 30 January. They were protesting<br />
the fact that the bill was being<br />
discussed in Parliament, despite<br />
an adverse report by the Parliamentary<br />
Legal Committee released on 29<br />
January.<br />
On January 29, the Parliamentary<br />
Legal Committee said that the Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Bill remains unconstitutional,<br />
despite the thirty-six amendments to<br />
the bill.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-02-01<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
The controversial Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill<br />
was finally passed on January 31,<br />
2002, with minor amendments. The<br />
bill still contains restrictive clauses on<br />
accessing information and regulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> media workers in Zimbabwe.<br />
The bill, which will come into effect<br />
after being signed by President<br />
Robert Mugabe, has been toned down<br />
considerably, especially on the quasijudicial<br />
powers <strong>of</strong> the proposed <strong>Media</strong><br />
Commission and those <strong>of</strong> the Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity.<br />
Under the original bill, the Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity had the<br />
power to review judgements <strong>of</strong> the<br />
courts and direct any government <strong>of</strong>ficial,<br />
even in other ministries, to furnish<br />
him with information. This has<br />
been struck down under the passed bill.<br />
Furthermore, the Minister will no<br />
longer appoint the <strong>Media</strong> Commission<br />
single-handedly. Journalists’ associations<br />
will nominate three representatives<br />
and an association <strong>of</strong> media<br />
houses will nominate another three.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> Commission will not be<br />
made up <strong>of</strong> fewer than five or more<br />
than nine members. The appointment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the members and their resumption<br />
<strong>of</strong> duty is, however, subject to approval<br />
by the Minister, in consultation with<br />
the President.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> Commission, which had<br />
powers under the original bill to withdraw<br />
licences and suspend and punish<br />
media houses for failure to pay fees,<br />
will now resort to a competent court<br />
So This Is Democracy? 187
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
in order to receive any levy or take any<br />
action against a media house. The Minister,<br />
who also had powers to issue a<br />
certificate for the confiscation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
media house’s equipment for breaching<br />
the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Act, would<br />
also need a decision from the courts to<br />
take that action. The blanket insulation<br />
from prosecution <strong>of</strong> legal suits being<br />
made against the Commission has also<br />
been removed.<br />
In relation to media ownership, the<br />
bill now reads that foreigners can invest<br />
in the media but the major<br />
shareholding <strong>of</strong> any media enterprise<br />
would rest with the citizen(s) <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
The bill also reads that: “Nothing<br />
continued in this section shall prevent<br />
any person who is an existing<br />
mass media owner as at 31 January<br />
2002 from continuing to be a mass<br />
media owner to the same extent as his<br />
ownership on that date”.<br />
The amount <strong>of</strong> fines to be levied<br />
against a media owner who breaches<br />
the bill has been reduced from $1 million<br />
Zimbabwean dollars (approx.<br />
US$18 034) to $300 000 Zimbabwean<br />
dollars (approx. US$5 410). Such punishment<br />
will, however, be applied after<br />
a court procedure in accordance<br />
with Zimbabwe’s Criminal Procedure<br />
and Evidence Act.<br />
On the accreditation <strong>of</strong> journalists,<br />
media houses can now apply for accreditation<br />
on behalf <strong>of</strong> the journalists<br />
in their employment or those they intend<br />
to employ. Any journalist who is<br />
not a Zimbabwean citizen or permanent<br />
resident may be accredited for a<br />
limited time period. However, what is<br />
meant by a limited time period is not<br />
specified. The final (passed) bill still<br />
stipulates, however, that no journalists<br />
can practice their pr<strong>of</strong>ession without<br />
188 So This Is Democracy?<br />
being accredited. <strong>Media</strong> houses are<br />
also barred from employing persons<br />
who are not accredited. The final bill<br />
has also done away with Section 69 <strong>of</strong><br />
the original bill, which had an array <strong>of</strong><br />
what was termed “abuse <strong>of</strong> journalists’<br />
privileges”. The following were listed<br />
under that term in the original bill:<br />
- “Divulging a lawfully protected secret”<br />
- “Denigrating, bringing into hatred<br />
or contempt or ridicule or excite disaffection<br />
against the President, the law<br />
enforcement agents or the administration<br />
<strong>of</strong> justice in Zimbabwe”<br />
- “Publishing a fabricated record <strong>of</strong><br />
personal information” (The passed bill<br />
has changed this to read: “knowingly<br />
publishing a fabricated document”)<br />
- “Contravening any provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
this Act”.<br />
On the protection <strong>of</strong> privacy, the bill<br />
now reads that a public <strong>of</strong>ficial will not<br />
disclose information about any individual<br />
if the disclosure <strong>of</strong> that information<br />
were to result in the unreasonable<br />
invasion <strong>of</strong> a third party’s privacy.<br />
The original had put a blanket ban on<br />
the disclosure <strong>of</strong> personal information<br />
<strong>of</strong> third parties.<br />
However, the bill retains limitations<br />
on information that can be accessed by<br />
journalists and ordinary members <strong>of</strong><br />
the public. The decision to release information<br />
remains at the discretion <strong>of</strong><br />
public <strong>of</strong>ficials, who are under no binding<br />
obligation to release information<br />
to the media and members <strong>of</strong> the public.<br />
Information that is exempted from<br />
disclosure includes, for example, government<br />
policy issues and cabinet deliberations.<br />
There is still a ban on reporting<br />
on council and municipal<br />
policy matters and deliberations. No<br />
clear procedure <strong>of</strong> appeal against re-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
fusal <strong>of</strong> access to information is set out,<br />
excepting a note that appeals would be<br />
directed to the administrative court.<br />
The restrictions put on information that<br />
can be exempted are still wide, unqualified<br />
and subject to abuse. The restrictions<br />
signal an end to investigative<br />
journalism.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> Commission still has the<br />
power to investigate any wrongdoing<br />
by media houses and journalists. The<br />
commission can still pass this information<br />
to the attorney general for prosecution.<br />
It must be noted that the power<br />
<strong>of</strong> investigating lies with the police and<br />
not with an appointed <strong>Media</strong> Commission.<br />
Despite removing most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
quasi-judicial powers that had been<br />
granted to the Commission and the<br />
Minister, the amended bill remains<br />
overtly restrictive in terms <strong>of</strong> the media’s<br />
operations in Zimbabwe.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-02-01<br />
PERSON(S): Rhoda Mashavane,<br />
Foster Dongozi, Cornelius Nduna<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Three journalists, Rhoda Mashavane<br />
and Foster Dongozi <strong>of</strong> “The Daily<br />
News” and Cornelius Nduna, news<br />
editor from “The Standard”, who<br />
were arrested on Wednesday January<br />
30, 2002 in Harare, were released that<br />
same day. However, they were told<br />
to report to the police station on<br />
Thursday, January 31.<br />
The three journalists were released<br />
after four hours <strong>of</strong> interrogation by the<br />
police’s Law and Order section. The<br />
police threatened to keep the journalists<br />
for seven days, as provided for in<br />
the newly enacted and repressive Public<br />
Order and Security Bill. The journalists<br />
were told to report to the station<br />
on 31 January, where they were<br />
to be <strong>of</strong>ficially charged.<br />
Over fifty journalists, mostly from<br />
the independent media, gathered at the<br />
Parliament building to protest against<br />
the repressive Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill. The<br />
three journalists took part in the demonstration,<br />
which was organized by<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe together with the<br />
Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists. Heavily<br />
armed riot police dispersed the<br />
peaceful gathering.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-02-04<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
Zimbabwe’s Information and Publicity<br />
Minister Jonathan Moyo stated<br />
that the government is not opposed<br />
to the formation <strong>of</strong> a voluntary media<br />
council by media workers.<br />
The government, however, will set<br />
up a statutory media council under the<br />
newly enacted Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act. Moyo,<br />
in a story that appeared in the February<br />
1, 2002 edition <strong>of</strong> “The Herald”,<br />
said that the establishment <strong>of</strong> a statutory<br />
media and information commission<br />
does not stand in the way <strong>of</strong> a<br />
voluntary media council. “The media<br />
industry is quite free, as in any other<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ession, to proceed in that direction,”<br />
said Moyo. The Minister however<br />
added that the formation <strong>of</strong> a voluntary<br />
media council would not eradicate<br />
the government’s legitimate right<br />
to make laws that provide instruments<br />
and institutions for the enforcement <strong>of</strong><br />
So This Is Democracy? 189
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
universally accepted standards <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
ethical conduct.<br />
The formation <strong>of</strong> a voluntary media<br />
council has been stalled in Zimbabwe<br />
because <strong>of</strong> state media journalists’ lack<br />
<strong>of</strong> participation. Journalists in the state<br />
media participated in the drafting <strong>of</strong><br />
the voluntary media council constitution<br />
and code <strong>of</strong> conduct. However,<br />
many have stopped participating in the<br />
project, openly admitting they fear victimisation<br />
by the government.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-04<br />
PERSON(S): Sally Sara<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
Despite assurances by the Zimbabwean<br />
government that foreign journalists<br />
will be allowed in the country,<br />
Australian journalist Sally Sara has<br />
been denied accreditation.<br />
In a January 23, 2002 article in the<br />
state-owned newspaper “The Herald”,<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
Permanent Secretary George<br />
Charamba said that the request by the<br />
Australian Broadcasting Corporation<br />
to send a reporter to Zimbabwe was<br />
not genuine.<br />
Charamba stated that the Australian<br />
government had used their application<br />
to test Zimbabwe’s commitment to the<br />
Abuja agreement. The Abuja agreement<br />
was brokered by Nigeria in an<br />
attempt to ease the tension between<br />
Britain and Zimbabwe over the controversial<br />
land issue and human right<br />
abuses. Under the agreement, the Zimbabwean<br />
government agreed to allow<br />
local and foreign journalists to operate<br />
unhindered.<br />
Charamba added that the Australian<br />
government wanted to use the case to<br />
190 So This Is Democracy?<br />
indict the Zimbabwean government at<br />
the upcoming Commonwealth Summit<br />
in Australia. He said that his department<br />
consults with bona fide journalists<br />
and noted that he is concerned<br />
when such matters become government<br />
business. “As a matter <strong>of</strong> policy<br />
we will treat requests for visits by news<br />
people on their own merit, not in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> which government <strong>of</strong>ficial is behind<br />
them. We deal with news people, not<br />
governments, otherwise you begin to<br />
wonder whether you are dealing with<br />
a bona fide reporter,” said Charamba.<br />
“The Herald” reported that Australian<br />
Foreign Minister Alexander<br />
Downer wrote a letter to Zimbabwean<br />
Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge complaining<br />
about the Information Department’s<br />
refusal to accredit the journalist.<br />
The newspaper reported that<br />
Downer, in his letter to Mudenge, said<br />
that the Abuja agreement recognised<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and that he<br />
would be surprised if the Zimbabwean<br />
government decided to walk away<br />
from the agreement.<br />
Charamba commented on the letter,<br />
stating that his department was very<br />
clear about the details <strong>of</strong> the Abuja<br />
agreement. “Abuja talks about […]<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. It does not talk<br />
about the freedom <strong>of</strong> journalists to<br />
walk in and out and to roam the country<br />
to their delight without any recognition<br />
<strong>of</strong> the rules and laws <strong>of</strong> this<br />
country,” said Charamba. “There are<br />
rules and this is why Abuja recognises<br />
Zimbabwe’s laws and ask[s] for [the]<br />
enjoyment <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> the rules and laws <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe,”<br />
he said.<br />
At the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Development<br />
Community meeting held in<br />
Malawi on 14 January, President
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Robert Mugabe agreed that his government<br />
would respect freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression principles and also allow<br />
foreign journalists to cover important<br />
national events. However, this would<br />
be done in accordance with Zimbabwe’s<br />
laws. With the passing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill, foreign journalists will<br />
be allowed to visit Zimbabwe to cover<br />
specific events. Foreign journalists’ accreditation<br />
for longer periods, however,<br />
remains banned and the act is silent<br />
on what is meant by a “short period”.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-04<br />
PERSON(S): Thabo Kunene<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored<br />
On Tuesday January 29, 2002, BBC<br />
correspondent Thabo Kunene was arrested<br />
and detained for one hour in<br />
Lupane, a district centre 100 kilometres<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s<br />
second biggest city.<br />
According to a report in the February<br />
1 edition <strong>of</strong> “The Daily News”,<br />
Kunene was accompanied by a visitor<br />
from Holland and a driver. They were<br />
arrested at a roadblock in the politically<br />
charged district. The three were<br />
held at the Insiza police station on the<br />
grounds that they were a threat to the<br />
area’s security. “They separated us on<br />
arrival at the police station and we were<br />
continually told that we were a security<br />
risk,” Kunene told “The Daily<br />
News”. “They seized a […] cassette<br />
from the car. After the interrogation,<br />
we were told to wait for thirty minutes<br />
as the police were waiting for instructions<br />
from an undisclosed person,” said<br />
Kunene.<br />
The Matebeleland North Police<br />
spokesperson, Inspector Alfred<br />
Zvenyika, confirmed the incident.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-04<br />
PERSON(S): Basildon Peta<br />
VIOLATION(S): Bombed (see classification<br />
on page 4)<br />
Police raided and searched the home<br />
<strong>of</strong> Basildon Peta, secretary-general <strong>of</strong><br />
the Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists<br />
and special projects editor for the “Financial<br />
Gazette”, on Thursday January<br />
31, Friday February 1 and Saturday<br />
February 2, 2002.<br />
Peta’s home was raided as police<br />
searched for what they called evidence<br />
linking him to the organisation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
January 24 demonstration by journalists.<br />
On that day, over fifty journalists<br />
from the independent media gathered<br />
outside Parliament as the Access to<br />
Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Bill was being debated. The demonstration<br />
was in protest against repressive<br />
clauses in the bill. The bill was<br />
finally passed on Thursday 31 January.<br />
The police, however, could not locate<br />
Peta who had gone into hiding<br />
prior to flying to South <strong>Africa</strong> to see<br />
his ill child.<br />
MISA’s Zimbabwe chapter, MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe, arranged for a lawyer,<br />
Tawanda Hondora <strong>of</strong> Kantor and<br />
Immerman Legal Practitioners, to represent<br />
Peta and find out the exact<br />
charge being laid against him.<br />
Hondora was told that Peta was<br />
wanted on charges <strong>of</strong> organising an illegal<br />
demonstration. Under the new<br />
Public Order and Security Act, it is illegal<br />
to organise a gathering without<br />
So This Is Democracy? 191
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
notifying the police seven days prior<br />
to the gathering. Peta, who returned to<br />
Zimbabwe on Monday February 4,<br />
was expected to visit the police during<br />
the course <strong>of</strong> the day.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-02-05<br />
PERSON(S): Basildon Peta<br />
VIOLATION(S): Bombed (see classification<br />
on page 4)<br />
Zimbabwe’s Office <strong>of</strong> the Attorney<br />
General has refused to prosecute<br />
Basildon Peta, secretary-general <strong>of</strong><br />
the Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists<br />
(ZUJ), over allegations <strong>of</strong> organising<br />
an illegal demonstration.<br />
Peta’s lawyer Tawanda Hondora<br />
told MISA-Zimbabwe that the Attorney<br />
General’s Office had refused to<br />
prosecute the journalist on the grounds<br />
that the Public Order and Security Act,<br />
under which Peta was charged, does<br />
not require pr<strong>of</strong>essional bodies to seek<br />
police approval when they organise<br />
gatherings or demonstrations. The Attorney<br />
General’s Office agreed that the<br />
demonstration was organised by the<br />
ZUJ, which is a pr<strong>of</strong>essional body.<br />
Part 4, Section 24 (5) exempts certain<br />
classes <strong>of</strong> gatherings as described<br />
in the schedule. The schedule mentions<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional organisations and bodies<br />
as being exempted from requiring police<br />
authority to hold gatherings or<br />
demonstrations.<br />
Contrary to a number <strong>of</strong> media reports,<br />
on Monday February 4 2002,<br />
Peta voluntarily reported to the police<br />
station at 2:00 p.m. (local time), in the<br />
company <strong>of</strong> his lawyer. He was released<br />
from police custody at 7:00 p.m.<br />
that same day.<br />
Police raided and searched Peta’s<br />
192 So This Is Democracy?<br />
home on Thursday January 31, Friday<br />
February 1 and Saturday February 2.<br />
Police were searching for what they<br />
called evidence linking him to the organisation<br />
<strong>of</strong> a demonstration held by<br />
journalists on January 24.<br />
Hondora said that his client was<br />
wanted on charges <strong>of</strong> organising a<br />
demonstration, which is illegal under<br />
the new Public Order and Security Act.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-11<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Daily News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
The Bulawayo <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the independent<br />
daily newspaper “The Daily<br />
News” were pasted with campaign<br />
posters <strong>of</strong> the ruling Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
National Union - Patriotic Front<br />
(ZANU-PF) party on the morning <strong>of</strong><br />
Thursday February 8, 2002.<br />
A group <strong>of</strong> ZANU-PF-affiliated<br />
youths raided the newspaper’s <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
and forced a security guard manning<br />
the premises to chant ZANU-PF slogans.<br />
They also ordered him to stand<br />
at attention while they put up the posters.<br />
The ruling party has <strong>of</strong>ten accused<br />
the daily newspaper <strong>of</strong> reporting negatively<br />
about its activities and <strong>of</strong> being<br />
partisan in its reporting.<br />
The February 8 issue <strong>of</strong> “The Daily<br />
News” carried a front page showing<br />
pictures <strong>of</strong> President Robert Mugabe<br />
pasted all over the newspaper’s <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-11<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Daily News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Bombed<br />
The Bulawayo <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> “The Daily<br />
News”, Zimbabwe’s leading inde-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
pendent daily newspaper, were petrol-bombed<br />
on February 11, 2002 at<br />
around 3:00 a.m. (local time). The<br />
printing press <strong>of</strong> Daily Press (not related<br />
to “The Daily News”), a printing<br />
company that printed campaign<br />
materials for the opposition Movement<br />
For Democratic Change<br />
(MDC), was also bombed.<br />
A security guard who witnessed the<br />
bombing <strong>of</strong> “The Daily News” said<br />
that two bombs were hurled at the<br />
newspaper’s reception area. The <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
suffered minor damages as the<br />
guard rushed to extinguish the fire.<br />
Mduduzi Mathuthu, a reporter with the<br />
newspaper, said that the bomb<br />
smashed a plate glass window at the<br />
entrance <strong>of</strong> the newspaper’s <strong>of</strong>fices,<br />
burning a carpet in the lobby.<br />
The private printing firm Daily<br />
Press, which is five streets away from<br />
“The Daily News” <strong>of</strong>fices, was burnt<br />
down after a petrol bomb was hurled<br />
inside the building. The company has<br />
been printing campaign materials for<br />
the opposition MDC.<br />
No one was injured in the attack on<br />
“The Daily News”’s <strong>of</strong>fices, though it<br />
could not be established if anyone was<br />
injured at the Daily Press premises.<br />
Journalists at “The Daily News” returned<br />
to work after police carried out<br />
their investigation.<br />
On February 8, the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> “The<br />
Daily News” were plastered with campaign<br />
posters <strong>of</strong> President Robert<br />
Mugabe. The government accuses the<br />
paper <strong>of</strong> “misrepresenting information”<br />
and supporting the opposition.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-18<br />
PERSON(S): Gorrel Espelund<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
Swedish journalist Gorrel Espelund<br />
was denied accreditation and told to<br />
leave Zimbabwe just hours after Swedish<br />
diplomat and European Union<br />
Chief Election Observer Pierre Schori<br />
was thrown out <strong>of</strong> the country, ahead<br />
<strong>of</strong> the 2002 presidential elections<br />
scheduled for March 9 and 10, 2002.<br />
Espelund, the South <strong>Africa</strong>n based<br />
correspondent for “Sydsvenska<br />
Dagbladet” newspaper, said she received<br />
a faxed letter on Sunday 17<br />
February from Zimbabwe’s Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information informing her that<br />
her application to cover the presidential<br />
election had been turned down.<br />
Espelund informed the Cable News<br />
Network (CNN) that two other journalists<br />
working for different newspapers<br />
had also been sent the same letter.<br />
Swedish nationals and citizens <strong>of</strong><br />
five other countries have been refused<br />
accreditation by President Mugabe.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-19<br />
PERSON(S): Newton Spicer<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored<br />
On February 18, 2002, Newton Spicer<br />
<strong>of</strong> Spicer Productions, a documentary<br />
and film production house, was arrested<br />
in Harare, allegedly for operating<br />
as a journalist without <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
accreditation.<br />
Spicer was arrested at 4:00 p.m. (local<br />
time) in downtown Harare as he<br />
was filming the stoning <strong>of</strong> the opposition<br />
Movement for Democratic<br />
Change <strong>of</strong>fices by supporters <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ruling party Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-<br />
PF). Police arrested Spicer and took<br />
him to the Harare Central Police Sta-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 193
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
tion Law and Order Section, where he<br />
was detained until 9:00 p.m. He was<br />
released and advised to visit the police<br />
station on 19 February for formal<br />
charges to be conferred on him.<br />
Newton’s wife Edwina Spicer informed<br />
MISA’s Zimbabwean chapter<br />
(MISA-Zimbabwe) that the police said<br />
he was operating without <strong>of</strong>ficial accreditation.<br />
She added that Newton is<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficially accredited but did not have<br />
his card with him when he was arrested.<br />
The police took Spicer’s video<br />
camera and kept it overnight. It has still<br />
not been established if the journalist<br />
has been charged or whether the video<br />
camera has been returned intact.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-20<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Independent<br />
media<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Zimbabwean President Robert<br />
Mugabe has again attacked the independent<br />
media in his country, saying<br />
that they are involved in “peddling<br />
lies, exaggerations and manufacturing<br />
news.”<br />
Mugabe was addressing journalists<br />
in Beira on Sunday February 17, 2002,<br />
after talks with Mozambican President<br />
Joachim Chissano and Malawian<br />
President Bakili Muluzi. Journalists at<br />
the meeting’s press briefing asked<br />
Mugabe to answer allegations that his<br />
government was muzzling the media<br />
through repressive legislation, acts <strong>of</strong><br />
violence and intimidation.<br />
In response, Mugabe gave the example<br />
<strong>of</strong> former “Financial Gazette”<br />
staffer Basildon Peta, whom he said<br />
was forced to resign after admitting<br />
that he lied in a story he wrote to the<br />
194 So This Is Democracy?<br />
British press. He also alluded to a 1999<br />
event, when the army arrested journalists<br />
Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto<br />
for writing a story alleging that a coup<br />
was being prepared against Mugabe.<br />
Mugabe alleged that the world’s attention<br />
was focused on the arrest and not<br />
on the “false” report the two journalists<br />
had published.<br />
Mugabe urged journalists to be objective<br />
and impartial, saying that when<br />
the Zimbabwean independent media’s<br />
criticisms <strong>of</strong> the government were<br />
valid, government <strong>of</strong>ficials accepted<br />
such reports without reservations. He<br />
added that journalists “are not super<br />
human beings” and “must not go<br />
around defaming people.”<br />
However, MISA-Zimbabwe notes<br />
that the president’s statements run contrary<br />
to the behaviour <strong>of</strong> the police and<br />
government <strong>of</strong>ficials, who in many<br />
incidences have arbitrarily arrested and<br />
harassed journalists.<br />
The notion that the independent<br />
media is free to report on anything as<br />
long as it is factual also runs contrary<br />
to the defamation charges that have<br />
been conferred on journalists, such as<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota, over media reports<br />
concerning the conduct <strong>of</strong> senior government<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials.<br />
Mugabe’s words are largely seen as<br />
adding to the ruling elite’s determination<br />
to implement the draconian Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Bill.<br />
The act seeks to restrict reporting on<br />
certain information, requires journalists<br />
to be registered and provides for<br />
severe punitive measures for “wayward”<br />
journalists. Journalists are also<br />
barred from reporting negatively about<br />
the president under the Public Order<br />
and Security Act.
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-20<br />
INSTITUTION(S): International<br />
and local media<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe has established that<br />
the Zimbabwean government is selectively<br />
accrediting international journalists<br />
to cover the presidential elections<br />
scheduled for March 2002, despite<br />
commitments made to the Commonwealth<br />
Ministerial Action Group,<br />
the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development<br />
Community and provisions in the<br />
Abuja Accord.<br />
British journalists have notably been<br />
targeted by deportations and refusals<br />
for accreditation. MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
has established that not a single BBC<br />
journalist has been accredited. However,<br />
the Zimbabwean government has<br />
allowed ITN <strong>Africa</strong> correspondent Tim<br />
Ewart to continue his coverage up to<br />
the March 9 ballot. BBC reporter<br />
Rageh Omaar was expelled from Zimbabwe<br />
on July 25, 2001 after being<br />
accused <strong>of</strong> “biased” reporting.<br />
David Blair <strong>of</strong> “The Daily Telegraph”<br />
was denied accreditation and<br />
deported on the weekend <strong>of</strong> February<br />
16 and 17. MISA-Zimbabwe understands<br />
that a number <strong>of</strong> other journalists,<br />
mostly from European countries<br />
that were not invited to observe the<br />
elections, have also been denied accreditation.<br />
The Associated Press has been denied<br />
permission to send foreign reporters.<br />
CNN has been allowed to bring in<br />
two reporters, but the two individuals<br />
will not be allowed in the country before<br />
February 25. The South <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has<br />
been allowed to cover the elections,<br />
while a number <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong>n based<br />
newspapers were denied accreditation.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe has not been able<br />
to establish a complete list <strong>of</strong> the names<br />
<strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong>n journalists and media<br />
organisations that have been denied<br />
accreditation. A spokesperson for the<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>n High Commission said<br />
he was not aware <strong>of</strong> any South <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
journalist being denied accreditation.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe understands that<br />
many media organisations have been<br />
told that only Zimbabwean reporters<br />
will be accredited. Twenty local journalists<br />
have been accredited to date to<br />
cover the elections, at a fee <strong>of</strong> ZW$1<br />
000 (approx. US$18) each. It is widely<br />
believed that the limitations and restrictions<br />
that are being placed on journalists<br />
will impact negatively on election<br />
coverage.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-22<br />
PERSON(S): Lovemore Ncube<br />
(Radio Dialogue)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored<br />
On Saturday February 16, 2002, Radio<br />
Dialogue, an aspiring community<br />
radio station based in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s<br />
second largest city, had its<br />
promotional road shows stopped by<br />
the police and ruling party Zimbabwe<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n National Union - Patriotic<br />
Front (ZANU-PF) supporters in<br />
Plumtree.<br />
Lovemore Ncube, <strong>of</strong> Radio Dialogue,<br />
who had gone to Plumtree, a<br />
border town 100 kilometers from<br />
Bulawayo, to put up posters inviting<br />
residents to witness what the initiative<br />
had to <strong>of</strong>fer, was detained for five<br />
hours by the police. “When we went<br />
So This Is Democracy? 195
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
to Plumtree to facilitate Lovemore’s<br />
release, the police warned us against<br />
going ahead with the road show, which<br />
they referred to as a meeting, saying<br />
that it had not been sanctioned under<br />
the Public Order and Security Act<br />
(POSA),” said Qubani Moyo, the station’s<br />
marketing director.<br />
POSA bars people from holding<br />
meetings without police authority. “We<br />
tried to tell the police that ours wasn’t<br />
a meeting but a promotional event <strong>of</strong><br />
our product. They said that they knew<br />
Radio Dialogue was a political organisation<br />
and had been instructed by their<br />
superiors to bar us from holding any<br />
promotional shows and that they<br />
would deal with us like any other political<br />
organisation,” Moyo said.<br />
Radio Dialogue decided to defy the<br />
warning and went ahead with setting<br />
up the stage and arranging their gallery.<br />
ZANU-PF supporters stormed the<br />
stage, threatening to assault the show’s<br />
organisers. The show was subsequently<br />
abandoned.<br />
Radio Dialogue seeks to establish a<br />
community radio station, the first <strong>of</strong><br />
its kind to cover the Matebeleland region.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-02-26<br />
PERSON(S): Newton Spicer<br />
VIOLATION(S):Detained, censored<br />
196 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Police have returned the video camera<br />
and tapes that they seized from<br />
Newton Spicer on February 18, 2002.<br />
Spicer is a journalist with the video<br />
and documentary media house Spicer<br />
Productions.<br />
The journalist was arrested in Harare<br />
on 18 February, allegedly for operating<br />
as a journalist without <strong>of</strong>ficial accreditation.<br />
On Thursday February 21,<br />
he was informed that he was free to<br />
go, as no charges were filed against<br />
him. Police also returned his video<br />
camera and tapes. They had been confiscated<br />
at the time <strong>of</strong> his arrest.<br />
Spicer was arrested on February 18<br />
at 4:00 p.m. (local time) in Harare as<br />
he was filming the stoning <strong>of</strong> the opposition<br />
Movement for Democratic<br />
Change <strong>of</strong>fices by supporters <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ruling Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF)<br />
party. Police arrested Spicer and took<br />
him to the Harare Central Police Station<br />
Law and Order Section, where he<br />
was detained, together with about 150<br />
ZANU-PF youths, until 9:00 p.m.<br />
Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe that he<br />
and the youths were asked about their<br />
political affiliations. He explained that<br />
he was not affiliated with any party.<br />
Spicer was told that he was being<br />
investigated for working as a journalist<br />
without accreditation and also inciting<br />
a riot. He was released and advised<br />
to report to the Law and Order<br />
Section on February 19 for formal<br />
charges. His camera and the tapes were<br />
withheld as “evidence”. Police refused<br />
to return the video camera and tapes<br />
to the journalist on February 19, on the<br />
pretext that the investigating <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
was not available.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-26<br />
PERSON(S): Moses Oguti<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
Moses Oguti, the editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong><br />
Botswana-based magazine “Trans-<br />
Kalahari”, was arrested on February<br />
17, 2002 for allegedly entering Zimbabwe<br />
illegally through the Forbes
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Border Post (at the border between<br />
Zimbabwe and Mozambique).<br />
According to a February 23 report<br />
in “The Daily News” newspaper, Oguti<br />
is still being held in Mutare prison, a<br />
week after his arrest. Mutare is a border<br />
town located about 263 kilometres<br />
east <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwean capital,<br />
Harare.<br />
Stanley Shamido, the head <strong>of</strong> Immigration<br />
in Manicaland province,<br />
said that Oguti is being held in police<br />
cells as the authorities ascertain where<br />
he resides. Shamido also said that police<br />
would lay charges <strong>of</strong> “entry by<br />
evasion” on Oguti. “We don’t know<br />
what type <strong>of</strong> a person he is. This is a<br />
straightforward case. We’ll just prosecute<br />
and later deport him,” said<br />
Shamido.<br />
Oguti is said to have tried to enter<br />
Zimbabwe through Forbes Border Post<br />
from Mozambique, but immigration<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials refused him entry, because his<br />
papers were allegedly not in order. The<br />
following day, a Mozambican driving<br />
a car that looked similar to the one<br />
Oguti was using entered the border<br />
area, raising the suspicion <strong>of</strong> immigration<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers, who alerted the police.<br />
The Mozambican driver was allowed<br />
in because his papers were in<br />
order. Police spokesman Francis<br />
Mubvuta alleges that while his car was<br />
being driven into the country, Oguti<br />
entered Zimbabwe through an illegal<br />
entry point in the mountains, used<br />
mainly by unauthorised cross-border<br />
traders. It is alleged that Oguti paid <strong>of</strong>f<br />
the Mozambican driver, who in turn<br />
handed over the car to the journalist.<br />
“We traced Oguti at a food outlet in<br />
the city centre and arrested him. The<br />
reason for his being in the country has<br />
not yet been established. Meanwhile,<br />
we are holding him at Mutare prison,”<br />
stated Mubvuta.<br />
In a February 26 interview with<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe, Mubvuta said that<br />
Oguti would be transferred to Harare<br />
to await deportation. However, he did<br />
not specify when the journalist would<br />
be deported. “Oguti will be charged<br />
with entry by evasion and will also be<br />
declared a prohibited immigrant,” explained<br />
Mubvuta.<br />
Asked why Oguti entered Zimbabwe,<br />
Mubvuta stated that the journalist<br />
claimed to simply be visiting.<br />
Mubvuta declined to answer questions<br />
as to whether Oguti was in Zimbabwe<br />
to perform media-related work or not.<br />
The Zimbabwean government is<br />
denying hundreds <strong>of</strong> foreign journalists<br />
accreditation to enter the country<br />
as the presidential election draws<br />
closer.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-02-28<br />
PERSON(S): Edwina Spicer,<br />
Jackie Cahi<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Zimbabwean journalists Edwina<br />
Spicer and Jackie Cahi were arrested<br />
on February 25, 2002 and held for<br />
twenty hours in the capital, Harare,<br />
on allegations <strong>of</strong> filming State House,<br />
which is a prohibited area under the<br />
Protected Areas Act.<br />
Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe that<br />
she and her colleague were filming<br />
Morgan Tsvangirai, leader <strong>of</strong> the opposition<br />
Movement for Democratic<br />
Change, as he went to the Morris Depot<br />
Police Station, where he was summoned<br />
to answer to charges <strong>of</strong> plotting<br />
to assassinate President Robert<br />
So This Is Democracy? 197
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
198 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Mugabe. Morris Depot is near State<br />
House.<br />
“We were filming Mr. Tsvangirai’s<br />
story <strong>of</strong> being ordered to report to<br />
Morris Depot to face charges <strong>of</strong> treason.<br />
As his convoy had passed State<br />
House, I later got a shot <strong>of</strong> the ‘No traffic<br />
6-6’ sign and then filmed as we<br />
were driving past the State House security<br />
wall along Josiah Tongagara,”<br />
explained Spicer.<br />
Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe that<br />
she and her colleague did not stop, attempt<br />
to film inside State House or<br />
drive through Chancellor Avenue,<br />
which is closed from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00<br />
a.m. (local time) every day. Spicer and<br />
Cahi drove back past State House after<br />
filming the opposition leader as he<br />
entered the police station.<br />
“At 4:30 p.m., we drove back past<br />
State House. We were not filming, but<br />
we were flagged down by the police<br />
and Presidential Guard and told that I<br />
had violated the law by filming in a<br />
restricted area. I was taken to Harare<br />
Central Police Station. Cahi was also<br />
asked to drive her car to the Central<br />
Police Station,” said Spicer. Both journalists<br />
were informed that they would<br />
be charged.<br />
“Our lawyer, Bryant Elliot, pointed<br />
out to the police <strong>of</strong>ficers that according<br />
to the Protected Areas Act, there<br />
has to be a clear public sign indicating<br />
exactly what restrictions are in force<br />
in a ‘restricted area’, and that the act<br />
refers to the taking <strong>of</strong> photographs ‘on<br />
the premises’ <strong>of</strong> a restricted area,” said<br />
Spicer.<br />
The two journalists were nevertheless<br />
locked up for the night. On Tuesday<br />
February 26, their other lawyer,<br />
Ray Moyo, took over the case. Spicer<br />
and Cahi were charged with contravention<br />
<strong>of</strong> Section 5, Subsection 5 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Protected Areas Act, Chapter 11.12.,<br />
because they took photographs <strong>of</strong> State<br />
House.<br />
“In terms <strong>of</strong> Section 5.5, we had<br />
“failed to comply with the direction as<br />
to movement or conduct in a protected<br />
area,” explained Spicer.<br />
Moyo and Elliot pointed out that no<br />
such directive about how people are<br />
to move around State House were ever<br />
published or gazetted. The senior public<br />
prosecutor also failed to find such<br />
directions.<br />
“In other words, there are no directions<br />
as to how we as journalists should<br />
move or conduct ourselves in this protected<br />
area,” noted Spicer. The senior<br />
public prosecutor subsequently refused<br />
to prosecute the two journalists, and<br />
they were released on February 26 at<br />
1:00 p.m.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-12<br />
PERSON(S): Foreign journalists<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Zimbabwean Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity Jonathan Moyo has<br />
warned foreign journalists operating<br />
illegally in Zimbabwe that they face<br />
jail terms if caught. Moyo was speaking<br />
in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second<br />
largest city, on Friday March 8,<br />
2002.<br />
Minister Moyo, who was addressing<br />
the media, warned journalists who<br />
were denied accreditation to cover the<br />
elections but had entered the country<br />
as tourists that they would be caught<br />
and prosecuted. Moyo added that any<br />
journalist caught working in the country<br />
illegally, “might take a long time<br />
... to go back to their countries.”
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-11<br />
PERSON(S): Ish Mafundikwa,<br />
Jestina Mukoko and Shorai Makoni.<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
Three journalists from the “Voice <strong>of</strong><br />
the People” radio station were denied<br />
accreditation to cover the March 9 and<br />
10, 2002 presidential elections. The<br />
three journalists are Ish Mafundikwa,<br />
Jestina Mukoko and Shorai Makoni.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe was told by<br />
Mafundikwa that when they went to<br />
the Election Supervisory Commission<br />
(ESC) seeking accreditation on March<br />
2, an ESC <strong>of</strong>ficer identified only as<br />
Pasi informed them that he had to<br />
check with the Department <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity as to whether the<br />
three journalists could be accredited.<br />
March 2 was the last day that local<br />
journalists could apply for accreditation<br />
to cover the presidential elections.<br />
Mafundikwa told MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that Pasi had promised to inform them<br />
<strong>of</strong> their accreditation status that<br />
evening. Upon being called in the<br />
evening, Pasi told Mafundikwa that the<br />
three journalists had been denied accreditation.<br />
No reasons were given to<br />
explain the rejection <strong>of</strong> their applications.<br />
The Zimbabwean government has<br />
been regularly harassing Voice <strong>of</strong> the<br />
People and SW Radio <strong>Africa</strong>. The two<br />
are short wave radio stations broadcasting<br />
on issues in Zimbabwe.<br />
The government accuses Britain and<br />
the Netherlands <strong>of</strong> supporting and<br />
“harbouring” the two stations. However,<br />
the three journalists who were<br />
denied accreditation are Zimbabwean<br />
journalists who are accredited with the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
through the old Ministry <strong>of</strong> Information,<br />
Post and Telecommunications.<br />
Journalists were required to obtain<br />
special accreditation with the ESC to<br />
gain access to polling stations during<br />
the election period.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-03-12<br />
PERSON(S): Moses Oguti<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Moses Oguti, the detained editor-inchief<br />
<strong>of</strong> Botswana-based magazine<br />
“Trans Kalahari”, has been transferred<br />
to Harare Central Prison, in the<br />
Zimbabwean capital, Harare. Oguti is<br />
accused <strong>of</strong> entering Zimbabwe illegally<br />
and misrepresenting information<br />
to the police.<br />
According to a report in the March<br />
11, 2002 edition <strong>of</strong> “The Daily News”,<br />
Oguti was transferred to Harare on<br />
March 2 at the request <strong>of</strong> senior immigration<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers. The newspaper reported<br />
that immigration <strong>of</strong>ficers in<br />
Mutare refused to explain why Oguti<br />
had yet to appear in court. However,<br />
the police spokesperson in Mutare,<br />
Francis Mubvuta, explained that Oguti<br />
had not appeared in court because his<br />
co-accused, an unnamed driver from<br />
Mozambique, was still at large. Oguti<br />
languished in Mutare prison for two<br />
weeks before being transferred to<br />
Harare.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe could not establish<br />
the status <strong>of</strong> Oguti’s case at the<br />
time <strong>of</strong> writing this alert.<br />
Oguti was arrested on February 17<br />
for allegedly entering Zimbabwe illegally<br />
through the Forbes Border Post<br />
(the border between Zimbabwe and<br />
So This Is Democracy? 199
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Mozambique).<br />
Oguti’s co-accused, a driver from<br />
Mozambique, is still at large. The<br />
driver is said to have driven Oguti’s<br />
vehicle into Zimbabwe, while Oguti<br />
himself is said to have entered Zimbabwe<br />
through an illegal entry point in<br />
the mountains.<br />
On February 26, Mubvuta indicated<br />
that Oguti would be charged with “entry<br />
by evasion” and would also be declared<br />
a prohibited immigrant. He is<br />
expected to be deported shortly after<br />
his transfer to Harare prison.<br />
It is still not clear if Oguti entered<br />
Zimbabwe with the intent to perform<br />
media-related work. He had apparently<br />
told police and immigration <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
that he was merely visiting.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-03-12<br />
INSTITUTION(S): BBC<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
Zimbabwean Minister <strong>of</strong> State for<br />
Information and Publicity Jonathan<br />
Moyo has warned that the BBC could<br />
be permanently banned from reporting<br />
from Zimbabwe.<br />
Addressing local and foreign journalists<br />
in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second<br />
largest city, on March 8, 2002,<br />
Moyo said he had information that<br />
some BBC reporters had entered the<br />
country. “There is a large and divergent<br />
media in the country, with over 500<br />
journalists, but we are dismayed with<br />
reports from the BBC, who are boasting<br />
that some <strong>of</strong> its journalists have<br />
sneaked into the country,” said Moyo.<br />
Moyo said that the BBC reporters’<br />
conduct was illegal and demonstrated<br />
why his department refused accreditation<br />
to the BBC to cover the recent<br />
200 So This Is Democracy?<br />
presidential elections.<br />
In reference to Pierre Schori, the<br />
head <strong>of</strong> the European observer mission<br />
that left Zimbabwe before the elections,<br />
Moyo said “the BBC would not<br />
succeed where Schori failed.” He<br />
added that “those BBC people are not<br />
better than terrorists and that is why<br />
they do not deserve to be here.”<br />
“Those elements, if caught, might<br />
take long to go back to their home<br />
country and they are not even ashamed<br />
as they are boasting about it. In fact<br />
they have compromised their working<br />
in Zimbabwe for a temporary moment<br />
that might not have been permanent,”<br />
said Moyo.<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Information and<br />
Publicity said that two BBC correspondents,<br />
John Sweeney and Fergal<br />
Keane, also entered the country in February<br />
and spent two weeks in the<br />
Matabeleland region, investigating the<br />
violence that gripped the region after<br />
independence.<br />
The Zimbabwean government refused<br />
accreditation to the BBC and<br />
many other international media organisations<br />
on allegations <strong>of</strong> biased reporting.<br />
According to the Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Information and Publicity, over 580<br />
foreign journalists were accredited to<br />
cover the elections. This figure could<br />
not be independently verified. The department<br />
has also threatened to find all<br />
foreign journalists who are working<br />
“illegally” in Zimbabwe.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-18<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
President Robert Mugabe signed
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Zimbabwe’s Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act into law<br />
on Friday March 15, 2002, effectively<br />
making it an active law.<br />
The act, which has been criticised<br />
by local journalists’ organisations and<br />
the international community, seeks<br />
among other things to establish a <strong>Media</strong><br />
Commission that would register<br />
media houses and journalists. An array<br />
<strong>of</strong> punitive measures is also included<br />
in the act, which include<br />
deregistering media houses and journalists.<br />
Other measures provide for<br />
monetary fines and jail terms for breaking<br />
the act.<br />
<strong>Media</strong> organisations in Zimbabwe<br />
have already stated that they would<br />
take the government to court in the<br />
event <strong>of</strong> the act being signed and any<br />
<strong>of</strong> its regulations being affected. The<br />
signing put to rest speculation that<br />
Mugabe might be persuaded not to<br />
sign the law because <strong>of</strong> last minute<br />
amendments that were made to the bill<br />
before it was passed by Parliament on<br />
January 31. The changes proposed by<br />
the Parliamentary Legal Committee<br />
removed most <strong>of</strong> the powers that were<br />
granted to the Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and instead pushed for the supremacy<br />
<strong>of</strong> the judiciary in any matter concerning<br />
the breach <strong>of</strong> the media law. The<br />
changes also removed a clause banning<br />
the accreditation <strong>of</strong> foreign journalists<br />
to work in Zimbabwe.<br />
Under the act, foreign journalists<br />
would be allowed to work in Zimbabwe<br />
for a “short period”. The amendments<br />
also made it possible for foreigners<br />
to invest in the media industry,<br />
though the majority shareholders must<br />
be resident Zimbabweans.<br />
The Minister <strong>of</strong> Information had<br />
been granted enormous powers to cancel<br />
registration licences and to launch<br />
investigations into the operations <strong>of</strong><br />
media houses and individuals without<br />
the involvement <strong>of</strong> the police and/or<br />
the judiciary.<br />
Not withstanding the amendments<br />
that were made, the act remains restrictive<br />
and undemocratic. Of major concern<br />
is the fact that the commission<br />
would be appointed by one person, that<br />
is the Minister. The Commission is also<br />
granted enormous powers that can be<br />
subject to abuse. These include the<br />
right to demand qualifications before<br />
accrediting journalists and summoning<br />
journalists to attend hearings for<br />
breaching any <strong>of</strong> the regulations.<br />
Journalists in Zimbabwe, especially<br />
from the independent media, agree that<br />
a constitutional challenge to the law is<br />
necessary as this law threatens their<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ession. Combined with the Public<br />
Order and Security Act, the media law<br />
will present the most potent threat to<br />
the operations <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe’s independent<br />
media and journalists.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-19<br />
PERSON(S): Newspaper vendors,<br />
The Daily News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten, censored<br />
More than 100 copies <strong>of</strong> “The Daily<br />
News” were torn up and the newspaper’s<br />
vendors were harassed in an attack<br />
by ruling Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-<br />
PF) party youth. The incident occurred<br />
in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second<br />
largest city, on March 13, 2002.<br />
“The Daily News” is an independent<br />
daily newspaper in Zimbabwe.<br />
Vendors were accused <strong>of</strong> supporting<br />
the opposition Movement for<br />
So This Is Democracy? 201
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Democratic Change (MDC) party. The<br />
youths threatened the vendors with<br />
“eviction from the streets.”<br />
Similarly, on Friday March 8, more<br />
than 150 copies <strong>of</strong> “The Daily News”<br />
newspaper were torn up by the youths<br />
in the high-density suburb <strong>of</strong><br />
Lobengula and Herbert Chitepo<br />
streets, in the city centre.<br />
A vendor reported that his newspapers<br />
and daily takings were taken from<br />
him after he was accused <strong>of</strong> “insubordination”.<br />
The “Daily News” reports<br />
that no arrests were made and the police<br />
refused to comment.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-03-21<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
Zimbabwe’s Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity Jonathan Moyo has said<br />
that the newly enacted Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Act needs to be revisited so that foreign<br />
ownership <strong>of</strong> the media is totally<br />
banned in Zimbabwe.<br />
Moyo was addressing army <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
at the Zimbabwe Military Staff College<br />
in the capital Harare on Wednesday<br />
March 20, 2002. He said that in<br />
passing the media law, Zimbabwe was<br />
just following what other countries<br />
have done. Moyo stated that the law<br />
was never meant for the elections, but<br />
was needed for “democracy” and the<br />
“good governance” <strong>of</strong> the country.<br />
Moyo also attacked the independent<br />
media calling the newspapers liars,<br />
“bent on promoting imperialist<br />
views” in Zimbabwe. “Unregulated<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression can be a threat<br />
to the public, such as the ‘lies’ carried<br />
202 So This Is Democracy?<br />
on a daily basis by the likes <strong>of</strong> ‘The<br />
Daily News’, which fan hatred and<br />
demonise institutions [such] as the judiciary,”<br />
the Minister stated.<br />
“The notion that freedom <strong>of</strong> information<br />
is a right for journalists only is<br />
false. It a right for you and me - for<br />
everyone,” he added.<br />
Moyo also heaped praises on the<br />
state-controlled media, which he called<br />
“pr<strong>of</strong>essional” and defenders <strong>of</strong> “national<br />
interests.”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-26<br />
PERSON(S): Sikumbuzo Dube<br />
VIOLATION(S): Other<br />
Poet Sikumbuzo Dube faces a oneyear<br />
prison sentence and a Z$20,000<br />
(approx. US$370, £250) fine for writing<br />
and reciting a poem ridiculing<br />
President Robert Mugabe. Ridiculing<br />
the president is a crime under the Public<br />
Order and Security Act.<br />
Dube, twenty-five years old, is one<br />
<strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> illegal Zimbabwean<br />
migrants who have been deported from<br />
Botswana. During the week <strong>of</strong> March<br />
18, 2002, he was being held after repatriation<br />
at Plumtree Prison, on Zimbabwe’s<br />
western border, when warders<br />
overheard him reciting a composition<br />
entitled “Cry, the Beloved Country”.<br />
This is the first case <strong>of</strong> its kind.<br />
The Public Order and Security Act<br />
was signed into law by Mugabe shortly<br />
before the March presidential elections.<br />
The act bars criticism <strong>of</strong> the seventy-eight-year-old<br />
head <strong>of</strong> state and<br />
has empowered police to break up opposition<br />
briefings for diplomats and<br />
journalists. Prince Butshe-Dube, the<br />
Plumtree prosecutor, said the poem<br />
triggered a furore in the prison. Inmates
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
were divided into two camps, those<br />
who enjoyed the poem and those who<br />
felt <strong>of</strong>fended by it.<br />
The title was taken from Alan<br />
Paton’s novel set in South <strong>Africa</strong> in the<br />
1940s, but the full text was not disclosed<br />
in court. Dube, who was remanded<br />
in custody for trial scheduled<br />
for April 3, told Jabulani Sibanda, the<br />
Plumtree magistrate, that he thought<br />
it was not a serious crime to ridicule<br />
the president as newspapers printed<br />
worse criticism than his poem and<br />
nothing was done to them.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-26<br />
PERSON(S): Munyaradzi<br />
Mupingo, Tongai Manomano<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On March 20, 2002, two vendors for<br />
“The Daily News” were assaulted and<br />
their newspapers were destroyed in the<br />
town <strong>of</strong> Rusape. On March 23, the<br />
newspaper reported that the attacks<br />
were carried out by fifteen ruling Zimbabwe<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n National Union Patriotic<br />
Front (ZANU-PF) party youths<br />
and war veterans in the town, 170 kilometres<br />
east <strong>of</strong> the capital, Harare.<br />
Twenty-year old vendor Tongai<br />
Manomano and twenty-eight-year old<br />
Munyaradzi Mupingo were attacked<br />
and then forced to walk to the ruling<br />
party’s <strong>of</strong>fices in the town. “They<br />
asked us why we were selling the<br />
newspaper in an area [where the newspaper]<br />
was banned,” said Manomano.<br />
They were later taken to the war<br />
veterans’ <strong>of</strong>fice, where they were<br />
beaten with sticks and sjamboks<br />
(whips) under the soles <strong>of</strong> their feet and<br />
all over their bodies. Money from the<br />
sale <strong>of</strong> the newspapers was also taken.<br />
Supporters <strong>of</strong> the ruling ZANU-PF<br />
party have “banned” “The Daily<br />
News” in Rusape and other parts <strong>of</strong><br />
the country.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-28<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Book Café<br />
VIOLATION(S): Other<br />
The Book Café, which was founded<br />
in 1995 with the purpose <strong>of</strong> promoting<br />
cultural activities and artists<br />
through discussions and workshops,<br />
has been banned by the police from<br />
holding any political discussion unless<br />
they seek clearance under the repressive<br />
Public Order and Security<br />
Act (POSA).<br />
“We have been holding these political<br />
discussions every Thursday and our<br />
speakers have included government<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials,” said the director <strong>of</strong> The<br />
Book Café.<br />
The Book Café owners said they<br />
would comply with the order to seek<br />
clearance before holding their discussions,<br />
which they say are about the<br />
future and betterment <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
Since the enactment <strong>of</strong> POSA, police<br />
have issued orders that they have<br />
a right to sanction or refuse permission<br />
to any group suspected <strong>of</strong> being<br />
political, according to this new piece<br />
<strong>of</strong> legislation. Where necessary, plainclothes<br />
policemen may be present at<br />
the said meetings according to section<br />
25 <strong>of</strong> the act.<br />
“We no longer know what is freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> expression, but to be frank, The<br />
Book Café was holding political discussions<br />
and workshops in which top<br />
ZANU-PF [Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Union - Patriotic Front] <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
like Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Jonathan Moyo, Nathan<br />
So This Is Democracy? 203
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Shamuyarira, Dumiso Dabengwa and<br />
Eddison Zvobgo were included. Those<br />
in, and seen as, the opposition were<br />
also included in the discussions,” said<br />
the café’s director.<br />
The banning <strong>of</strong> The Book Café discussions<br />
comes hard on the heels <strong>of</strong><br />
the banning <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> political<br />
and social gatherings by the police.<br />
This development is seen by MISA’s<br />
Zimbabwe chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe)<br />
as a serious infringement on the<br />
right <strong>of</strong> Zimbabweans to enjoy their<br />
constitutionally guaranteed freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression and association. This development<br />
violates section 20 <strong>of</strong> the constitution,<br />
which clearly states that everyone<br />
has a right to freedom <strong>of</strong> speech<br />
and association. This, according to<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe, amounts to the declaration<br />
<strong>of</strong> an un<strong>of</strong>ficial state <strong>of</strong> emergency<br />
in Zimbabwe. The POSA resembles<br />
in both form and content the<br />
Law and Order Maintenance Act<br />
(LOMA), which it replaced. Many sections<br />
<strong>of</strong> LOMA, which threatened freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> speech, association and that <strong>of</strong><br />
assembly, were struck down by the<br />
Supreme Court, leading the government<br />
to promulgate POSA. POSA is<br />
largely seen as the reincarnation <strong>of</strong><br />
LOMA.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-03-28<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
The government appointed <strong>Media</strong><br />
Ethics Committee <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe has<br />
presented a report in which it calls for<br />
further restrictions to be put on the<br />
operations <strong>of</strong> the media in Zimbabwe.<br />
The committee was appointed in<br />
204 So This Is Democracy?<br />
September 2001 to look into the “level<br />
<strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism” in Zimbabwean<br />
media. It has called for the government<br />
to stamp out what it called “racism and<br />
the pursuance <strong>of</strong> foreign interests” by<br />
the media.<br />
The committee, chaired by a Harare<br />
Polytechnic media lecturer, Tafataona<br />
Mahoso, said that its report must govern<br />
and inform the formation <strong>of</strong> a statutory<br />
media council to look into issues<br />
<strong>of</strong> ethics in Zimbabwean media.<br />
The report calls on the government<br />
to define a media policy that enhances<br />
people’s ethical values, culture and<br />
dignity. According to the report, the<br />
media should build upon the country’s<br />
history, experiences and the struggle<br />
for independence so as to enhance patriotism<br />
within the population.<br />
In a veiled reference to the independent<br />
media, the committee noted<br />
in its findings that foreign owned media<br />
in Zimbabwe remained “anti-<strong>Africa</strong>n,<br />
anti-government and Euro-centric”.<br />
The report recommended that<br />
laws governing the operations <strong>of</strong> media<br />
practitioners and those protecting<br />
the privacy <strong>of</strong> everyone including public<br />
figures had to be implemented.<br />
This, the committee said, is in light <strong>of</strong><br />
the growing polarisation <strong>of</strong> the media<br />
in Zimbabwe in recent years and also<br />
<strong>of</strong> the high number <strong>of</strong> cases involving<br />
defamation.<br />
The report added that a distinction<br />
between the invasion <strong>of</strong> privacy and<br />
the investigation <strong>of</strong> matters <strong>of</strong> public<br />
interest was needed. It also recommended<br />
that the media should work<br />
together with indigenous knowledge<br />
and strive to identify with, and project,<br />
people’s aspirations. The need for the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> indigenous languages was emphasised.
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
The report by the committee has,<br />
however, been received with scepticism<br />
and suspicion, especially by the<br />
independent media in Zimbabwe.<br />
The independent media, including<br />
MISA’s Zimbabwe chapter (MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe), dismissed the <strong>Media</strong><br />
Ethics Committee soon after its appointment,<br />
as a front for the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity.<br />
The appointment <strong>of</strong> committee<br />
members was solely done by Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
Jonathan Moyo and no diverse representation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwean media<br />
was considered. The committee<br />
is largely seen as laying the ground<br />
for the set up <strong>of</strong> a statutory media<br />
council as provided for in the Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Act.<br />
The government, which came under<br />
fire for its lack <strong>of</strong> consultation<br />
on the act, is seen as using the report<br />
by the <strong>Media</strong> Ethics Committee to<br />
suggest that a process <strong>of</strong> “consultation”<br />
took place. The report, as<br />
largely expected, dovetails with the<br />
contents <strong>of</strong> the recently enacted Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Act and recent political<br />
rhetoric.<br />
Despite numerous complaints<br />
noted by civic organisations regarding<br />
the lack <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism in the<br />
state-owned media, the report is silent<br />
about this subject.<br />
The national broadcaster and the<br />
state-owned print media have come<br />
under fire for directly supporting the<br />
ruling party and instigating violence<br />
through the use <strong>of</strong> inflammatory and<br />
racist language. The report by the<br />
committee is silent on all these concerns.<br />
The report is largely seen as a useful<br />
tool for justifying the draconian<br />
Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act. This is so because the<br />
committee allegedly held public<br />
meetings at which ordinary citizens,<br />
the media, business, church, community<br />
leaders and women and youth<br />
groups gave their input on the nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> the media they would like to see<br />
in Zimbabwe.<br />
On July 25, 2001 MISA reported<br />
that the Permanent Secretary for the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
in the Office <strong>of</strong> the President<br />
and Cabinet, George Charamba, announced<br />
on Monday July 23 the appointment<br />
<strong>of</strong> a committee to look into<br />
issues affecting the level <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism<br />
in the media, as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
department’s restructuring <strong>of</strong> the media<br />
industry.<br />
At the time, Charamba was quoted<br />
as saying that the committee would<br />
determine pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism and ethical<br />
awareness in the media by looking<br />
at news gathering, processing and<br />
presentation skills.<br />
The committee would pay attention<br />
to the level <strong>of</strong> skills, news value<br />
and level <strong>of</strong> advocacy.<br />
“The terms <strong>of</strong> reference are the<br />
relationship with news sources and<br />
fairness to and respect for the reading<br />
public; market pressures and<br />
their impact on the integrity <strong>of</strong> journalism<br />
paying particular attention<br />
to advertorial power, ownership<br />
and funding,” Charamba said.<br />
Charamba elaborated, “…politics<br />
<strong>of</strong> polarisation within the media<br />
industry and any other matters the<br />
committee may consider relevant to<br />
the development <strong>of</strong> a sound media<br />
industry.”<br />
So This Is Democracy? 205
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-03-28<br />
PERSON(S): Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
“The Daily News” editor-in-chief<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota is likely to face legal<br />
action this week if Jonathan Moyo,<br />
the Minister <strong>of</strong> State for Information<br />
and Publicity, goes ahead with his<br />
threat against him over a “false” story<br />
he allegedly published.<br />
This will be the first time the government<br />
will have implemented the<br />
controversial Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act against<br />
“The Daily News”, Zimbabwe’s only<br />
independent daily.<br />
Moyo accuses “The Daily News” <strong>of</strong><br />
misrepresenting a story it reported on<br />
in its Friday March 22, 2002 edition.<br />
The story claimed that the joint <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
Caribbean Pacific-European Union<br />
Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-<br />
EU) passed a resolution calling for a<br />
fresh presidential election in Zimbabwe<br />
at a meeting held in Cape Town,<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>, on March 21. In a letter<br />
written to Nyarota, the Minister asked<br />
the paper to make a retraction over the<br />
“deliberate falsehood” or face legal<br />
action in terms <strong>of</strong> Section 80(1) (a)(b),<br />
which deals with the abuse <strong>of</strong> journalistic<br />
privilege. Subsections (1) (a)(b)<br />
state: “A journalist shall be deemed to<br />
have abused his journalistic privilege<br />
and committed an <strong>of</strong>fence if he falsifies<br />
or fabricates information and publishes<br />
falsehoods”.<br />
“Under the circumstances and in the<br />
belief that your false claim is as a result<br />
<strong>of</strong> ignorance and not political mischief,<br />
I am writing to ask you to publicly<br />
correct your falsehood and give<br />
the public correct information based<br />
206 So This Is Democracy?<br />
on the proceedings <strong>of</strong> the ACP-EU<br />
Assembly meeting in Cape Town,”<br />
Moyo said in the letter.<br />
Nyarota received Moyo’s letter on<br />
March 26 and said that he would rather<br />
go to jail than retract a true story. “I<br />
would rather go to jail, if it pleases the<br />
Honourable Minister, than be forced<br />
by him to correct a story that is 100<br />
per cent correct,” Nyarota stated.<br />
The act stipulates that anyone who<br />
contravenes the three subsections shall<br />
be guilty <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence and liable to a<br />
fine not exceeding 100 000 Zimbabwe<br />
dollars (approx. US$1 829) or to imprisonment<br />
for a period not exceeding<br />
two years.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-03<br />
PERSON(S): Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
On Tuesday April 2, 2002, Peta<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t, the Zimbabwe correspondent<br />
for the British “Daily Telegraph”,<br />
was questioned on the status<br />
<strong>of</strong> her citizenship in the continuing<br />
saga following her arrest on<br />
Wednesday, March 27.<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t was asked by police to<br />
report to the magistrate’s court in the<br />
eastern border town <strong>of</strong> Mutare on<br />
Tuesday April 2. On April 3, the journalist<br />
told MISA-Zimbabwe that the<br />
Mutare chief immigration <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
asked her where her parents were born<br />
and whether she had renounced her<br />
British citizenship. “I told them that I<br />
renounced my British citizenship in<br />
December 2001,” said Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t.<br />
She also said that all her travel documents<br />
were returned and that she was<br />
on her way to the capital, Harare.<br />
This development is largely seen as
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
an orchestrated move by the Zimbabwean<br />
authorities to persist with<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t’s harassment. The allegation<br />
that she is a “foreign” citizen is<br />
likely to be trumped up in an effort to<br />
silence the reporter.<br />
The government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
promulgated a controversial citizenship<br />
law before the March presidential<br />
elections that demands that all Zimbabweans<br />
born <strong>of</strong> parents originally<br />
not from Zimbabwe renounce their<br />
“foreign citizenship”, in order for them<br />
to be able to vote and become full citizens<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
This law was largely seen as targeting<br />
the large farm workers’ community,<br />
many <strong>of</strong> them originally<br />
from Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique,<br />
and the white community.<br />
These groups are largely seen as<br />
sympathetic to the opposition,<br />
Movement for Democratic Change.<br />
Thousands <strong>of</strong> people born in Zimbabwe<br />
had their citizenship revoked<br />
and many were unable to vote on the<br />
basis <strong>of</strong> this law.<br />
By bringing the question <strong>of</strong><br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t’s citizenship into this matter,<br />
Zimbabwean authorities seem determined<br />
to “find” a charge against the<br />
reporter, after having failed to formally<br />
charge her with any wrongdoing.<br />
The intelligence services, in collaboration<br />
with the police, arrested<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t in Chimanimani on<br />
Wednesday March 27. She was released<br />
on Sunday March 31, after a<br />
high court judgement was sought for<br />
her release.<br />
The High Court ordered that she be<br />
released as the police had failed to formally<br />
charge her. The police can only<br />
go by way <strong>of</strong> summons if they are still<br />
interested in pursuing the matter.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-09<br />
PERSON(S): Calvin Dondo,<br />
Edwina Spicer, Newton Spicer<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored,<br />
beaten<br />
Edwina and Newton Spicer, <strong>of</strong> Spicer<br />
Productions, were arrested on Saturday<br />
April 6, 2002, while covering the<br />
National Constitutional Assembly<br />
(NCA) organised demonstration.<br />
They were released four hours after<br />
being detained. Photographer Calvin<br />
Dondo, <strong>of</strong> the Pan <strong>Africa</strong>n News<br />
Agency, was also beaten up and arrested<br />
and had his camera seized by<br />
the police.<br />
Edwina Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that the police arrested them while<br />
they were in the process <strong>of</strong> video recording<br />
the demonstration. “An <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
jumped out <strong>of</strong> the police vehicle, came<br />
over to us and demanded to know why<br />
we were taking pictures <strong>of</strong> the demonstration.<br />
He further demanded that<br />
we go to the Central Police Station and<br />
deployed two <strong>of</strong>ficers to our car to accompany<br />
us. I had been on the phone<br />
to fellow journalists at the time, so the<br />
news <strong>of</strong> our arrest spread fast,” said<br />
Spicer.<br />
At the Central Police Station, the<br />
three journalists were grouped together<br />
with arrested demonstrators. The police<br />
questioned them about accreditation.<br />
“We produced our Ministry <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
accreditation cards, due to<br />
expire on December 31, 2002. We<br />
were told that these would be cancelled<br />
by the Ministry on Monday morning<br />
[April] 9 as we had been ‘caught filming<br />
an illegal demonstration’ and that<br />
this was not allowed,” continued<br />
So This Is Democracy? 207
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Spicer.<br />
The journalists were further questioned<br />
about the nature <strong>of</strong> their work.<br />
Spicer told MISA Zimbabwe that the<br />
police informed them that they were<br />
all under arrest and would be charged<br />
under the Public Order and Security<br />
Act (POSA).<br />
“Our cell phones were taken away<br />
from us. We were told that we were<br />
responsible for discrediting the country<br />
by ‘beaming bad pictures’ to the<br />
BBC and CNN, and that we should ‘go<br />
back to Britain’. We were not allowed<br />
to make a phone call to our lawyer who<br />
we knew was in the building but was<br />
being denied access to us,” Spicer<br />
noted.<br />
Spicer added that at around 11:30<br />
a.m. (local time) they were taken to the<br />
courtyard and made to sit on the floor.<br />
At that time, ten other people who had<br />
been arrested for demonstrating were<br />
also there. The numbers later swelled<br />
to twenty-two. “All except for Newton<br />
and I had been beaten with batons<br />
during the course <strong>of</strong> the arrests. Calvin<br />
Dondo was also beaten,” Spicer stated.<br />
“After two hours <strong>of</strong> being denied<br />
access to us, our lawyer, Ms Pat Lewin<br />
<strong>of</strong> Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans was allowed<br />
to see us. She was told after a<br />
considerable period that we were being<br />
charged under the Miscellaneous<br />
Offences Act, but again not under<br />
which section, not what our supposed<br />
crime had been. Ms Lewin pointed out<br />
to the <strong>of</strong>ficer that the law clearly states<br />
than an arrest can only be made if there<br />
is a specific charge, and that the charge<br />
has to be stated immediately. She was<br />
told to go away and to return at 3:30<br />
p.m. when she would be informed,”<br />
Spicer stated.<br />
At about 3:20 p.m., the journalists<br />
208 So This Is Democracy?<br />
were taken back inside the police <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
and given another lecture about<br />
“tarnishing the image <strong>of</strong> the country.”<br />
“Ms Lewin told us that we were to be<br />
released but that our cameras were<br />
being held so that they could be examined,”<br />
Spicer noted.<br />
The three individuals were finally<br />
released at 4:30 p.m.<br />
Spicer informed MISA Zimbabwe<br />
that her equipment was returned on<br />
Monday April 8. She also said that the<br />
police asked for a copy <strong>of</strong> the footage<br />
but she refused to hand it over. Dondo’s<br />
camera, however, was not returned.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-09<br />
PERSON(S): Patrick Jemwa, Zimbabwe<br />
Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC) crew<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
A Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC) cameraman, Patrick<br />
Jemwa, was beaten by soldiers and<br />
seriously injured on Saturday April 6,<br />
2002. At the time, Jemwa was filming<br />
a march organised by the civic<br />
organisation, the National Constitutional<br />
Assembly (NCA), in Harare.<br />
Jemwa sustained serious injuries<br />
and was taken to the Avenues Clinic,<br />
where he received treatment before<br />
being discharged. When he appeared<br />
on the main ZBC TV news bulletin at<br />
8:00 p.m. (local time) that evening,<br />
Jemwa complained <strong>of</strong> a headache,<br />
bleeding and an aching jaw. His left<br />
eye was swollen. He said that the soldiers<br />
beat him up in spite <strong>of</strong> his pleas<br />
that he was a media person who was<br />
simply doing his job.<br />
The action was immediately condemned<br />
by an army spokesperson who
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
apologised to both Jemwa and the<br />
ZBC. In a statement, the Zimbabwe<br />
Defence Force (ZDF) spokesperson,<br />
Colonel Mbonisi Gatsheni, said such<br />
acts should not be tolerated. “Following<br />
the incident, the commander <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Defence Forces on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
would like to unreservedly state<br />
that such events should never be condoned<br />
in the ZDF,” Gatsheni stated.<br />
In a related incident, a ZBC crew<br />
that had gone to Chitungwiza to cover<br />
the opposition Movement for Democratic<br />
Change (MDC) rally was attacked<br />
by MDC supporters on April<br />
7.<br />
The ZBC was accused <strong>of</strong> biased reporting<br />
by the MDC supporters. The<br />
ZBC reported that a member <strong>of</strong> the<br />
opposition executive, Sekia Holland,<br />
was heard saying that the crew deserved<br />
a beating. Holland said the<br />
MDC secretary for external affairs<br />
was heard on national television accusing<br />
the ZBC <strong>of</strong> misrepresenting<br />
her statements at the Commonwealth<br />
meeting held in Australia. The windscreen<br />
<strong>of</strong> the two reporters’ car was<br />
destroyed as party supporters tried to<br />
storm the car. The reporters were<br />
saved by some MDC leaders and were<br />
subsequently allowed to cover the<br />
rally.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-15<br />
PERSON(S): Dumisani Muleya<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Dumisani Muleya, chief reporter for<br />
the independent business weekly<br />
“Zimbabwe Independent”, was arrested<br />
at 3:00 p.m. (local time) on<br />
April 15, 2002 by the Criminal Investigations<br />
Department (CID) for having<br />
allegedly tarnished the image <strong>of</strong><br />
the First Lady.<br />
In a April 12 “Zimbabwe Independent”<br />
story, Muleya wrote that First<br />
Lady Grace Mugabe’s brother was involved<br />
in a labour dispute in which<br />
he had solicited the help <strong>of</strong> his sister.<br />
It was reported in the story, entitled<br />
“First lady’s brother in bid to take over<br />
local firm”, that after failing to get<br />
their way, the workers, led by<br />
Mugabe’s brother Erasmus Marufu,<br />
turned to the First Lady for help.<br />
The fairly balanced story also<br />
quotes Lawrence Kamwi, Mugabe’s<br />
spokesperson, as saying that he could<br />
not remember the matter and that the<br />
First Lady recommended that the<br />
matter be taken to the relevant ministry.<br />
In the story, Marufu confirmed his<br />
relationship with Mugabe, as well as<br />
the fact that the workers had written a<br />
letter to the First Lady asking her to<br />
intervene on their behalf.<br />
“We wrote a letter but they didn’t<br />
give us a clear answer. They just replied<br />
saying we must go [to] the Ministry<br />
<strong>of</strong> Labour. We went there but<br />
nothing came out <strong>of</strong> it,” Marufu is reported<br />
to have said.<br />
“The story is true and maybe the<br />
police is saying that the image <strong>of</strong> the<br />
First Lady was tarnished,” said<br />
Barnabas Thlondlana, “Zimbabwe Independent”<br />
deputy editor-in-chief.<br />
The “Zimbabwe Independent”<br />
management has informed its lawyers,<br />
Atherstone and Cook, <strong>of</strong> the development.<br />
Lawyer Roselyn Zigomo <strong>of</strong><br />
Atherstone and Cook will handle the<br />
case.<br />
Muleya faces charges <strong>of</strong> criminal<br />
defamation.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 209
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-11<br />
PERSON(S): Pedzisayi Ruhanya<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
On April 10, 2002, “The Daily News”<br />
chief reporter Pedzisayi Ruhanya was<br />
expelled from a press conference, on<br />
the orders <strong>of</strong> Registrar General<br />
Tobaiwa Mudede, who was addressing<br />
the media.<br />
Mudede had called the conference<br />
to dismiss a April 9 “The Daily News”<br />
front-page story headlined, “Mudede<br />
tape proves Mugabe lost Election”.<br />
The newspaper had reported that the<br />
total number <strong>of</strong> votes announced by<br />
Mudede in a live broadcast, as having<br />
been polled by all five contesting presidential<br />
election candidates, was<br />
700,000 votes less than the figure subsequently<br />
published in other media<br />
outlets.<br />
Upon being pressed to clarify the<br />
contradictions in his figures over election<br />
results <strong>of</strong> the recently held presidential<br />
poll, the registrar general replied<br />
by accusing “The Daily News”<br />
<strong>of</strong> lying. On April 10, “The Herald”<br />
newspaper reported that journalist<br />
Ruhanya suggested that the registrar<br />
general was a “pathological liar” who<br />
wanted to mislead the nation.<br />
During the press conference,<br />
Ruhanya insisted that Mudede explain<br />
the discrepancies between the election<br />
results that he announced through the<br />
national broadcaster, Zimbabwe<br />
Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), and<br />
results that were later reported in other<br />
media outlets. “Get out,” Mudede<br />
shouted at the journalist in response<br />
while thumping the table with his fist.<br />
It is reported that Mudede drew his<br />
chair back and marched towards<br />
210 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Ruhanya while ordering his subordinates<br />
“to call the boys”. Ruhanya was<br />
thrown out from the conference by two<br />
security guards. However, two other<br />
journalists from “The Daily News”<br />
remained behind.<br />
At the press conference, Mudede<br />
announced that Morgan Tsvangirai’s<br />
figure had increased simultaneously by<br />
4002 votes. Tsvangirai is the leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the opposition Movement for Democratic<br />
Change (MDC). The new figures<br />
were announced one month after<br />
the elections. According to “The Daily<br />
News”, ZBC also provided figures that<br />
were at variance with Mudede’s latest<br />
ones but consistent with those published<br />
in “The Daily News” on April<br />
9, and those announced by Mudede on<br />
13 March.<br />
“The Daily News” reports that, instead<br />
<strong>of</strong> explaining the confusion over<br />
the election results, Mudede shifted the<br />
focus and started to attack the newspaper<br />
<strong>of</strong> lying and publishing false information<br />
to satisfy “certain agendas.”<br />
“It’s just a story to justify certain agendas<br />
that may need to be justified,”<br />
Mudede stated in reference to the “The<br />
Daily News” report that had pointed<br />
out the discrepancies. “The final report<br />
was distributed to all the parties with<br />
the correct figures. It looks like ‘The<br />
Daily News’ is cooking up figures to<br />
justify their allegations (<strong>of</strong> rigging)<br />
against the registrar general,” Mudede<br />
said.<br />
“The Daily News” reported that<br />
Mudede asked journalists at the conference<br />
what action he should take<br />
against “The Daily News”. ZBC’s diplomatic<br />
reporter Judith Makwanya is<br />
said to have suggested “legal action.”<br />
Mudede also accused the government<br />
owned “The Herald” <strong>of</strong> publish-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ing incorrect information. “The Daily<br />
News” used some <strong>of</strong> the figures from<br />
earlier “The Herald” reports.<br />
Mudede could not be drawn into<br />
explaining where a government owned<br />
newspaper got its figures. “Go and ask<br />
‘The Herald’ where they got the figures,”<br />
Mudede retorted. “The Daily<br />
News” editor-in-chief Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota<br />
said that the newspaper stands by its<br />
story as published on 9 April. “We urge<br />
our readers to go through Mr.<br />
Mudede’s full statement as published<br />
here and then compare it with our story,<br />
to see if the registrar general has in any<br />
way addressed the legitimate concerns<br />
raised in the story,” Nyarota stated.<br />
“Why doesn’t ZBC show the tape<br />
again?” he asked.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-15<br />
PERSON(S): Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota, editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe’s only independent daily<br />
“The Daily News”, was released at<br />
around 4:00 p.m. (local time) on 15<br />
April 2002 after being charged under<br />
Section 80 Subsection 1 (a) <strong>of</strong> the repressive<br />
Access to Information and<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act.<br />
Nyarota was arrested at around 1:00<br />
p.m. on 15 April at his <strong>of</strong>fices. He was<br />
picked up on allegations <strong>of</strong> publishing<br />
a false news item on the outcome <strong>of</strong><br />
the controversial March 2002 presidential<br />
elections. He stands accused <strong>of</strong><br />
having falsified information by alleging<br />
that Registrar General Tobaiwa<br />
Mudede announced contradicting results<br />
in the presidential elections in<br />
different media outlets. On 10 April,<br />
“The Daily News” carried a story entitled<br />
“Mudede Tape proves Mugabe<br />
lost election”. The story reported that<br />
the total number <strong>of</strong> votes announced<br />
by Mudede in a live broadcast as having<br />
been polled by all five presidential<br />
candidates is 700,000 votes less than<br />
the figure subsequently published in<br />
other media outlets.<br />
MISA’s Zimbabwe chapter (MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe) confirmed that Detective<br />
Inspector Makedenge recorded a<br />
“warned and cautioned” statement,<br />
which Nyarota signed. MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
also confirmed that Nyarota denied<br />
the charge.<br />
Nyarota is quoted as saying: “I deny<br />
this charge. The article is not false, it<br />
is based on an audio-visual tape recording<br />
<strong>of</strong> the registrar general as he announced<br />
the results <strong>of</strong> the presidential<br />
elections, broadcast live on radio and<br />
television on Wednesday 13 March<br />
2002. I reserve my constitutional right<br />
to make a full and detailed statement<br />
upon seeing the full particulars <strong>of</strong> the<br />
state’s case.”<br />
Section 80 <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act<br />
is entitled “Abuse <strong>of</strong> Journalistic Privilege”.<br />
Subsection 1 (a) <strong>of</strong> Section 80<br />
reads that “a journalist shall be deemed<br />
to have abused his journalistic privilege<br />
and committed an <strong>of</strong>fence if he<br />
falsifies and fabricates information”.<br />
The article in question is not false as it<br />
is based on verified media recordings.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-04-16<br />
PERSON(S): Dumisani Muleya<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Dumisani Muleya, chief reporter <strong>of</strong><br />
So This Is Democracy? 211
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
the “Zimbabwe Independent” newspaper,<br />
was released from police custody<br />
at 6:30 p.m. (local time) on April<br />
15, 2002.<br />
Muleya, who was arrested on April<br />
15 on charges <strong>of</strong> criminal defamation,<br />
was released after the police recorded<br />
a “warned and cautioned” statement<br />
from him. He was set to report to the<br />
Harare Central police station for finger<br />
printing on the morning <strong>of</strong> 16 April.<br />
Innocent Chagonda, who took over<br />
from lawyer Roselyn Zigomo, is representing<br />
Muleya. The two lawyers<br />
work for the Atherstone and Cook law<br />
firm. Muleya faces charges for having<br />
defamed First Lady Grace Mugabe in<br />
a April 12 “Zimbabwe Independent”<br />
story.<br />
In a story that appeared in the April<br />
12 edition <strong>of</strong> the “Zimbabwe Independent”,<br />
Muleya wrote that the First<br />
Lady’s brother had solicited the help<br />
<strong>of</strong> his sister to resolve a labour dispute<br />
in which he had become involved.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-16<br />
PERSON(S): Yugoslav international,<br />
Radio Dialogue<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored<br />
Zimbabwe’s riot police raided an aspiring<br />
community radio station, “Radio<br />
Dialogue”, and arrested a Yugoslav<br />
international who is doing consultancy<br />
work for the station. “Radio<br />
Dialogue” is based in Zimbabwe’s<br />
second largest city, Bulawayo.<br />
In a message to MISA’s Zimbabwe<br />
chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe), Father<br />
Nigel Johnson, the co-ordinator <strong>of</strong><br />
“Radio Dialogue”, said that disgruntled<br />
former “Radio Dialogue” managers,<br />
who had been suspended, brought<br />
212 So This Is Democracy?<br />
in the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC), the police and the intelligence<br />
service to film the station’s<br />
activities. “The police were very nice<br />
in the end, once they discovered that<br />
we did not have any transmission<br />
equipment, only recording equipment,”<br />
said Father Johnson. According<br />
to Father Johnson, the intelligence<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers took a few documents from the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
In a report that appeared on the ZBC<br />
main news bulletin on April 15, 2002,<br />
it was reported instead that two members<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ZBC news crew, Bulawayo<br />
bureau chief Makhosini Hlongwane<br />
and chief cameraperson Trust<br />
Mashoro, were manhandled by “Radio<br />
Dialogue” staff who threatened to<br />
throw them from the ninth floor <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building. The ZBC also reported that<br />
their staff was rescued by the riot police,<br />
which broke the door leading to<br />
the room where the two individuals<br />
had been locked in. This contradicts<br />
the report from Father Johnson who<br />
indicated that in fact the two suspended<br />
managers brought the ZBC and the<br />
intelligence <strong>of</strong>ficers onto the “Radio<br />
Dialogue” premises.<br />
The ZBC news bulletin referred to<br />
“Radio Dialogue” as a pirate radio station<br />
that is spreading lies about Zimbabwe<br />
and fanning ethnic hatred. The<br />
ZBC also reported that the Yugoslav<br />
consultant was arrested by police and<br />
will be charged with kidnapping the<br />
ZBC staff.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-17<br />
PERSON(S): Dumisani Muleya<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On Tuesday April 16, 2002, a second
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
charge <strong>of</strong> contravening Section 80,<br />
Subsection 1 (b) <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Act was added to Dumisani Muleya’s<br />
case by the police. Muleya is the chief<br />
reporter <strong>of</strong> the “Zimbabwe Independent”<br />
newspaper.<br />
Section 80, Subsection 1 (b) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
act stipulates that a journalist will be<br />
deemed to have committed an <strong>of</strong>fence<br />
and abused “journalistic privilege” if<br />
he “publishes falsehoods”. This charge<br />
was added to the criminal defamation<br />
charge that was preferred on Muleya<br />
on Monday April 15.<br />
Muleya is accused <strong>of</strong> having written<br />
falsehoods about First Lady Grace<br />
Mugabe in the April 12 edition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
“Zimbabwe Independent”.<br />
Muleya told MISA-Zimbabwe that<br />
when he visited the police station on<br />
April 16 as advised by the police for<br />
the purposes <strong>of</strong> fingerprinting, he was<br />
charged under the act a second time.<br />
Muleya added that the police were not<br />
violent and did not harass him.<br />
According to Muleya, his lawyer<br />
Innocent Chagonda, <strong>of</strong> the Atherstone<br />
and Cook law firm, questioned the<br />
merit <strong>of</strong> the accusations, especially on<br />
the grounds that the complainant is not<br />
known. It has not been established<br />
whether it was the First Lady who<br />
made a complaint to the police or if<br />
the case was filed by the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity. In a April<br />
13 “The Herald” article, the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity,<br />
headed by Information Minister<br />
Jonathan Moyo, threatened to take<br />
measures against Muleya for writing<br />
a false story about the First Lady.<br />
In a story that appeared in the April<br />
12 edition <strong>of</strong> the “Zimbabwe Independent”,<br />
Muleya wrote that the First<br />
Lady’s brother had solicited the help<br />
<strong>of</strong> his sister to resolve a labour dispute<br />
in which he had become involved.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-17<br />
PERSON(S): Iden Wetherell<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
“Zimbabwe Independent” editor Iden<br />
Wetherell was arrested on Wednesday<br />
April 17 2002 at around 2:00 p.m. (local<br />
time). His arrest, the third arrest<br />
<strong>of</strong> independent journalists in three<br />
days, marks the first serious clampdown<br />
on the independent media by<br />
the government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe since<br />
the enactment <strong>of</strong> the draconian Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Act.<br />
Vincent Kahiya, news editor <strong>of</strong> the<br />
weekly business newspaper, told<br />
MISA’s Zimbabwe chapter (MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe) that the police called<br />
Wetherell at around 2:00 p.m. and instructed<br />
him to report to the central<br />
police station in the capital, Harare.<br />
Innocent Chagonda <strong>of</strong> the Atherstone<br />
and Cook law firm is representing<br />
Wetherell.<br />
According to Kahiya, Wetherell was<br />
arrested on allegations <strong>of</strong> having published<br />
a false story that First Lady<br />
Grace Mugabe was embroidered in a<br />
labour dispute in a company where her<br />
brother is an employee. The Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity,<br />
headed by Information Minister<br />
Jonathan Moyo, dismissed the story as<br />
untrue. Dumisani Muleya, the story’s<br />
author, was arrested on charges <strong>of</strong><br />
criminal defamation and contravention<br />
<strong>of</strong> Section 80, Subsection 1 (b) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Access to Information and Protection<br />
So This Is Democracy? 213
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act. Chagonda informed<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe that the same<br />
charges would be preferred on<br />
Wetherell.<br />
At the time this alert was written,<br />
Wetherell was still at the police station<br />
where police had just finished recording<br />
a “warned and cautioned”<br />
statement from him. At 4:30 p.m.,<br />
Chagonda told MISA-Zimbabwe that<br />
the police were fingerprinting<br />
Wetherell. “They are likely to release<br />
him today,” said Chagonda.<br />
Muleya, chief reporter <strong>of</strong> the “Zimbabwe<br />
Independent”, was arrested at<br />
3:00 p.m. on April 15 by the Criminal<br />
Investigations Department (CID) for<br />
having allegedly tarnished the image<br />
<strong>of</strong> the First Lady.<br />
In a April 12 “Zimbabwe Independent”<br />
story, Muleya wrote that the First<br />
Lady’s brother was involved in a labour<br />
dispute in which he solicited the<br />
help <strong>of</strong> his sister. Muleya was released<br />
from police custody at 6:30 p.m. on<br />
15 April but was told to return the following<br />
day for fingerprinting. On April<br />
16, he was additionally charged with<br />
contravening Section 80, Subsection<br />
1 (b) <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act for allegedly<br />
“writing falsehoods” about the First<br />
Lady.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-30<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Daily News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
The Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity,<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Jonathan Moyo, has<br />
warned government parastatals<br />
against advertising in “The Daily<br />
News”. Moyo alleges the newspaper<br />
has created a reputation <strong>of</strong> peddling<br />
214 So This Is Democracy?<br />
lies.<br />
The minister made these remarks<br />
after “The Daily News” published an<br />
article on April 23 alleging that two<br />
young girls had witnessed the beheading<br />
<strong>of</strong> their mother by alleged Zimbabwe<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n National Union Patriotic<br />
Front (ZANU-PF) party supporters in<br />
the rural area <strong>of</strong> Magunje. The story<br />
was later picked up and published on<br />
the front page <strong>of</strong> the “Independent” in<br />
London, England. In a front page story<br />
on April 27, “The Daily News” apologised<br />
to the ruling party, ZANU-PF,<br />
and to the government after it was revealed<br />
that the victim’s husband might<br />
have misled the newspaper.<br />
Moyo said that the government<br />
could not allow advertisers to “subsidise”<br />
the “destruction” <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
through outright lies published by<br />
“The Daily News”. He added that this<br />
incident was the worst example <strong>of</strong><br />
what both the government and the public<br />
are concerned about. “What is particularly<br />
unacceptable and something<br />
which must now stop is the fact that<br />
there are some government-owned<br />
parastatals who advertise in a trash<br />
paper like ‘The Daily News’,” Moyo<br />
stated.<br />
The Minister said that the government<br />
could not continue to allow a situation<br />
whereby the taxpayers’ money<br />
is used to subsidise endless attacks on<br />
Zimbabwe. He added that if “the<br />
parastatals did not stop the rot on their<br />
own,” the government would ensure<br />
the law assists them.<br />
Moyo added that, as Minister responsible<br />
for information and publicity<br />
in the president’s <strong>of</strong>fice and cabinet,<br />
he now realises that the problem<br />
does not just concern the “The Daily<br />
News”. He lashed out at the owners <strong>of</strong>
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
“The Daily News”, among them Strive<br />
Masiyiwa and Nigel Chanakira. He<br />
further added that those who owned<br />
and backed “The Daily News” were<br />
working for a “common” purpose to<br />
discredit the country. He accused<br />
Andrew Meldrum and Basildon Peta,<br />
both correspondents for British papers<br />
in Zimbabwe, for flashing the story<br />
worldwide.<br />
Moyo promised to look at the Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Act to see if it is adequate to<br />
deal with “this rot”. He promised to<br />
amend the act should it prove inadequate,<br />
vowing that no media owner<br />
or advertiser would, in his view, be<br />
allowed to fund and subsidise the destruction<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
“The Herald” reports that the police<br />
have intensified investigations inside<br />
and outside the country to track down<br />
the perpetrators who were behind the<br />
construction and dissemination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
story. The newspaper reports that the<br />
police are also investigating the opposition<br />
Movement for Democratic<br />
Change (MDC) party’s role in connection<br />
with the case.<br />
In 2001, the governments <strong>of</strong> Namibia<br />
and Botswana effected similar<br />
economic sanctions on privately<br />
owned newspapers.<br />
In May, Namibia’s President<br />
Nujoma ordered a total ban on the purchase<br />
<strong>of</strong> “The Namibian” newspaper<br />
by the government <strong>of</strong> the Republic <strong>of</strong><br />
Namibia. The president’s directive was<br />
issued hot on the heels <strong>of</strong> an earlier<br />
cabinet decision to ban government<br />
line ministries from advertising in the<br />
newspaper on grounds that it maintained<br />
an “anti-government stance.”<br />
Also in May, the Botswana government<br />
slapped a ban on advertising in<br />
the “Botswana Guardian” and<br />
“MidWeek Sun” newspapers, because<br />
they were too critical <strong>of</strong> the country’s<br />
leaders. The government used this tactic<br />
to demonstrate its displeasure over<br />
“irresponsible reporting and the exceeding<br />
<strong>of</strong> editorial freedom.”<br />
However, in September, in what is<br />
regarded as a victory for media freedom<br />
and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, the<br />
Botswana High Court declared the ban<br />
on advertising in two newspapers unconstitutional.<br />
Justice IBK Lesetedi<br />
said the advertising ban by the Botswana<br />
government on the newspapers<br />
violated the newspapers’ constitutional<br />
right to “freedom <strong>of</strong> expression”.<br />
“What the government was doing,”<br />
said the judge, “was telling the newspapers<br />
that if they wanted to continue<br />
to enjoy the benefit <strong>of</strong> receiving advertising<br />
from government [they]<br />
should conform to a reportage that falls<br />
within what it considers to be the parameters<br />
<strong>of</strong> editorial freedom”.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-04-30<br />
PERSON(S): Moses Oguti<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
Moses Oguti, the editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Botswana-based monthly magazine<br />
“Trans Kalahari”, was released on<br />
Tuesday April 23, 2002. His release<br />
comes 45 days after he was arrested<br />
in Mutare for allegedly entering Zimbabwe<br />
illegally through the Forbes<br />
Border Post (the border between Zimbabwe<br />
and Mozambique).<br />
Oguti, who is a Ugandan citizen,<br />
told “The Daily News” on April 29 that<br />
he suffered during his incarceration<br />
and is threatening to take legal action<br />
against immigration <strong>of</strong>ficials and the<br />
So This Is Democracy? 215
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
police for unlawful detention and loss<br />
<strong>of</strong> business.<br />
“The Daily News” reports that Oguti<br />
was unable to print the March and<br />
April issues <strong>of</strong> his magazine and<br />
doubts if he will be able to publish the<br />
May issue.<br />
The Immigration Department is said<br />
to have given Oguti three days to leave<br />
the country, which according to him is<br />
not enough as he is trying to locate his<br />
car, luggage and computer.<br />
The journalist claims that he was not<br />
in Zimbabwe to cover the March presidential<br />
elections but entered the country<br />
to investigate the possibility <strong>of</strong><br />
printing his magazine in the country.<br />
Oguti is also the editor <strong>of</strong> “The Botswana<br />
Economic” and “The <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Economic”.<br />
Oguti was arrested on February 17<br />
for allegedly entering Zimbabwe illegally.<br />
Oguti’s co-accused, a driver<br />
from Mozambique, is still at large. The<br />
driver is said to have driven Oguti’s<br />
vehicle into Zimbabwe while Oguti<br />
himself is said to have entered Zimbabwe<br />
through an illegal entry point in<br />
the mountains.<br />
On February 26, police spokesperson<br />
Francis Mubvuta indicated that<br />
Oguti would be charged with “entry<br />
by evasion” and would also be declared<br />
a prohibited immigrant.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-06<br />
PERSON(S): Sports writers in<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
216 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Ignatius Pamire, the Interim Secretary<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe’s leading football team,<br />
Dynamos, threatened to kill sports<br />
writers for allegedly writing negatively<br />
about his administration, according<br />
to reports carried in “The<br />
Herald” and “The Daily News” on<br />
May 2, 2002.<br />
Pamire warned sports writers who<br />
were attending a sports function in the<br />
capital, Harare, that they must report<br />
positively on him and his team or risk<br />
being killed. Pamire said that he gave<br />
the reporters such a strong warning<br />
because they “deserved it”. Pamire<br />
specifically targeted “The Herald”<br />
sports editor Robson Sharuko and senior<br />
reporter Petros Kausiyo, and “The<br />
Daily News” sports reporter Simba<br />
Rushwaya.<br />
Phillip Mugadza, the team’s chairperson,<br />
later apologized to the reporters.<br />
“I spoke to Pamire and he said you<br />
are inciting Dynamos fans to beat him<br />
up,” said Mugadza. Dynamos has experienced<br />
a spate <strong>of</strong> losses which have<br />
turned the team’s fans against the leadership.<br />
“On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Dynamos<br />
football club, I want to make it clear<br />
that the club does not condone violence<br />
or the harassment <strong>of</strong> journalists. Dynamos<br />
is a club which will be there<br />
forever but clubs come and go,” read<br />
the apology from Mugadza.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-06<br />
PERSON(S): Andrew Meldrum,<br />
Collin Chiwanza, Lloyd Mudiwa<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Three journalists were released on<br />
May 2, 2002. Lloyd Mudiwa, Collin<br />
Chiwanza and Andrew Meldrum<br />
were released after each being granted<br />
bail <strong>of</strong> US$36.<br />
The arrests <strong>of</strong> the journalists followed<br />
the publishing <strong>of</strong> an article on
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
23 April in which “The Daily News”<br />
reported that two young girls had witnessed<br />
the beheading <strong>of</strong> their mother<br />
by alleged Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National<br />
Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) supporters<br />
in the rural area <strong>of</strong> Magunje.<br />
On May 2, Provincial Magistrate<br />
Lilian Kudya ordered the journalists’<br />
release. On May 3, Mudiwa and<br />
Chiwanza appeared in court for an initial<br />
remand. The Magistrates Court<br />
also heard an application by<br />
Meldrum’s lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa <strong>of</strong><br />
Kantor and Immerman, to have the<br />
court dismiss the allegations against<br />
her client. Mtetwa sought a refusal <strong>of</strong><br />
remand, arguing that there was no reasonable<br />
suspicion that her client had<br />
committed an <strong>of</strong>fence. She also said<br />
that the “London Guardian” newspaper,<br />
for which the state alleges<br />
Meldrum writes, does not exist.<br />
The three journalists were arrested<br />
on allegations <strong>of</strong> having written a false<br />
story in which it was reported that a<br />
supporter <strong>of</strong> the opposition party had<br />
been hacked to death by ruling party<br />
militants. They were charged under<br />
Section 80 <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act for<br />
allegedly abusing journalistic privilege<br />
by writing falsehoods.<br />
Mtetwa rebuked police <strong>of</strong>ficers for<br />
denying the journalists access to their<br />
lawyers. She went on to say that the<br />
section under which her client was<br />
charged infringes on the Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights,<br />
as provided for in the Zimbabwean<br />
constitution. She has since asked that<br />
the magistrate refer the matter to the<br />
Supreme Court for determination.<br />
“This section is unconstitutional. The<br />
section referred to is unreasonable and<br />
places unnecessary restrictions on the<br />
practice <strong>of</strong> journalism,” Mtetwa said.<br />
She also complained about the selective<br />
application <strong>of</strong> the law by the<br />
state and said she would produce evidence<br />
to the court <strong>of</strong> complaints to the<br />
police <strong>of</strong> falsehoods published in a local<br />
daily. The police have not investigated<br />
the complaints, she told the<br />
court. Mtetwa said the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Act was being used to persecute journalists<br />
from the private media.<br />
In response, senior public prosecutor<br />
Thabani Mp<strong>of</strong>u said that the act did<br />
not infringe on anyone’s rights but was<br />
there to deal with those who published<br />
falsehoods. Mp<strong>of</strong>u called Mtetwa’s<br />
application “frivolous and vexatious.”<br />
In a front-page story on April 27,<br />
“The Daily News” apologised to the<br />
ruling ZANU-PF party and to the government<br />
after it was revealed that the<br />
husband <strong>of</strong> the victim might have misled<br />
the paper.<br />
Zimbabwe’s Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity Jonathan Moyo has<br />
since warned government-run companies<br />
against advertising in “The Daily<br />
News”, which he alleges has created a<br />
reputation <strong>of</strong> peddling lies.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-10<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Joy TV, BBC<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
The Zimbabwean government is reported<br />
to have instructed Joy Television<br />
(Joy TV) to stop broadcasting<br />
BBC news on its programmes<br />
Joy TV has since complied with the<br />
instruction and the 30-minute news<br />
bulletin that was shown everyday at<br />
21h00 (local time) is no longer being<br />
broadcast. Joy TV is a private television<br />
station that is leasing a channel<br />
So This Is Democracy? 217
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
from the state run Zimbabwe Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZBC).<br />
A Joy TV <strong>of</strong>ficial, who talked to<br />
MISA’s Zimbabwean chapter (MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe) on condition <strong>of</strong> anonymity,<br />
said that the television station was<br />
instructed to censor the BBC news<br />
bulletins. However, the BBC policy<br />
says that their news bulletins must be<br />
shown as they are, and failing this the<br />
bulletins must not be shown at all. The<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial told MISA-Zimbabwe that the<br />
management chose to do away with the<br />
news rather than risk having the station’s<br />
lease agreement cancelled.<br />
The ban <strong>of</strong> the BBC news means<br />
that independent newspapers are the<br />
only source <strong>of</strong> alternative news in Zimbabwe.<br />
Moreover, Joy TV is not allowed<br />
to gather and disseminate local<br />
news.<br />
The government has also indicated<br />
that it is cancelling the lease agreement<br />
awarding Joy TV the channel because<br />
the agreement is in contravention <strong>of</strong><br />
the Broadcasting Services Act. The<br />
cancellation will result in the ZBC<br />
being the sole broadcaster in Zimbabwe,<br />
as no other station has been licensed<br />
to date.<br />
On April 30, 2002, MISA reported<br />
that Joy TV would go <strong>of</strong>f the air after<br />
May 31 when, according to the ZBC<br />
acting chief executive <strong>of</strong>ficer, the lease<br />
<strong>of</strong> its second channel to Joy TV will<br />
be cancelled.<br />
According to the ZBC, it is in a predicament<br />
as Section 18 <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe’s<br />
Broadcasting Services Act prohibits<br />
the corporation from leasing out the<br />
second channel.<br />
The Act reads: Transfer <strong>of</strong> licenses<br />
prohibited “No licensee shall assign,<br />
cede, pledge, transfer or sell his license<br />
to any other person or surrender his<br />
218 So This Is Democracy?<br />
programming duties to another entity<br />
outside his establishment. Any such<br />
assignment, cession pledge transfers<br />
sale or surrender shall be void.”<br />
Joy TV has since indicated its desire<br />
to obtain a licence to continue<br />
broadcasting in Zimbabwe. However,<br />
since the promulgation <strong>of</strong> the Broadcasting<br />
Services Act by the government<br />
in April 2001 no licenses have<br />
been issued to broadcasters.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-10<br />
PERSON(S): Urgunia Mauluka<br />
VIOLATION(S): Beaten<br />
On Monday May 6, 2002, Urgunia<br />
Mauluka, a photojournalist for “The<br />
Daily News”, was assaulted at the<br />
High Court in the capital, Harare, as<br />
she attempted to photograph a suspect<br />
in a high pr<strong>of</strong>ile corruption case.<br />
Mauluka was assaulted by James<br />
Makaya, who seized her camera and<br />
film. In a report made to the High<br />
Court police post, Mauluka said that<br />
she was about to take a picture <strong>of</strong><br />
Makaya, who came out <strong>of</strong> the courtroom<br />
during a break in the proceedings.<br />
The photojournalist stated that<br />
Makaya grabbed her camera and when<br />
Mauluka held on to it she was kicked.<br />
When a feigned punch was thrown,<br />
Mauluka let go <strong>of</strong> the camera. The<br />
photojournalist sustained bruises on<br />
her elbow as a result <strong>of</strong> the kick and<br />
the scuffle.<br />
Makaya relinquished the camera<br />
after the intervention <strong>of</strong> Assistant Inspector<br />
Mlipe, the <strong>of</strong>ficer in charge at<br />
the High Court police post. However,<br />
Makaya refused to hand over the film,<br />
which he had removed from the camera.
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
After kicking Mauluka, Makaya<br />
went to look for Lloyd Mudiwa, “The<br />
Daily News” reporter who was covering<br />
the story. Pointing at the reporter,<br />
Makaya is reported to have said that<br />
he wanted “to deal with the people responsible<br />
for writing about him.”<br />
“Don’t start troubling me. I have been<br />
quiet all along but you are now beginning<br />
to get on my nerves,” said<br />
Makaya.<br />
Makaya is appearing in the High<br />
Court on allegations <strong>of</strong> having prejudiced<br />
the state-owned Zimbabwe National<br />
Oil Company <strong>of</strong> over Z$1 billion<br />
(approx. US$18,292,000). He was<br />
the company operations manager at the<br />
time the alleged <strong>of</strong>fence is said to have<br />
been committed. The Zimbabwe government<br />
has blamed among others, the<br />
corruption at the company for the fuel<br />
problems that the country is facing.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-10<br />
PERSON(S): Andrew Meldrum,<br />
Jan Raath, Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
Three foreign journalists have made<br />
an urgent application at the Supreme<br />
Court, challenging the constitutionality<br />
<strong>of</strong> certain sections <strong>of</strong> the Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Act.<br />
In papers filed at the Supreme Court,<br />
journalists Jan Raath, Andrew<br />
Meldrum and Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t ask the<br />
court to declare Sections 71 (1), 79 (2),<br />
79 (6), 80 and 83 <strong>of</strong> the act unconstitutional.<br />
The journalists argue that<br />
these sections contravene Section 20<br />
(1) <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe constitution,<br />
which guarantees freedom <strong>of</strong> expression,<br />
receiving and imparting information<br />
as a right.<br />
Alternatively, the journalists are asking<br />
the court to suspend provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
Sections 79, 82, 83 and 84 (2) pending<br />
the establishment <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong><br />
Commission provided for in Section<br />
20 <strong>of</strong> the act, or the promulgation <strong>of</strong><br />
the prescribed qualifications for accreditation<br />
to practice as a journalist.<br />
In his application, Raath stated that<br />
according to the act only citizens or<br />
permanent residents <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe will<br />
be entitled to be accredited as a matter<br />
<strong>of</strong> right. It will be entirely up to the<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Commission’s discretion to<br />
grant or refuse accreditation to journalists<br />
who are neither citizens nor<br />
permanent residents <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe, he<br />
argued. “Even journalists who are citizens<br />
or permanent residents <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
and are qualified are not entitled<br />
to accreditation as a matter <strong>of</strong><br />
right,” read the argument. “The commission<br />
has an unfettered discretion as<br />
to whether or not to grant accreditation<br />
to journalists falling into that category<br />
as well,” said Raath in his founding<br />
affidavit.<br />
Raath noted that the act contemplates<br />
that for an individual to be accredited<br />
as a journalist, one must<br />
among other things possess the “prescribed<br />
qualifications”. However, no<br />
such “qualifications” are specified in<br />
the act itself. Raath further said that<br />
the Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity,<br />
who is supposed to prescribe<br />
such qualifications, had not done so<br />
more than a month after the act became<br />
law.<br />
Referring to Section 80, Raath argued<br />
that the new <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> “abuse<br />
<strong>of</strong> journalistic privilege” created by the<br />
act is unnecessary, unreasonable and<br />
an undue restriction on the practice <strong>of</strong><br />
So This Is Democracy? 219
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
journalism. Raath added that the sections<br />
in question infringe his freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> statement, as enshrined in Section<br />
20 <strong>of</strong> the constitution, and were inconsistent<br />
with freedom <strong>of</strong> association as<br />
guaranteed by Section 20 (1) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
constitution. Meldrum and<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t made similar arguments<br />
in their founding affidavits.<br />
Raath is the Zimbabwe correspondent<br />
for the Times Group <strong>of</strong> Newspapers<br />
<strong>of</strong> London, South <strong>Africa</strong>n Press<br />
Association, “Newsweek” and<br />
Deutsche Presse Agentur. Meldrum<br />
writes for the British newspaper the<br />
“Guardian”, while Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t writes<br />
for the British newspaper “The Daily<br />
Telegraph”.<br />
The application cites Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
State for Information and Publicity<br />
Jonathan Moyo as the first respondent<br />
and Attorney General Andrew<br />
Chigovera as the second respondent.<br />
Section 71 (1) states that the <strong>Media</strong><br />
and Information Commission, whether<br />
on its own initiative or upon the investigation<br />
<strong>of</strong> a complaint made by a<br />
interested person against the mass<br />
media service, [may] suspend or cancel<br />
the registration certificate <strong>of</strong> a mass<br />
media service if it has reasonable<br />
grounds for believing that: “The registration<br />
certificate was issued in error<br />
or through fraud or there has been an<br />
misrepresentation or non disclosure <strong>of</strong><br />
a material fact by the mass media<br />
owner concerned”; or “A mass media<br />
service concerned does not publish or<br />
go on air within 12 months from the<br />
date <strong>of</strong> registration”; or “The mass<br />
media service concerned has contravened<br />
sections 65, 75 and 89 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Act”.<br />
Section 79 (2) states that: “Subject<br />
to Subsection 4, no journalist shall be<br />
220 So This Is Democracy?<br />
accredited who is not a citizen <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
or is not regarded as permanently<br />
resident in Zimbabwe by virtue<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Immigration Act”.<br />
Section 79 (6) states that: “Every<br />
news agency that operates in Zimbabwe,<br />
whether domiciled inside in or<br />
outside Zimbabwe, shall in respect <strong>of</strong><br />
its local operations not employ or use<br />
the services <strong>of</strong> any journalist other than<br />
an accredited journalist who is a citizen<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe, or is regarded as<br />
permanently resident in Zimbabwe by<br />
virtue <strong>of</strong> the Immigration Act”.<br />
Section 80 states that: “A journalist<br />
shall be deemed to have abused his<br />
journalist’s privilege and committed an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence if he falsifies or fabricates information,<br />
publishes falsehoods except<br />
where he is a freelance journalist, collects<br />
and disseminates information on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> a person other than the mass<br />
media service that employs him without<br />
the permission <strong>of</strong> his employer;<br />
contravenes any <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
this Act”.<br />
Section 83 states that: “No person<br />
other than an accredited journalist shall<br />
practice as a journalist nor be employed<br />
as such, or in any manner holding<br />
himself out as, or pretend to be a<br />
journalist”. It also states that “no person<br />
who has ceased to be an accredited<br />
journalist as a result <strong>of</strong> the deletion<br />
<strong>of</strong> his name from the roll or who<br />
has been suspended from practicing as<br />
a journalist, shall, while his name is<br />
so deleted, or he is so suspended, continue<br />
to practice directly or indirectly<br />
as a journalist whether by himself or<br />
in partnership or association with any<br />
other person, nor shall he, except with<br />
the written consent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> and<br />
Information Commission, be employed<br />
in any capacity what’s so ever
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
connected with the journalistic pr<strong>of</strong>ession”.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-10<br />
INSTITUTION(S): The Daily News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
The state-owned daily newspaper<br />
“The Chronicle” has called for the<br />
government to ban Zimbabwe’s only<br />
private daily newspaper, “The Daily<br />
News”, for what it calls “abuse <strong>of</strong><br />
journalistic privilege.” The call was<br />
made in the newspaper’s May 3, 2002<br />
edition, which ironically is celebrated<br />
internationally as World Press Freedom<br />
Day.<br />
In a front-page lead story, “The<br />
Chronicle”, which is based in<br />
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest<br />
city, said the arrests <strong>of</strong> “irresponsible”<br />
journalists are insufficient. Quoting<br />
“analysts” Godfrey Chikowore,<br />
Norman Mlambo and Rino Zhuwarara<br />
<strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe, the<br />
newspaper said that such newspapers<br />
as “The Daily News” should not be<br />
allowed to exist. “There should be high<br />
penalties for newspapers which seek<br />
to compromise efforts by the people<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe to peacefully participate<br />
in national, regional and international<br />
development processes,” said<br />
Chikowore.<br />
Chikowore added that “The Daily<br />
News” had sought to subvert the reality<br />
<strong>of</strong> the political, economic and social<br />
situation in Zimbabwe. Zhuwarara<br />
said that “people are in a hurry to publish<br />
without verifying facts.” He also<br />
called “The Daily News” a “tabloid,<br />
which does not seek to develop but to<br />
destroy.” Zhuwarara is a member <strong>of</strong><br />
the government-appointed <strong>Media</strong> Ethics<br />
Committee.<br />
“The Chronicle” went on to list alleged<br />
lies “The Daily News” has published.<br />
According to reports from the <strong>Media</strong><br />
Monitoring Project in Zimbabwe<br />
(MMPZ), the state media has, specifically<br />
in the week <strong>of</strong> April 29 to May 5,<br />
been preoccupied with a controversial<br />
“Daily News” story and the arrest <strong>of</strong><br />
its journalists.<br />
The journalists’ arrests follow the<br />
publication <strong>of</strong> a April 23 article in<br />
which “The Daily News” alleged that<br />
two young girls had witnessed the<br />
beheading <strong>of</strong> their mother by alleged<br />
Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Union<br />
Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) supporters<br />
in the rural area <strong>of</strong> Magunje. Andrew<br />
Meldrum, a Zimbabwean permanent<br />
resident and correspondent for the British<br />
newspaper “The Guardian”, was<br />
arrested on May 2 over the same story,<br />
which was carried by “The Guardian”.<br />
In a April 27 front-page story, “The<br />
Daily News” apologised to the ruling<br />
party, ZANU-PF, and to the government<br />
after it was revealed that the husband<br />
<strong>of</strong> the victim had misled the<br />
newspaper.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-13<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Local and international<br />
media<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
The May 12, 2002 edition <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe’s<br />
state owned newspaper “The<br />
Sunday Mail” reported that the ruling<br />
Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Unity<br />
Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party intends<br />
to sue all the media organisations<br />
that carried the story that was<br />
published by “The Daily News” al-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 221
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
leging that a Karoi woman was beheaded<br />
in the presence <strong>of</strong> her two<br />
young children.<br />
Hussein Ranchhod and Company,<br />
the lawyers representing ZANU-PF,<br />
confirmed that they had received the<br />
directive to take action against the accused<br />
organisations. The targeted media<br />
organisations include “The Daily<br />
News”, its reporters, and all the newspapers<br />
and broadcasting stations in<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>, parts <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth<br />
and the United States that carried<br />
the story.<br />
Jonathan Moyo, ZANU-PF’s deputy<br />
secretary for information and publicity<br />
(and also minister <strong>of</strong> state for information<br />
and publicity in the president’s<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice), said the party would be<br />
suing all media organisations that published<br />
the story without checking it<br />
first.<br />
“We are suing them because we<br />
want them to be held accountable for<br />
the lies they have been telling for the<br />
past two years. We will sue all the<br />
media organisations that carried the<br />
story, including the opposition party,<br />
the Movement for Democratic Change<br />
(MDC), which has confirmed it was<br />
the source <strong>of</strong> the story,” said Moyo.<br />
“We are sick and tired that the MDC,<br />
some journalists, “The Daily News”<br />
and certain media houses in the white<br />
Commonwealth, South <strong>Africa</strong>,<br />
America, Kenya and Nigeria [have]<br />
made it their daily business to<br />
demonise our party and we are not<br />
going to take it anymore,” Moyo<br />
added.<br />
Moyo went on to say, “The situation<br />
had reached an unacceptable level<br />
… where anybody real or imagined<br />
who dies are alleged to be an MDC<br />
supporter, <strong>of</strong>ficial or member killed by<br />
222 So This Is Democracy?<br />
ZANU-PF … the world will be forgiven<br />
to think that the people who die<br />
in Zimbabwe are MDC and that<br />
ZANU-PF people don’t die.”<br />
According to Moyo, the MDC<br />
works with certain non-governmental<br />
and human rights organisations and<br />
pays teachers across the country to<br />
write “fictitious” stories about alleged<br />
ZANU-PF violence in rural areas.<br />
These “fictitious” stories have appeared<br />
in “The Daily News” and have<br />
been beamed to the world by the international<br />
media. The so-called special<br />
correspondents that write such stories<br />
are teachers or foreign correspondents<br />
based in Harare.<br />
“The other reason we are suing these<br />
media organisations is that we want the<br />
world media to realize that neither the<br />
MDC nor ‘The Daily News’ are credible<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> news,” Moyo explained.<br />
He added that the reporters<br />
who wrote the false story and the MDC<br />
know that they “have taken the world<br />
for a ride to get international support.”<br />
Journalists Andrew Meldrum and<br />
Lloyd Mudiwa are being charged for<br />
“abusing journalistic privilege” under<br />
the Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act over the same story.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-13<br />
PERSON(S): Brian Mangwende<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
Brian Mangwende, a reporter with the<br />
private daily newspaper “The Daily<br />
News”, was arrested in the eastern<br />
border city <strong>of</strong> Mutare on Friday May<br />
10, 2002. Mangwende was detained<br />
for two hours on allegations <strong>of</strong> having<br />
written a false story over the victimisation<br />
<strong>of</strong> schoolteachers working
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
in Zimbabwe’s rural areas.<br />
Mangwende wrote that war veterans<br />
and ruling party (Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
National Unity Patriotic Front,<br />
ZANU-PF) youths forced teachers<br />
throughout the country to pay “protection”<br />
fees. The story was based on a<br />
report compiled by the Progressive<br />
Teachers Union <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe (PTUZ),<br />
and also quoted the president <strong>of</strong> the<br />
union, Takavafira Zhou. PTUZ is a<br />
teachers’ trade union in Zimbabwe.<br />
Police <strong>of</strong>ficers from the Law and<br />
Order Section and the Criminal Investigations<br />
Department picked up<br />
Mangwende at 8:15 a.m. (local time)<br />
and held him for two hours. No charges<br />
were preferred on him. The journalist<br />
was questioned by a police <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
identified as Detective Inspector<br />
Dhliwayo on the authenticity <strong>of</strong> his<br />
story. Innocent Gonese <strong>of</strong> Gonese and<br />
Ndlovu Legal Practitioners represented<br />
the journalist. “The police did<br />
not charge him. They said that they<br />
would get in touch with him when they<br />
need him. They did not record a statement<br />
from him so his detention was<br />
puzzling,” said Gonese.<br />
The story which led to<br />
Mangwende’s arrest quoted Zhou as<br />
saying that thousands <strong>of</strong> teachers have<br />
been paying, and continue to pay, “protection”<br />
fees to war veterans and<br />
ZANU-PF youths, while many have<br />
had their properties burned down or<br />
looted. PTUZ was quoted in the story<br />
as condemning what it termed “the<br />
brutalisation <strong>of</strong> teachers throughout the<br />
country”, even though the presidential<br />
elections are over.<br />
Teachers in Zimbabwe’s non-urban<br />
areas are reported to be victims <strong>of</strong> politically<br />
motivated violence as they are<br />
accused <strong>of</strong> being supporters <strong>of</strong> or sympathetic<br />
to the opposition.<br />
Mangwende, who is also the chairman<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists<br />
(ZUJ) in Manicaland Province,<br />
said that his arrest is mere harassment<br />
by the police. “They are intimidating<br />
journalists to hinder them from conducting<br />
their business pr<strong>of</strong>essionally.<br />
This type <strong>of</strong> harassment should be condemned,”<br />
said Mangwende.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-17<br />
PERSON(S): Aaron Ufumeli, Assel<br />
Gwekerere<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained<br />
On May 9, 2002, “The Daily News”<br />
reported that the Criminal Investigation<br />
Department (CID) briefly detained<br />
reporter Assel Gwekerere and<br />
Aaron Ufumeli, a photographer for<br />
the newspaper, on Tuesday May 7.<br />
The journalists were handcuffed by<br />
the police outside a city hotel in Harare<br />
while photographing a man suspected<br />
<strong>of</strong> being involved in a multimilliondollar<br />
scandal, according to “The Daily<br />
News”. It is alleged that the police had<br />
set a trap to apprehend the man.<br />
“The Daily News” reported that the<br />
police thought the two journalists were<br />
working in cahoots with the suspected<br />
man and therefore this led to their arrest.<br />
Ufumeli told MISA-Zimbabwe that<br />
the police thought they were working<br />
in cahoots with the suspected man because<br />
<strong>of</strong> their timely arrival at the scene<br />
<strong>of</strong> the incident and because coincidentally<br />
the vehicle they were using was<br />
just behind that <strong>of</strong> the conman.<br />
Ufumeli said the police refused to listen<br />
to them at the scene <strong>of</strong> the incident,<br />
when they identified themselves<br />
So This Is Democracy? 223
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
as journalists. “They said they would<br />
only entertain statements upon arrival<br />
at the police station,” Ufumeli said.<br />
Ufumeli and Gwekerere were handcuffed<br />
and shoved into a police vehicle<br />
together with the suspect. They<br />
were taken to Highlands Police Station<br />
where they were questioned separately<br />
and released later without any<br />
charges.<br />
Ufumeli was told to destroy the photographs<br />
he had taken at the scene <strong>of</strong><br />
the incident as a condition for their<br />
release. Ufumeli told MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that the detectives informed him<br />
that they did not want their pictures to<br />
appear in “The Daily News”.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-17<br />
PERSON(S): Bornwell Chakaodza,<br />
Farai Mutsaka, Fungai Kanyuchi<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
On May 16, 2002, Bornwell<br />
Chakaodza, the editor <strong>of</strong> the independent<br />
Sunday newspaper “The Standard”,<br />
and journalists Farai Mutsaka and<br />
Fungai Kanyuchi <strong>of</strong> the same newspaper<br />
were arrested on allegations <strong>of</strong><br />
having written “falsehoods”.<br />
The three individuals were arrested<br />
at around 1:00 p.m. (local time) by the<br />
Criminal Investigations Department<br />
for allegedly writing falsehoods about<br />
the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP).<br />
They were detained at Harare central<br />
police station.<br />
In an article entitled “Police in sex<br />
for freedom deals?” which appeared<br />
in the 12 May edition <strong>of</strong> “The Standard”,<br />
entertainment editor Kanyuchi<br />
wrote that ZRP <strong>of</strong>ficers were having<br />
sexual relations with commercial sex<br />
224 So This Is Democracy?<br />
workers as a condition for their release.<br />
Kanyuchi quoted commercial sex<br />
workers who said the police were involved<br />
in such behaviour. “These revelations<br />
follow an investigation into<br />
the operations <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the city’s<br />
ladies <strong>of</strong> the night who say they are<br />
part <strong>of</strong> a ‘sacred cow network’ with the<br />
police <strong>of</strong>ficers, which sees them providing<br />
sex in exchange for freedom<br />
from arrest,” Kanyuchi wrote in the<br />
story. The story quotes Sergeant<br />
Mhondoro <strong>of</strong> Avondale police station<br />
denying the allegations.<br />
Mutsaka was arrested over a lead<br />
and first page story in the same newspaper<br />
that stated that the Zimbabwean<br />
government has acquired an assortment<br />
<strong>of</strong> anti-riot gear and military<br />
hardware from Israel. The story entitled<br />
“Deadly riot gear arrives” includes<br />
a picture <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the riot vehicles the<br />
police has acquired. The reporter contacted<br />
Home Affairs Minister John<br />
Nkomo who refused to comment on<br />
the basis that he was at a funeral.<br />
“The Standard” management has<br />
informed its lawyers Atherstone and<br />
Cook <strong>of</strong> the development. Linda Cook<br />
is representing the three journalists.<br />
In a statement to MISA’s Zimbabwe<br />
chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe), Cook said<br />
that the three journalists are being<br />
charged under the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act,<br />
Section 80 (1) Subsection 1 (a and b).<br />
Section 80 is entitled “abuse <strong>of</strong> journalistic<br />
privilege” and reads: “A journalist<br />
shall be deemed to have abused<br />
his journalistic privilege and committed<br />
an <strong>of</strong>fence if he does the following<br />
a) Falsifies and fabricates information,<br />
b) Publishes falsehoods”. Subsection<br />
2 reads: “A person guilty <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence<br />
shall be liable to a fine not exceeding
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
one hundred thousand dollars or to<br />
imprisonment for a period not exceeding<br />
two years”.<br />
On May 16, Cook told MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that “warned and cautioned”<br />
statements had been recorded from the<br />
journalists and that she was still trying<br />
to establish whether the police were<br />
going keep them for the night.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-05-17<br />
PERSON(S): Andrew Meldrum,<br />
Jan Raath, Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
The Supreme Court has thrown out<br />
an urgent application by three journalists<br />
seeking the determination <strong>of</strong><br />
their matter in which they are challenging<br />
the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> some<br />
clauses <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act.<br />
On Thursday May 16, 2002, the<br />
court ruled that journalists Jan Raath,<br />
Andrew Meldrum and Peta<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t must follow the normal<br />
procedure, as there are no sufficient<br />
grounds to warrant the case being dealt<br />
with as an urgent matter. Beatrice<br />
Mtetwa, the journalists’ lawyer, was<br />
informed in a letter from the Supreme<br />
Court Registrar that their urgent application<br />
was placed before a judge in the<br />
chambers who said the matter was not<br />
urgent and instructed the applicants to<br />
follow the normal procedure.<br />
The three journalists are questioning<br />
the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> certain sections<br />
<strong>of</strong> the act and want them repealed.<br />
The act mentions the establishment <strong>of</strong><br />
a <strong>Media</strong> and Information Commission<br />
that will be responsible for the accreditation<br />
<strong>of</strong> journalists among other<br />
things. The commission has still not<br />
been set up as the act came into effect<br />
in March.<br />
“As a result, the applicants have not<br />
been able to apply to the commission<br />
if they wish to do so. In my pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
view, it is imperative that the<br />
application and constitutionality, or<br />
otherwise, <strong>of</strong> the impugned sections be<br />
determined as soon as possible but in<br />
any event before 16 June 2002 as the<br />
applicants’ guaranteed constitutional<br />
rights will be clearly affected,” said the<br />
journalists’ lawyer.<br />
Reportedly, as <strong>of</strong> June 16 it will be<br />
unlawful and a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence to<br />
practice as a journalist without accreditation<br />
from the commission. At the<br />
same time, however, the act has a transitional<br />
provision which states that any<br />
journalist who was accredited before<br />
the act’s coming into operation shall<br />
be deemed to be accredited for the remainder<br />
<strong>of</strong> the year.<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State for Information<br />
and Publicity Jonathan Moyo said in<br />
his opposing papers that it was incorrect<br />
to state that the journalists would<br />
be stripped <strong>of</strong> their rights on that date.<br />
“Any journalist who was accredited<br />
before 15 March 2002 shall remain<br />
accredited for the remainder <strong>of</strong> the year<br />
2002. It is therefore denied that any<br />
journalist who is not accredited by 16<br />
June 2002, risks arrest unless this matter<br />
is heard urgently. The applicants’<br />
rights will not be affected until 31<br />
December 2002, when their press<br />
cards expire,” Moyo said.<br />
The Minister added that regulations<br />
relating to registration and accreditation<br />
<strong>of</strong> journalists were in the process<br />
<strong>of</strong> being drafted. “I am therefore firm<br />
in my belief that applicants’ rights are<br />
not in immediate question or danger.<br />
In the circumstances, I maintain there’s<br />
So This Is Democracy? 225
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
no urgency in this matter and respectfully<br />
submit that it should be dealt with<br />
in accordance with the rules <strong>of</strong> this<br />
honourable court but not on an urgent<br />
basis,” Moyo said.<br />
In papers filed at the Supreme Court,<br />
Raath, Meldrum and Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
asked the court to declare Sections 71<br />
(1), 79 (2), 79 (6), 80 and 83 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act unconstitutional. The<br />
journalists argued these sections contravene<br />
Section 20 (1) <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe<br />
constitution, which guarantees<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, receiving and<br />
imparting information as a right.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-05-21<br />
PERSON(S): Bornwell Chakaodza,<br />
Farai Mutsaka, Fungai Kanyuchi<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained (released<br />
on bail)<br />
226 So This Is Democracy?<br />
On Friday May 17, 2002, three journalists<br />
arrested on May 16 for allegedly<br />
writing “falsehoods” were released<br />
on bail. They were detained for<br />
one night at the Harare Central Police<br />
Station.<br />
“The Standard” editor Bornwell<br />
Chakaodza, entertainment editor<br />
Fungayi Kanyuchi and senior reporter<br />
Farai Mutsaka were released on bail<br />
<strong>of</strong> Z$10,000 (approx. US$183) each<br />
by Harare magistrate Joyce Negonde.<br />
Kanyuchi told MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that he and his colleagues were released<br />
at around 1:00 p.m. (local time)<br />
and ordered to report to the Law and<br />
Order Section once every two weeks<br />
until 3 June when the case is to be tried.<br />
The journalists’ lawyer, Roseline<br />
Zigomo <strong>of</strong> Atherstone and Cook, said<br />
that the state’s case is that the journalists<br />
wrote “falsehoods” and did not<br />
verify facts about the acquisition <strong>of</strong><br />
anti-riot gear and “sex for freedom”<br />
deals between police and prostitutes.<br />
Kanyuchi stated, “This is a plot by the<br />
police to intimidate us since our stories<br />
are factually correct.”<br />
Commenting on the arrests in the<br />
May 19 edition <strong>of</strong> “The Standard”,<br />
Chakaodza said that the police was<br />
deliberately targeting private media<br />
journalists while leaving the state media<br />
alone. “I do not know when I ever<br />
saw such a conglomeration <strong>of</strong> lies peddled<br />
in the so-called public media and<br />
Moyo has done nothing about it,” said<br />
Chakaodza. “We have a minister who<br />
has become too big for his ministerial<br />
boots and is day in and day out literally<br />
destroying Zimbabwe. But Moyo<br />
must know that nothing endures forever.<br />
Everything perishes in time and<br />
Moyo’s time is not that far <strong>of</strong>f. Why<br />
he is at war with journalists and the<br />
society as a whole boggles the mind,”<br />
said Chakaodza. The act under which<br />
the journalists are being charged seeks<br />
to criminalise journalists and makes<br />
them liable to pay heavy fines or face<br />
two years in jail for publishing “falsehoods.”<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-05-22<br />
PERSON(S): Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota, editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong><br />
the private daily newspaper “The<br />
Daily News”, was arrested on Monday<br />
May 20, 2002 on allegations <strong>of</strong><br />
publishing “falsehoods” and thereby<br />
breaching provisions <strong>of</strong> the Access to<br />
Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Act.<br />
Nyarota was arrested by police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
at around 10:00 a.m. (local time)<br />
at the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> “The Daily News”.<br />
He was released five hours later. The<br />
editor was arrested in connection with<br />
a story published in the April 23 edition<br />
<strong>of</strong> “The Daily News” that said<br />
two young girls had witnessed the decapitation<br />
<strong>of</strong> their mother by alleged<br />
supporters <strong>of</strong> the ruling Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
National Union Patriotic Front<br />
(ZANU-PF) party in Magunje, province<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mashonaland West.<br />
Nyarota’s lawyer, Lawrence<br />
Chibwe <strong>of</strong> Stumbles and Rowe, told<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe that the editor was<br />
arrested and charged under Section 80<br />
(1b) <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act, for authorising<br />
the publication <strong>of</strong> “falsehoods”<br />
without verifying the facts.<br />
Chibwe was not sure when Nyarota<br />
would be tried but said the police were<br />
going to proceed by way <strong>of</strong> summons<br />
once they had completed their investigation.<br />
The arrests <strong>of</strong> journalists Nyarota,<br />
Lloyd Mudiwa, Collin Chiwanza and<br />
Andrew Meldrum, a correspondent<br />
for the British newspaper “The Guardian”,<br />
followed the publication <strong>of</strong> a 23<br />
April article in “The Daily News”.<br />
A magistrate court in Harare ruled<br />
on May 7 that Mudiwa and Meldrum<br />
have a case to answer. The two journalists<br />
were remanded out <strong>of</strong> custody<br />
to May 22. Charges against Chiwanza<br />
were dropped.<br />
In a front-page story on April 27,<br />
“The Daily News” apologised to the<br />
ruling party and to the government,<br />
after it was revealed that the husband<br />
<strong>of</strong> the victim had misled the newspaper.<br />
The apology is in line with the requirements<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act,<br />
which states that a publication must<br />
issue a retraction and apology in the<br />
event <strong>of</strong> its story being proven wrong.<br />
However, the police went on to arrest<br />
several journalists despite the apology.<br />
The journalists have also argued that<br />
they had not intended to lie but rather<br />
were genuinely misled.<br />
The new media law places stringent<br />
measures on the media. If convicted,<br />
journalists face a fine <strong>of</strong> Z$100,000<br />
(approx. US$1,800), up to two years<br />
in jail, or both.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-22<br />
PERSON(S): Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota,<br />
Mark Chavunduka<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
Zimbabwe’s police spokesperson,<br />
Assistant Police Commissioner<br />
Wayne Bvudzijena, has initiated legal<br />
proceedings against and is seeking<br />
damages from “The Standard”<br />
and “The Daily News” over what he<br />
alleges to be defamatory articles<br />
about him that were published in the<br />
two private newspapers.<br />
Bvudzijena is also suing “The Daily<br />
News” editor Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota and<br />
“The Standard” editor Mark<br />
Chavunduka.<br />
The police’s chief public relations<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer is alleging that the newspapers<br />
wrote that he once served in the militia<br />
<strong>of</strong> Bishop Abel Muzorewa during<br />
the colonial era. Muzorewa was opposed<br />
to the ruling party and present<br />
government, under which Bvudzijena<br />
is serving.<br />
Bvudzijena’s lawyer, Jasper<br />
So This Is Democracy? 227
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
Musimbe <strong>of</strong> Musimbe and Associates,<br />
filed a Z$1.7 million (approx.<br />
US$31,000) lawsuit against the independent<br />
papers. Z$900,000 (approx.<br />
US$16,500) is being claimed from<br />
“The Daily News” and Z$800,000<br />
(approx. US$14,600) from “The<br />
Standard”. Musimbe said he received<br />
instructions to that effect and that<br />
summons had been issued to the defendants.<br />
“The Standard” first carried the<br />
story with a headline entitled “Police<br />
Chief Served in Rhodesian Army”, in<br />
which it was said that Bvudzijena<br />
served as a quartermaster in Bishop<br />
Muzorewa’s “Pfumo Revanhu militia”<br />
between 1978 and 1980. “The<br />
Daily News” reproduced the story the<br />
next day, February 24 2002, quoting<br />
from “The Standard”, under a headline<br />
entitled “Bvudzijena’s hidden<br />
past exposed”. Both stories included<br />
pictures <strong>of</strong> Bvudzijena.<br />
The lawsuit states that the stories<br />
were malicious, defamatory and bent<br />
on tarnishing Bvudzijena’s image.<br />
The assistant police commissioner<br />
further argues that the newspapers alleged<br />
that as assistant commissioner<br />
and head <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe Republic<br />
Police Press and Public Relations Section,<br />
he abused his <strong>of</strong>fice and public<br />
resources under his control. He also<br />
said that the articles deemed him to<br />
be unpr<strong>of</strong>essional in conducting his<br />
duties and that he was incapable <strong>of</strong><br />
holding such an <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
“The headlines in both papers and<br />
‘The Daily News’ picture caption<br />
were defamatory in that they suggested<br />
that he was a murderer and<br />
committed horrible unlawful and/or<br />
criminal acts or atrocities,” read part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the lawyers’ heads <strong>of</strong> argument.<br />
228 So This Is Democracy?<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-30<br />
PERSON(S): Bornwell Chakaodza,<br />
Fungayi Kanyuchi<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Bornwell Chakaodza and Fungayi<br />
Kanyuchi, editor and Entertainment<br />
editor, respectively, <strong>of</strong> the weekly<br />
English-language newspaper “The<br />
Standard”, were arrested on Tuesday<br />
May 28, 2002 on allegations <strong>of</strong> having<br />
written falsehoods.<br />
The two journalists were arrested in<br />
connection with an article that appeared<br />
in the newspaper on May 26,<br />
which criticised the manner in which<br />
the Zimbabwe Republic Police handled<br />
journalists. The article was titled<br />
“The private media’s burden”.<br />
In the article, Kanyuchi pointed out<br />
that the police enjoy harassing journalists,<br />
take orders from “above” and follow<br />
directives that they do not even<br />
understand themselves.<br />
The story was partly a narration <strong>of</strong><br />
his experience in police cells when he<br />
was arrested for allegedly writing<br />
falsehoods in contravention <strong>of</strong> Section<br />
80 <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act.<br />
In the story, Kanyuchi said that the<br />
police hauled him into cells with blood<br />
stained walls and floors and put him<br />
and colleagues in a filthy six-sleeper<br />
cell with 21 other arrestees. The journalists<br />
signed warned and cautioned<br />
statements in the presence <strong>of</strong> their lawyer,<br />
Linda Cook <strong>of</strong> Atherston and<br />
Cook. They were released immediately<br />
afterwards.<br />
In a telephone interview with<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe, Kanyuchi said the<br />
police were out to harass the independ-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ent media. “These arrests reflect the<br />
low levels to which the police have<br />
sunk. There are real criminals out there<br />
but the police are now bent on targeting<br />
the independent media. This is a<br />
misdirection <strong>of</strong> efforts which is wasteful,”<br />
he said.<br />
“This is sheer harassment by the<br />
police and it has become extremely<br />
irritating, especially knowing that there<br />
is no case to answer. We are just pr<strong>of</strong>essionals<br />
going about our daily business,”<br />
Chakaodza told MISA-Zimbabwe.<br />
On May 23, Chakaodza and senior<br />
reporter Farai Mutsaka were arrested<br />
and charged with having written a false<br />
story on the “impeding” personnel<br />
changes at the state-run newspaper<br />
company, Zimpapers, and the national<br />
broadcaster, Zimbabwe Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZBC). They were briefly<br />
detained at the Harare Central Police<br />
Station, where they were questioned<br />
and released after the police recorded<br />
a warned and cautioned statement. An<br />
article in the “The Standard”’s May 12<br />
issue reported that Information Minister<br />
Jonathan Moyo was contemplating<br />
making editorial changes at<br />
Zimpapers and the ZBC. The story alleged<br />
that new appointments would be<br />
made according to Moyo’s preferences.<br />
Moyo dismissed the story as<br />
false the following day and accused the<br />
newspaper <strong>of</strong> deliberately lying. The<br />
two journalists were charged under<br />
Section 80 <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-05-31<br />
PERSON(S): Andrew Meldrum,<br />
Lloyd Mudiwa<br />
VIOLATION(S):Detained, legislation<br />
On Thursday May 30, 2002, a magistrate’s<br />
court ruled that Lloyd<br />
Mudiwa, a reporter from the private<br />
daily newspaper “The Daily News”,<br />
and Andrew Meldrum, a foreign correspondent<br />
for the British newspaper<br />
“The Guardian”, must be tried on allegations<br />
<strong>of</strong> having written “falsehoods”.<br />
Both journalists are being<br />
charged under the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act.<br />
Harare Magistrate Joyce Negonde<br />
said Meldrum, a permanent resident <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe, would stand trial on June<br />
12. Mudiwa’s trial date is set for June<br />
20.<br />
The case against Meldrum and<br />
Mudiwa originated from a story run<br />
in “The Daily News” and “The Guardian”<br />
about allegations that vigilante<br />
supporters <strong>of</strong> the ruling Zimbabwe<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n National Union Patriotic Front<br />
(ZANU-PF) party had beheaded a<br />
woman. “The Daily News” later apologised<br />
to the ruling party after the story<br />
proved to be false.<br />
Neither journalist spoke after the 30<br />
May hearing. Their lawyer Beatrice<br />
Mtetwa said, “We are happy the state<br />
has finally set a date and we hope we<br />
can prove our case that the state is being<br />
vindictive with these prosecutions.”<br />
Journalists Mudiwa, Meldrum and<br />
Collin Chiwanza were arrested following<br />
the publication <strong>of</strong> an article on<br />
April 23 in which “The Daily News”<br />
alleged that two young girls had witnessed<br />
the beheading <strong>of</strong> their mother<br />
by alleged ZANU-PF supporters in the<br />
rural area <strong>of</strong> Magunje.<br />
On May 7, a magistrate court in<br />
Harare ruled that Mudiwa and<br />
Meldrum would have to stand trial.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 229
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
The two journalists were remanded out<br />
<strong>of</strong> custody until May 22.<br />
In a front-page story on April 27,<br />
“The Daily News” apologised to the<br />
ruling party and to the government after<br />
it was revealed that the husband <strong>of</strong><br />
the victim had misled the newspaper.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-05-31<br />
INSTITUTION(S): National Development<br />
Association (NDA)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
The Zimbabwe High Court has ordered<br />
the Zimbabwe Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZBC) to start airing the<br />
banned programme Talk to the Nation<br />
within five days. The ZBC banned the<br />
programme in July 2001. Talk to the<br />
Nation is sponsored by the National<br />
Development Association (NDA).<br />
High Court Judge Justice Paradza<br />
said the matter was simply a contractual<br />
dispute, and ruled that the ZBC<br />
unlawfully terminated the programme<br />
in violation <strong>of</strong> the contract. “This matter<br />
to me is a simple and straightforward<br />
contractual dispute. I am satisfied<br />
that the ZBC unlawfully terminated<br />
the contract, so the NDA is<br />
granted relief,” Justice Paradza said in<br />
his judgment.<br />
NDA’s programme was banned on<br />
June 4 2001. The ZBC and NDA had<br />
signed a contract on March 24, 2001.<br />
The judgment specifies that the remainder<br />
<strong>of</strong> NDA’s 26 programmes are<br />
to be aired over the next 23 consecutive<br />
weeks, starting on Thursday June<br />
6, 2002 at 9:00 p.m. (local time). The<br />
ZBC was ordered to make available<br />
the personnel, equipment and studio<br />
facilities that are necessary for the<br />
broadcasting <strong>of</strong> the programme.<br />
230 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Justice Paradza said the terms used<br />
to ban the NDA’s programme were<br />
unlawful and the ZBC had failed to<br />
substantiate its arguments to the court.<br />
Advocate Adam Kara, representing<br />
Information and Publicity Minister<br />
Jonathan Moyo and the ZBC, said the<br />
programme was cancelled on policy<br />
grounds and was lawful in terms <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ZBC Commercialisation Act. He further<br />
said that the cancellation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
programme had not prejudiced the<br />
NDA, which could not claim airtime.<br />
Kara also argued that since the programme<br />
was a live production, it was<br />
extremely difficult to edit, became a<br />
“free for all,” and caused unnecessary<br />
alarm to some viewers. He further argued<br />
that since the ZBC had full editorial<br />
control and production <strong>of</strong> programmes,<br />
the corporation was entitled<br />
to withdraw the production. Kara had<br />
also argued that Moyo be removed as<br />
a respondent in the matter, arguing that<br />
the Minister was not involved in the<br />
ZBC’s day-to-day operations.<br />
However, the NDA’s lawyer, Advocate<br />
Pearson Nherere, argued that the<br />
NDA had not breached the agreement<br />
it entered into with the ZBC. He added<br />
that the reasons given for the cancellation<br />
were unjustifiable in terms <strong>of</strong> the<br />
contract entered into. He further argued<br />
that Minister Moyo was behind the<br />
banning <strong>of</strong> the programme and was<br />
therefore rightfully cited as a respondent.<br />
Nherere also stated that by cancelling<br />
the programme, the ZBC was<br />
denying members <strong>of</strong> the public their<br />
constitutional right to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression,<br />
since the ZBC is a public institution.<br />
The court heard that Munyaradzi<br />
Hwengwere, then the principal press<br />
secretary in the Department <strong>of</strong> Infor-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
mation, had said the decision to ban<br />
the programme was not made by the<br />
government minister but by the ZBC<br />
board, although the government supported<br />
the move. Hwengwere is now<br />
the ZBC’s chief executive <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
In a supporting affidavit, NDA<br />
Chairperson Mutumwa Mawere said<br />
NDA Coordinator Kindness Paradza<br />
advised him on June 1, 2001 that<br />
Hwengwere had expressed some sentiments<br />
over the programme. To further<br />
prove that it was Moyo who ordered<br />
that the programme be banned,<br />
Mawere said he called the Minister to<br />
find out if there was any problem with<br />
the programme, to which Moyo replied<br />
that the programme could not continue<br />
in its present form.<br />
“I called Moyo, who was then in<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>, to find out from him<br />
whether there was indeed any problem<br />
with the show. Moyo confirmed the<br />
sentiments expressed by Hwengwere.<br />
He essentially stated to me that the<br />
programme could not be allowed to<br />
continue in its present form,” said<br />
Mawere. “Moyo further advised me<br />
that his ministry could not allow a situation<br />
where the ZBC surrenders ownership<br />
<strong>of</strong> a live programme to a civic<br />
organisation or such other outside person,”<br />
said Mawere.<br />
Mawere went on to say that he later<br />
received a call from then ZBC director<br />
general Luke Munyawarara, who<br />
said he had spoken to Moyo over the<br />
programme and would be further consulting<br />
Moyo over the issue. Three<br />
days later, Mawere received a letter<br />
cancelling the programme on unclear<br />
policy grounds.<br />
It was generally believed that Moyo<br />
was angered by the appearance <strong>of</strong><br />
Tapiwa Mashakada, an opposition<br />
Movement for Democratic Change<br />
Member <strong>of</strong> Parliament, on the programme,<br />
in which he outclassed the<br />
ruling party’s Member <strong>of</strong> Parliament,<br />
David Chapfika, in explaining Zimbabwe’s<br />
economic problems and possible<br />
solutions.<br />
The judge ruled that Moyo, who facilitated<br />
the ban <strong>of</strong> the programme,<br />
must pay part <strong>of</strong> the legal costs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
trial, together with the ZBC. The ZBC<br />
and Moyo have since expressed their<br />
intention to appeal the judgment.<br />
On June 6, 2001, ZBC Chairperson<br />
Gideon Gono denied that the banning<br />
<strong>of</strong> the live phone in programme Talk<br />
to the Nation was based on political<br />
grounds.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-06-04<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Joy TV<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
The privately-owned broadcasting<br />
station Joy Television (Joy TV) closed<br />
down on May 31, 2002. The closure<br />
means that Zimbabwe’s experiment<br />
with diversifying broadcasting has<br />
failed.<br />
Joy TV closed down after its lease<br />
agreement with the Zimbabwe Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZBC) was cancelled<br />
on the grounds that the agreement<br />
violated the 2001 Broadcasting<br />
Services Act. Joy TV was leasing TV2,<br />
a second station owned by ZBC.<br />
Joy TV’s closure means that the<br />
state-controlled ZBC is now the sole<br />
broadcaster. Although the 2001 act<br />
purportedly regulates the entry <strong>of</strong> other<br />
players into the industry, no private<br />
station has yet been licensed to date.<br />
The ZBC maintains its monopoly.<br />
Joy TV’s short life was plagued by<br />
So This Is Democracy? 231
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
numerous challenges, including direct<br />
interference from the government. For<br />
example, the station was ordered to<br />
drop the BBC news bulletin from its<br />
daily broadcast. Joy TV was also restricted<br />
from airing local news with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> musicals and apolitical<br />
documentaries. The ZBC’s control <strong>of</strong><br />
Joy TV is largely responsible for the<br />
station’s inability to survive.<br />
Joy TV’s closure means that there<br />
is an increased need for new players<br />
to enter the broadcasting industry. The<br />
government has largely ignored calls<br />
to amend the Broadcasting Services<br />
Act, which virtually makes it impossible<br />
for private players to enter the<br />
industry. No foreign investment is allowed<br />
into the industry and potential<br />
broadcasters are required to adhere to<br />
strict content guidelines.<br />
The acting chief executive <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong><br />
the ZBC, Jennifer Tanyanyiwa, said in<br />
a statement on April 22 that the act<br />
prohibits the corporation from leasing<br />
out its second channel. The ZBC began<br />
leasing TV2 to Joy TV in July<br />
1997. Joy TV, owned by Flame Lily<br />
Broadcasting Limited, was permitted<br />
to broadcast daily from 5:00 p.m. to<br />
10:00 p.m. (local time).<br />
MISA reported on May 2 that Joy<br />
TV was seeking to extend its lease. Joy<br />
TV hoped that the Broadcasting Authority<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe (BAZ) and ZBC<br />
management would recognise that a<br />
large investment had been made. The<br />
application also pointed out that Joy<br />
TV signed contracts with advertisers<br />
until the end <strong>of</strong> 2002 and that it had<br />
loyal viewers and workers who had to<br />
be considered.<br />
“The Daily News” has since alleged<br />
that the ZBC’s announcement to shut<br />
down Joy TV coincides with reports<br />
232 So This Is Democracy?<br />
that the new government-owned Zimbabwe<br />
Inter-<strong>Africa</strong> News Agency<br />
(Ziana) is set to operate a 24-hour television<br />
channel on TV2.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-05<br />
PERSON(S): Iden Wetherell<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation<br />
Iden Wetherell, editor <strong>of</strong> the “Zimbabwe<br />
Independent” weekly, was questioned<br />
by police on May 30, 2002.<br />
The police questioned Wetherell<br />
about a picture that was published in<br />
the newspaper’s May 17 issue <strong>of</strong> a<br />
semi-naked Amazonian man wearing<br />
traditional clothes. Wetherell was subsequently<br />
charged under the Censorship<br />
Act for publishing pictures containing<br />
nudity.<br />
Wetherell’s lawyer, Linda Cook,<br />
said that the charges against her client<br />
are unsustainable since no consent was<br />
given by the attorney general’s <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
as required by the act. She also said<br />
that the concerned picture is not obscene<br />
at all and if police insist on pursuing<br />
the matter they would have to<br />
proceed by way <strong>of</strong> summons.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-04<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State for Information and<br />
Publicity Jonathan Moyo has appointed<br />
a <strong>Media</strong> Commission to regulate<br />
the operations <strong>of</strong> the industry, as<br />
provided for in the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act.<br />
The commission, made up <strong>of</strong> govern-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ment supporters, will police “wayward”<br />
journalists.<br />
Tafataona Mahoso, the chairperson<br />
<strong>of</strong> the commission, is a media lecturer<br />
at Harare Polytechnic. The other<br />
members are Rino Zhuwarara,<br />
Sephath Mlambo, Pascal<br />
Mukondiwa, Jonathan Maphenduka<br />
and Alpinos Makoni.<br />
Women’s groups have expressed<br />
shock at the glaring gender imbalance<br />
in the commission. The Zimbabwe<br />
Women’s Resource Center and<br />
Network (ZWRCN) and MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
have launched a joint campaign<br />
to have the composition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
commission changed. A petition addressing<br />
gender imbalance and the<br />
questionable credibility <strong>of</strong> some<br />
commission members will be presented<br />
to Moyo.<br />
Concerns raised include that many<br />
<strong>of</strong> the commissioners, including the<br />
chairperson, are supporters <strong>of</strong> the ruling<br />
party. Also, sources within the industry<br />
and journalists’ unions said<br />
they were not consulted regarding the<br />
appointments. Union leaders told<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe that they had not<br />
nominated any <strong>of</strong> the members appointed<br />
by Moyo.<br />
Moyo may have breached the law<br />
by not consulting the industry and<br />
journalists’ unions. Section 40, Subsection<br />
(2) <strong>of</strong> the Act clearly states<br />
that, “The Board shall consists <strong>of</strong> no<br />
fewer than five members and not<br />
more than seven members (at least<br />
three <strong>of</strong> whom shall be nominated by<br />
an association <strong>of</strong> journalists and an<br />
association <strong>of</strong> media houses) appointed<br />
by the Minister after consultation<br />
with the President and in accordance<br />
with any directions that the<br />
President may give him.”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-19<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
The government has announced a new<br />
law requiring that owners <strong>of</strong> media<br />
outlets and journalists pay exorbitant<br />
fees in order to operate and work in<br />
Zimbabwe. The new fees were announced<br />
as an amendment to the Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Act that was passed in February<br />
2002.<br />
The new law stipulates that domestic<br />
media must pay an application fee<br />
<strong>of</strong> Z$20,000 (approx. US$360) and a<br />
registration fee <strong>of</strong> Z$500,000 (approx.<br />
US$9,000). Foreign media will be<br />
charged an application fee <strong>of</strong> Z$2,000<br />
(approx. US$36) and a registration fee<br />
<strong>of</strong> US$10,000.<br />
Zimbabwean correspondents for<br />
foreign media are required to pay an<br />
application fee <strong>of</strong> US$50 and an accreditation<br />
fee <strong>of</strong> US$1,000. Foreign<br />
journalists will be charged US$600 for<br />
temporary accreditation. Local journalists<br />
will be required to pay an application<br />
fee <strong>of</strong> Z$1,000 (approx.<br />
US$18) and an accreditation fee <strong>of</strong><br />
Z$5,000 (approx. US$90).<br />
Until now, the government has only<br />
charged nominal fees to accredit journalists<br />
for special events. The government<br />
stated that media already registered<br />
under the Companies Act and<br />
journalists with existing press cards<br />
will be allowed to continue their work<br />
until the new applications are processed.<br />
In addition, the new law requires<br />
media to disclose their financial status<br />
and pay an annual levy <strong>of</strong> half <strong>of</strong> one<br />
So This Is Democracy? 233
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> their annual gross pr<strong>of</strong>it. The<br />
levy will be funneled into a government<br />
media fund.<br />
A newly appointed government media<br />
and information commission has<br />
the power to refuse to register a media<br />
organisation or accredit a journalist,<br />
provided that they state a reason for<br />
their decision.<br />
Journalists’ unions and critics point<br />
out that the fees are exorbitant and<br />
curtail press freedom. Journalists<br />
working for foreign media in Zimbabwe<br />
have gone to the country’s highest<br />
court to challenge the law. The Foreign<br />
Correspondents Association <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe has labelled some sections<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act as unconstitutional.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-06-18<br />
PERSON(S): Guthrie Munyuki,<br />
Shadreck Mukwecheni, Urginia<br />
Mauluka<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, beaten,<br />
censored<br />
234 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Three employees <strong>of</strong> the newspaper<br />
“The Daily News” who were arrested<br />
on June 16, 2002 were released on<br />
bail <strong>of</strong> 3,000 Zimbabwe dollars (about<br />
US$55) each on June 18.<br />
Reporter Guthrie Munyuki, photographer<br />
Urginia Mauluka and driver<br />
Shadreck Mukwecheni were arrested<br />
while covering an opposition gathering<br />
that was brutally disbanded by the<br />
local police. The three media workers<br />
were also beaten up by the police.<br />
Munyuki sustained a fracture to his<br />
right wrist and Mauluka’s elbow was<br />
swollen, according to a doctor who<br />
was granted access to the three staffers<br />
from “The Daily News” on June<br />
16. The police have since denied medical<br />
attention to the three media workers<br />
and to the many opposition Movement<br />
for Democratic Change (MDC)<br />
party supporters, who were also arrested<br />
on June 16.<br />
At the time <strong>of</strong> the arrests, the police<br />
seized Mauluka’s camera, threw it to<br />
the ground and broke it. The three<br />
media workers were forced to lie on<br />
the ground, after which the police took<br />
turns beating them up with baton sticks<br />
and rifle buts. Approximately 84 MDC<br />
supporters were also arrested in the<br />
incident and are currently languishing<br />
in police cells.<br />
Speaking on his mobile phone from<br />
his cell at Harare Central police station<br />
on 16 June, where he and what he<br />
estimated to be 44 other men and 40<br />
women were being held, Munyuki said<br />
a doctor was called in to examine<br />
MDC supporter Stuart Mukoyi, who<br />
was lying motionless on the cold cement<br />
floor with no blanket. The doctor<br />
also examined Munyuki in the cells.<br />
That same day, at 8:45 p.m. (local<br />
time), Munyuki told MISA, “The doctor<br />
examined me ten minutes ago and<br />
has just left. He said I sustained a fracture<br />
above my right wrist. The whole<br />
arm is now swollen and very painful.<br />
I cannot move my fingers. After they<br />
arrested us, the riot police ordered<br />
Urginia, Mukwecheni and myself to<br />
lie face down. They assaulted us on<br />
the buttocks with rifle butts and batons.<br />
I counted six <strong>of</strong>ficers who assaulted<br />
me. The same was happening to<br />
Urginia and Mukwecheni. I tried to<br />
block one blow with my arm and received<br />
a heavy blow above the wrist.”<br />
Munyuki said Mukoyi had sustained<br />
more serious injuries and had been ly-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ing motionless in the cell. “He is<br />
stretched [out] on the cold floor and<br />
cannot talk, walk or even sit. The doctor<br />
said he was concerned about him<br />
and has gone to see the police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
about him,” Munyuki reported.<br />
The doctor, who preferred to remain<br />
anonymous, later spoke to “The Daily<br />
News” that same night. He confirmed<br />
that Munyuki had sustained a fracture<br />
and said Mukoyi was in bad condition<br />
and was starting to have convulsions.<br />
“I suspect Mukoyi sustained serious<br />
abdominal injuries consistent with severe<br />
beating. He is now having convulsions,”<br />
the doctor said.<br />
Munyuki said that apart from<br />
Mukoyi and himself, it appeared that<br />
five other people had been injured, including<br />
a woman who allegedly sustained<br />
a broken leg. He confirmed that<br />
the woman had been released.<br />
The trouble started when the riot<br />
police descended on the rally organised<br />
by the MDC in Harare’s <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Unity Square and at the MDC <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
on Mbuya Nehanda Street, in the city<br />
centre. A total <strong>of</strong> 60 people, including<br />
the journalists, were arrested at the<br />
MDC <strong>of</strong>fices, while 25 others were<br />
rounded up in the square. Eyewitnesses<br />
said the police drove a Puma vehicle<br />
into a crowd <strong>of</strong> about 2,000 persons<br />
gathered outside the MDC <strong>of</strong>fices,<br />
causing people to flee in all directions.<br />
They said armed riot police arrived at<br />
the MDC <strong>of</strong>fices 20 minutes after the<br />
rally started and used brute force to<br />
break it up. MDC spokesman<br />
Learnmore Jongwe said the police<br />
fired shots into the air to disrupt the<br />
rally, before arresting people, “most <strong>of</strong><br />
whom were just passers-by caught in<br />
the crossfire.” A security guard on duty<br />
in the area said he counted five<br />
gunshots. Munyuki, Mauluka and<br />
Mukwecheni, who arrived on the scene<br />
after the rally had been dispersed, were<br />
arrested at 1:15 p.m.<br />
The police said they had known<br />
journalists from “The Daily News”<br />
would come to cover the rally because,<br />
“your newspaper always acts in cahoots<br />
with the MDC. You always lie<br />
about the police. After this, you can<br />
write about real police brutality,”<br />
Mauluka reported.<br />
Mauluka said the police had recorded<br />
the details <strong>of</strong> the arrested men<br />
and women but had not formally<br />
charged them. “They merely herded us<br />
into the cells,” he said. “They did not<br />
even search us or ask us to remove our<br />
shoes, as normally happens.” Munyuki<br />
had his mobile phone on him that night<br />
and was thus able to communicate with<br />
his <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
A police <strong>of</strong>ficer said the detained<br />
people would be charged under Section<br />
31 (c) <strong>of</strong> the Public Order and<br />
Security Act (POSA). The section<br />
states, “Any person who, at a public<br />
gathering behaves in a threatening,<br />
abusive or insulting manner intending<br />
to prevent the transaction <strong>of</strong> the business<br />
for which the gathering is called<br />
together, shall be guilty <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence<br />
and liable to a fine not exceeding<br />
$50,000, or two years in jail, or both”.<br />
The police spokesperson, Assistant<br />
Police Commissioner Wayne<br />
Bvudzijena, said the police stopped the<br />
rally because MDC activists had gone<br />
around the city beating people up and<br />
trying to provoke trouble. “We had told<br />
the organisers they could not hold their<br />
rally at the Harare Gardens because<br />
that venue and the atmosphere in the<br />
city are not conducive for political<br />
gatherings,” he told Reuters news<br />
So This Is Democracy? 235
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
agency. “We based our decision on<br />
POSA but we had agreed that they<br />
could hold their rally at their <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
We intervened when their people went<br />
around trying to provoke a situation.”<br />
Lawrence Chibwe, the lawyer for<br />
the three staffers from “The Daily<br />
News”, said that his pleas to have the<br />
three surrender to him so that a private<br />
doctor could attend to them has<br />
fallen on deaf ears. The police insisted<br />
that a government doctor would attend<br />
to them. “Munyuki, Mauluka and<br />
Mukwecheni are a sorry sight. They<br />
are actually in a state <strong>of</strong> shock. The<br />
police refused to take them to hospital<br />
despite my pleas,” said Chibwe.<br />
Under the Public Order and Security<br />
Act, the police can hold “prisoners”<br />
for seven days without charge.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-07-03<br />
PERSON(S): Chris Gande<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
Chris Gande, a reporter for “The<br />
Daily News”, was thrown out <strong>of</strong> a<br />
courtroom during court proceedings<br />
by a prison <strong>of</strong>ficial, “The Daily<br />
News” reported on June 28, 2002.<br />
Gande, who is based in the city <strong>of</strong><br />
Bulawayo, was covering court proceedings<br />
in which two prison <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
were being charged with contempt <strong>of</strong><br />
court for defying court orders to release<br />
two prisoners who had been granted<br />
bail. However, a reporter from the government<br />
controlled “Chronicle” was<br />
allowed to cover the case.<br />
“Mr. Gande, I have been ordered to<br />
ask you to leave this court,” said the<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial, without disclosing who had<br />
given the order, “The Daily News”<br />
reported.<br />
236 So This Is Democracy?<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe notes that no reasons<br />
were given as to why the reporter<br />
was ejected from the courtroom.<br />
Courtrooms are accessible to members<br />
<strong>of</strong> the public and journalists under<br />
Zimbabwean law. Though guided by<br />
dress codes and expected behaviour<br />
standards, no one can be barred from<br />
attending court proceedings.<br />
A press gallery is available to journalists,<br />
who are allowed to cover court<br />
proceedings and make these deliberations<br />
public. The prison <strong>of</strong>ficial’s action<br />
violates Gande’s rights as a journalist<br />
and citizen <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
Efforts by MISA-Zimbabwe to get<br />
a comment from Zimbabwe Prisons<br />
Service Public Relations Officer Frank<br />
Meki were unsuccessful as he was said<br />
to be out <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-07-05<br />
PERSON(S): Chris Gande<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On July 4, 2002, Chris Gande, a reporter<br />
for the “Daily News” in<br />
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest<br />
city, was charged under Section<br />
80, subsection 1(b), <strong>of</strong> the Access to<br />
Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Act, for allegedly “writing falsehoods”.<br />
Gande is accused <strong>of</strong> writing a false<br />
story in the June 9 edition <strong>of</strong> the “Daily<br />
News”. In the story, Gande states that<br />
Thandiwe Nkomo, the daughter <strong>of</strong> the<br />
late Zimbabwean vice president<br />
Joshua Nkomo, had told the newspaper<br />
that the Nkomo family had not<br />
been invited to a state gala that was<br />
being held in Nkomo’s memory in the<br />
eastern border town <strong>of</strong> Mutare. The<br />
story also said that the late vice presi-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
dent’s wife was flown to Mutare in a<br />
military helicopter at the last minute.<br />
The government, via the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity, denied<br />
the story and accused the reporter <strong>of</strong><br />
lying.<br />
On July 3, police from the Law and<br />
Order department visited the “Daily<br />
News” <strong>of</strong>fices in Bulawayo and left a<br />
message for Gande to report to the<br />
police station. Gande, however, arranged<br />
with his lawyer, Panganayi<br />
Hare, for an appointment to be made<br />
with the police for 4 July. Gande went<br />
to the police station on July 4, where<br />
he was forced to sign a “warned and<br />
cautioned” statement. In the statement,<br />
he stated that he stood by his story and<br />
had merely written what Thandiwe<br />
Nkomo had told him. The police must<br />
proceed by way <strong>of</strong> summons if they<br />
insist on taking Gande to court.<br />
The Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act has been used<br />
more than 14 times to arrest journalists<br />
in Zimbabwe.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-08-23<br />
INSTITUTION(S): National Development<br />
Association Assembly<br />
(NDA)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
The Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC) has appealed against a<br />
High Court ruling which compelled<br />
it to restore the National Development<br />
Association Assembly (NDA) programme<br />
that it terminated in 2001.<br />
The NDA won a High Court judgment<br />
on 29 May, 2002 in which the<br />
ZBC was ordered to reinstate the programme<br />
“Talk to the Nation” within<br />
five days. However, the ZBC has appealed<br />
against the ruling and is seeking<br />
the court’s dismissal <strong>of</strong> the NDA’s<br />
application. ZBC lawyers argue that<br />
High Court Justice Benjamin Paradza<br />
erred in finding that the ZBC had unlawfully<br />
terminated its contract with<br />
the NDA. They claim that the judge<br />
made a mistake in judging that since<br />
the state-run broadcasting station had<br />
illegally switched <strong>of</strong>f the NDA programme,<br />
it followed that it should restore<br />
it.<br />
“The learned judge erred in failing<br />
to take cognisance <strong>of</strong> the impossibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> the specific performance (restoration)<br />
in this instance,” said the ZBC<br />
lawyers, adding, “The learned judge<br />
also erred in finding that the second<br />
respondent, Information Minister<br />
Jonathan Moyo, was properly cited<br />
and joined in this matter.”<br />
Moyo was drawn in the matter after<br />
the NDA named him as the person<br />
behind the termination <strong>of</strong> its programme.<br />
On May 29 Justice Paradza ruled<br />
that the matter was simply a contractual<br />
dispute and that the ZBC had unlawfully<br />
terminated the programme, in<br />
violation <strong>of</strong> the contract. The NDA’s<br />
programme was banned on June 4,<br />
2001. The ZBC and NDA had signed<br />
a contract on March 24, 2001.<br />
Justice Paradza said the terms used<br />
to ban the NDA’s programmes were<br />
unlawful and the ZBC had failed to<br />
substantiate its arguments to the court.<br />
Advocate Adam Kara, representing<br />
Minister Moyo and the ZBC, said the<br />
cancellation was on policy grounds<br />
and lawful in terms <strong>of</strong> the ZBC Commercialisation<br />
Act.<br />
However, the NDA’s lawyer, Advocate<br />
Pearson Nherere, argued that the<br />
NDA had not breached the agreement<br />
So This Is Democracy? 237
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
it had entered into with the ZBC.<br />
Nherere added that the reasons given<br />
for the cancellation were unjustifiable<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> the contract. He further argued<br />
that Minister Moyo was behind<br />
the banning <strong>of</strong> the programme and was<br />
therefore rightfully cited as a respondent.<br />
He stated that by cancelling the<br />
programme, the ZBC was denying<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the public their constitutional<br />
right to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression,<br />
taking into account that the ZBC is a<br />
public institution.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-08-23<br />
PERSON(S): Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t,<br />
Precious Shumba<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored<br />
On August 14, 2002, two Zimbabwean<br />
journalists, Precious Shumba<br />
and Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t, were held hostage<br />
for about five hours, together<br />
with a commercial farmer they were<br />
interviewing at a farm located 26 kilometres<br />
west <strong>of</strong> the capital, Harare.<br />
The August 15 edition <strong>of</strong> “The Daily<br />
News” reported that Shumba, a reporter<br />
with “The Daily News”, and<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t, a correspondent for the<br />
London-based “Daily Telegraph”, together<br />
with commercial farmer<br />
Christopher Hinde, were trapped in<br />
Hinde’s house as a group <strong>of</strong> about 120<br />
ruling party supporters demanded that<br />
the reporters be handed over to them.<br />
“The Daily News” reported that the<br />
mob alleged that Shumba and<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t should have asked for<br />
permission from their superiors before<br />
interviewing the besieged farmer. The<br />
group demanded that the reporters be<br />
handed over to their “central committee”,<br />
which was to “deal with them.”<br />
238 So This Is Democracy?<br />
A driver from “The Daily News”, who<br />
was not in the house, was assaulted by<br />
the ruling party supporters. He was<br />
later saved by the mob’s “superiors”,<br />
who restrained their colleagues, leading<br />
to the release <strong>of</strong> the two journalists.<br />
The two reporters were warned<br />
against returning to the farm.<br />
In the confusion following the detention<br />
and release <strong>of</strong> the journalists,<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t lost her camera, valued at<br />
US$1,000. “The Daily News” reported<br />
that although the police were alerted<br />
<strong>of</strong> the journalists’ detention, they did<br />
not react, despite promises that they<br />
were “on their way.”<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-08-29<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Voice <strong>of</strong> The<br />
People (VOP)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Bombed<br />
The <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the aspiring community<br />
radio station The Voice <strong>of</strong> The<br />
People (VOP) were bombed on August<br />
29, 2002 at around 1:00 a.m. (local<br />
time).<br />
The radio station was bombed by<br />
three men who went to the station’s<br />
premises in Milton Park, a Harare suburb,<br />
and threw a bomb inside the building.<br />
The whole building was razed to<br />
the ground and everything inside was<br />
destroyed. MISA-Zimbabwe was informed<br />
by the VOP security guard that<br />
three men approached him at 1:00 a.m.<br />
and told him in the vernacular (Shona)<br />
language that he “must step aside lest<br />
he dies for something that he is not<br />
involved in.” According to the guard,<br />
the three men had come by foot and<br />
may have parked their car at a distance<br />
from the station’s premises. The guard<br />
also told MISA-Zimbabwe that the
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
police came to the premises at around<br />
2:00 a.m., after being informed <strong>of</strong> the<br />
bombing.<br />
VOP coordinator John Masuku said<br />
that his secretary phoned him at around<br />
8:00 a.m., as he was preparing to go to<br />
work. Masuku told MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that there was nothing suspicious when<br />
station employees left the <strong>of</strong>fice on<br />
August 28, and that no one had threatened<br />
them. Masuku added that he was<br />
in the process <strong>of</strong> contacting the station’s<br />
lawyer and was not in a position<br />
to give further comments.<br />
The radio station, which had not yet<br />
been licenced, was not broadcasting in<br />
Zimbabwe. Instead it was recording its<br />
programmes, which were being broadcast<br />
on short-wave from outside Zimbabwe.<br />
The bombing <strong>of</strong> VOP radio station<br />
comes against a background <strong>of</strong> an<br />
acrimonious relationship between the<br />
authorities and the station. The government<br />
had accused VOP <strong>of</strong> “tarnishing<br />
the country’s image” through its<br />
reporting. Police raided the radio station<br />
on July 4. Accompanied by <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
from the Broadcasting Authority <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe (BAZ) and armed with a<br />
search warrant, they raided the station<br />
in search <strong>of</strong> a transmitter and other<br />
broadcasting equipment. After failing<br />
to find the transmitter, the police confiscated<br />
133 tapes and files from the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice. Masuku informed MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that the tapes and files that the<br />
police had taken had since been returned.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-09-10<br />
PERSON(S) Griffin Shea<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
Agence France Presse (AFP) foreign<br />
correspondent Griffin Shea’s application<br />
for the renewal <strong>of</strong> his work permit<br />
was turned down by the Zimbabwean<br />
government, MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
has confirmed.<br />
Shea told MISA-Zimbabwe that, on<br />
September 7, 2002, he received a letter<br />
from the Department <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity informing him that<br />
his application had been turned down.<br />
The journalist noted that he would be<br />
going to Johannesburg, South <strong>Africa</strong>,<br />
and might return depending on the<br />
outcome <strong>of</strong> the court cases filed by the<br />
Zimbabwe Foreign Correspondents<br />
Association (ZFCA) against repressive<br />
clauses in the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act.<br />
Shea pointed out that, in June, Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
Jonathan Moyo had indicated to the<br />
AFP that he would probably not allow<br />
any foreign journalists to work in Zimbabwe.<br />
“The letter did not come as a<br />
surprise,” said Shea.<br />
Shea told MISA-Zimbabwe that a<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial, Edward Mamutse, had<br />
told him that the decision about which<br />
foreign journalists can work in Zimbabwe<br />
rests with the department and<br />
not the <strong>Media</strong> Commission.<br />
When asked to comment, Mamutse<br />
told MISA-Zimbabwe that no one had<br />
come forward yet from foreign correspondents’<br />
organisations in order to be<br />
registered. “Foreign correspondents<br />
have to register their organisation first<br />
before they are registered themselves,”<br />
said Mamutse.<br />
Andrew Meldrum, ZFCA chairperson,<br />
stated that they are unsure about<br />
what is happening with the registration<br />
<strong>of</strong> foreign correspondents. “We<br />
have told our members to make indi-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 239
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
vidual decisions on whether to register<br />
or not,” said Meldrum.<br />
Meldrum told MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
that the number <strong>of</strong> foreign correspondents<br />
based in Zimbabwe has gone<br />
down, and some have already been<br />
given until December to wind up their<br />
business and leave.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial Mamutse promised to<br />
clarify the issue with MISA-Zimbabwe<br />
on September 10.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-09-12<br />
PERSON(S) Griffin Shea<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
240 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Griffin Shea, a correspondent for<br />
Agence France Presse (AFP), is set to<br />
leave Zimbabwe on September 14,<br />
2002, following the non-renewal <strong>of</strong> his<br />
work permit by the Zimbabwean government.<br />
Shea, who has been in Zimbabwe<br />
for two years, was told to leave<br />
after the expiry <strong>of</strong> his work permit.<br />
Information and Publicity Minister<br />
Jonathan Moyo has closed all doors to<br />
the possibility <strong>of</strong> Shea remaining in<br />
Zimbabwe. The Minister dismissed<br />
calls for the renewal <strong>of</strong> Shea’s work<br />
permit, arguing that no foreign journalists<br />
can hold a permanent work permit.<br />
“We are not a banana republic wanting<br />
to please foreign journalists. We<br />
are a constitutional democracy underpinned<br />
by the rule <strong>of</strong> law,” said Moyo.<br />
“We are very proud that we are one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the countries that have trained an<br />
impressive pr<strong>of</strong>essional cadre <strong>of</strong> journalists<br />
and they need work. Shea is an<br />
American and he can go and work<br />
there,” fumed Moyo.<br />
Moyo dismissed calls for the renewal<br />
<strong>of</strong> the work permit as a show <strong>of</strong><br />
contempt for Zimbabwean laws. “In<br />
this case the law is very clear. No foreigner<br />
should be resident here as a journalist.<br />
We have made it clear that they<br />
can only be here for a limited period;<br />
in fact, the limited period is thirty<br />
days,” said Moyo.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-15<br />
INSTITUTION(S) The Daily News<br />
VIOLATION(S): Censored<br />
On October 9, 2002, the privatelyowned<br />
national daily newspaper “The<br />
Daily News” reported that a group <strong>of</strong><br />
youths from the National Youth Service<br />
programme destroyed 450 copies<br />
<strong>of</strong> the paper in the eastern border town<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mutare. The confiscated copies are<br />
valued at US$500 at the <strong>of</strong>ficial exchange<br />
rate.<br />
The youths took the newspapers to<br />
the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> Provincial Governor<br />
Oppah Muchinguri. Martin Zimudyi,<br />
“The Daily News”’s sales and distribution<br />
representative in Mutare, said<br />
the youths were angered by the daily’s<br />
headline story, which reported that<br />
President Mugabe had angrily left a<br />
<strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community<br />
(SADC) summit after being<br />
snubbed by his colleagues.<br />
Zimudyi confirmed that no one was<br />
injured in the incident. The matter was<br />
reported to the police. The newspaper<br />
further reported that efforts to get a<br />
comment from the governor’s <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
were fruitless. MISA was also unable<br />
to get an <strong>of</strong>ficial comment from the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the Provincial Governor.<br />
The Zimbabwean government<br />
launched the National Youth Service<br />
programme in 2001, purportedly to
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
inculcate patriotism and teach Zimbabwe’s<br />
history to youths. The youths,<br />
generally known as “the Taliban” or<br />
“Green Bombers”, because <strong>of</strong> their<br />
olive green military uniform, have<br />
been accused <strong>of</strong> committing violent<br />
acts against members <strong>of</strong> the opposition.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-16<br />
INSTITUTION(S) The media in<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On October 11, 2002, the Zimbabwean<br />
government announced its intention<br />
to present to Parliament a bill<br />
to amend the Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act<br />
(AIPPA). The amendments are meant<br />
to plug what the government calls<br />
“loopholes” in the media law. However,<br />
the bill will result in more powers<br />
being accorded to the Mass <strong>Media</strong><br />
Commission (referred to in the<br />
AIPPA as the <strong>Media</strong> and Information<br />
Commission). MISA believes that<br />
many <strong>of</strong> the so-called loopholes do<br />
not <strong>of</strong>fer a reprieve to media houses<br />
and journalists.<br />
The Mass <strong>Media</strong> Commission was<br />
created under the AIPPA. Its functions<br />
and powers are, inter alia:<br />
* To receive and act upon comments<br />
from the public about the administration<br />
and performance <strong>of</strong> the media in<br />
Zimbabwe;<br />
* To conduct investigations and audits<br />
to ensure compliance with any<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> the bill;<br />
* To receive and evaluate for registration<br />
and consider applications for<br />
registration from journalists;<br />
* To accredit journalists;<br />
* To enforce pr<strong>of</strong>essional and ethical<br />
standards in the media;<br />
* To authorise the collection <strong>of</strong> personal<br />
information from sources other<br />
than the person to whom the information<br />
relates;<br />
* To monitor the media and raise<br />
public awareness <strong>of</strong> the media;<br />
* To register mass media in Zimbabwe;<br />
* To investigate and resolve complaints;<br />
* To perform any powers or function<br />
that the minister may, from time<br />
to time, prescribe as a power and function<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Commission.<br />
The bill is set to amend definitions<br />
<strong>of</strong> certain important terms that relate<br />
to information and the protection <strong>of</strong><br />
“privacy” and the registration <strong>of</strong> mass<br />
media houses.<br />
Following is a breakdown <strong>of</strong> the different<br />
sections <strong>of</strong> the bill and the implications<br />
<strong>of</strong> the amendments:<br />
Clause 6 <strong>of</strong> the bill seeks to substitute<br />
Section 35 <strong>of</strong> the principal Act by<br />
framing the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> “deliberately<br />
falsifying personal information” in a<br />
less “ambiguous way”. It will replace<br />
the reference to a specific maximum<br />
fine by a “level” <strong>of</strong> a fine in accordance<br />
with the Criminal Penalties Act<br />
<strong>of</strong> 2001.<br />
According to the amendment, any<br />
person who supplies any information,<br />
which he/she knows to be false, or does<br />
not have reasonable grounds for believing<br />
it to be true, shall be guilty <strong>of</strong><br />
an <strong>of</strong>fence and liable to a fine, or imprisonment<br />
for a period not exceeding<br />
six months, or both.<br />
Clause 5 seeks to amend Section 28<br />
<strong>of</strong> the principal Act, on information to<br />
be disclosed if in the public interest,<br />
by combining into one provision the<br />
So This Is Democracy? 241
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
references to public order and security<br />
that are presently separated or duplicated<br />
in two provisions.<br />
Clause 3 seeks to replace Section 22<br />
<strong>of</strong> the principal Act so that issues <strong>of</strong><br />
personal safety are not mixed with issues<br />
<strong>of</strong> national security.<br />
The Mass <strong>Media</strong> Commission’s<br />
general powers will be enhanced by<br />
Clause 8, which seeks to provide it<br />
with powers to hold inquiries and issue<br />
orders. Presently, those powers are<br />
only provided for in the context <strong>of</strong> requests<br />
for reviews <strong>of</strong> decisions by<br />
heads <strong>of</strong> public bodies to deny access<br />
to information. With respect to the<br />
powers <strong>of</strong> the Commission to hold inquiries,<br />
it is provided in the same<br />
clause that the Commission may dispense<br />
with the formality <strong>of</strong> any inquiry<br />
where it considers that no substantial<br />
disputes <strong>of</strong> law or fact are required to<br />
be determined.<br />
A mass media service shall, if ordered<br />
to do so by the Commission,<br />
publish free <strong>of</strong> charge on the front page<br />
or centre spread, the full particulars or<br />
a summary approved by the Commission<br />
<strong>of</strong> a decision <strong>of</strong> a court or the<br />
Commission pertaining to its mass<br />
media service. If it is an electronic<br />
mass media, it must broadcast the decisions<br />
on three different occasions<br />
during prime time.<br />
Clause 10 seeks to substitute Section<br />
64 <strong>of</strong> the Act by new provisions,<br />
which frame the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> “abuse <strong>of</strong><br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression” in a manner<br />
that avoids any apparent conflict with<br />
the constitutional freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
It seeks to replace the reference<br />
to a specific maximum fine by a<br />
“level”, in accordance with the Criminal<br />
Penalties Amendment Act.<br />
The bill also seeks to exempt from<br />
242 So This Is Democracy?<br />
registration mass media service<br />
founded by or under an act <strong>of</strong> Parliament<br />
and those services consisting <strong>of</strong><br />
the activities <strong>of</strong> a person holding a license<br />
issued in terms <strong>of</strong> the Broadcasting<br />
Services Act.<br />
A representative <strong>of</strong> a foreign mass<br />
media service permitted to operate in<br />
Zimbabwe and publications <strong>of</strong> any<br />
enterprise, association, institution or<br />
any other person that are disseminated<br />
exclusively to members or employees<br />
are exempt from registration. In-house<br />
publications are not considered to be<br />
mass media services and are exempted<br />
from registration unless it is seen that<br />
they circulate their products to the general<br />
public.<br />
Clause 11 seeks to give permission<br />
to existing foreign mass media house<br />
owners to continue owning local mass<br />
media services to the extent <strong>of</strong> their<br />
ownership interest held on 31 January,<br />
2002. Any person who, at the date <strong>of</strong><br />
commencement <strong>of</strong> the proposed law,<br />
does not qualify to be a mass media<br />
owner or to own shares in a mass media<br />
service in terms <strong>of</strong> Section 6 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
principal Act shall, within three<br />
months <strong>of</strong> the commencement <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed law, dispose <strong>of</strong> his controlling<br />
interest or shares, as the case may<br />
be, to a person who is qualified.<br />
The bill also seeks to amend Section<br />
69 <strong>of</strong> the principal Act by providing<br />
for a right to appeal to the Administrative<br />
Court a decision by the Mass<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Commission to refuse to register<br />
a mass media service. It also seeks<br />
to amend the Act’s Section 78, by supplying<br />
a definition <strong>of</strong> a “journalistic<br />
privilege” and clarifying the journalist’s<br />
rights in relation to any editing <strong>of</strong><br />
his/her work that he/she considers to<br />
be distortive.
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Clause 26 permits journalists who<br />
were accredited before the commencement<br />
<strong>of</strong> the principal Act to continue<br />
to be accredited until the end <strong>of</strong> 2002.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-10-21<br />
INSTITUTION(S) The media in<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
* On October 11, 2002, the Zimbabwean<br />
government announced its intention<br />
to take to parliament a Bill to<br />
amend the AIPPA. The amendments<br />
are meant to plug what the government<br />
calls “loopholes” in the media<br />
law. The Bill will, however, result in<br />
more powers being accorded to the<br />
Mass <strong>Media</strong> Commission. Many <strong>of</strong><br />
the so-called “loopholes” amount to<br />
nothing in <strong>of</strong>fering a reprieve to media<br />
houses and journalists.<br />
The proposed amendments to the<br />
Access to Information and Protection<br />
Act (AIPPA) will result in the <strong>Media</strong><br />
and Information Commission being<br />
firmly put in the hands <strong>of</strong> the Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and the strengthening<br />
<strong>of</strong> its repressive clauses.<br />
Clause 7 <strong>of</strong> the amendment Bill, to<br />
be taken to Parliament, will repeal<br />
clause 40 in the original Act, which<br />
stipulates that journalists’ associations<br />
and organizations nominate three persons<br />
to sit on the Commission. The<br />
amendment repeals this clause and<br />
grants the Minister the right to nominate<br />
all commissioners. No criteria<br />
have been provided on how the Minister<br />
would make the appointments in<br />
a democratic and transparent manner.<br />
Adding to the powers already enjoyed<br />
by the Commission, Clause 8 <strong>of</strong><br />
the amendment Bill seeks to grant it<br />
further powers to issue orders. This<br />
amendment seeks to replace Clause 56<br />
<strong>of</strong> the original Act. Clauses 58 “Commission<br />
orders”, Clause 59, “Duty to<br />
comply with orders”, Clause 60, “Offences<br />
and Penalties” and Clause 62,<br />
“Definitions <strong>of</strong> Regulations <strong>of</strong> Mass<br />
<strong>Media</strong>”, have all been repealed. These<br />
clauses have been replaced with the<br />
consolidated Clause 8 in the amendment<br />
Bill. Clause 15 also repeals<br />
Clause 73 <strong>of</strong> the original AIPPA on<br />
“Accrual Rights and Duties <strong>of</strong> a Mass<br />
<strong>Media</strong> service owner”.<br />
Clause 10 <strong>of</strong> the amendment Bill<br />
seeks to substitute Clause 64, “Abuse<br />
<strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression”, <strong>of</strong> the principal<br />
Act. The proposed change will<br />
read that:<br />
“A person registered in terms <strong>of</strong> this<br />
part who makes use, by any means <strong>of</strong><br />
a mass media services for the purposes<br />
<strong>of</strong>:<br />
(a) Intentionally or recklessly falsifying<br />
information<br />
(b) Maliciously or fraudulently fabricating<br />
information; or<br />
(c) Publishing any statement -<br />
(1) Knowing it to be false or without<br />
having reasonable grounds for believing<br />
it to be true: and<br />
(2) Recklessly or<br />
(d) Committing or facilitating the<br />
commission <strong>of</strong> a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence”.<br />
Clause 18 <strong>of</strong> the amendment Bill<br />
seeks to amend Clause 78 on “Journalists<br />
Privilege” from: “Subject to this<br />
Act and any other law a journalist shall<br />
have the right...”, to read, “Subject to<br />
this Act and any other law a journalist<br />
shall have the following rights”. This<br />
intended amendment seeks to specify<br />
and qualify what the Act calls “Journalistic<br />
Privileges”.<br />
Clause 80 <strong>of</strong> the principal Act on<br />
So This Is Democracy? 243
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
“Abuse <strong>of</strong> Journalist Privilege” is proposed<br />
to be amended by Clause 20, to<br />
read: “A journalist who abuses his journalistic<br />
privilege by -<br />
(a) Intentionally or recklessly falsifying<br />
information; or<br />
(b) Maliciously or fraudulently fabricating<br />
information; or<br />
(c) Publishing any statement<br />
(1) Knowing it to be false or without<br />
having reasonable grounds for believing<br />
it to be true<br />
(2) Recklessly or with malicious or<br />
fraudulent intent, representing it as<br />
true”.<br />
The words “Intentionally or recklessly”<br />
and “maliciously and fraudulently”<br />
are the proposed additions. The<br />
Bill seeks to repeal Section (d) <strong>of</strong><br />
Clause 80, which stipulates that a journalist<br />
would have committed a criminal<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence if he/she “contravenes any<br />
part <strong>of</strong> this Act” (AIPPA). The original<br />
Section 80 imposed criminal liability<br />
even where the reputations and<br />
freedoms <strong>of</strong> other parties had not been<br />
threatened by the so-called “falsehoods”<br />
and “fabrications”. The amendment<br />
therefore seeks to place intention<br />
as a prerequisite to the application <strong>of</strong><br />
this law. In other words, it must be<br />
demonstrated that someone’s reputation,<br />
freedoms, rights, etc. have been<br />
maligned, threatened by the publication<br />
<strong>of</strong> a “falsehood” or a “fabrication”.<br />
However, journalists can still fall<br />
foul to the proposed amendment <strong>of</strong><br />
Clause 64, on “Abuse <strong>of</strong> Freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
Expression”, which still provides for<br />
a broad interpretation.<br />
Whereas the principal Act stipulates<br />
that foreign journalists can be accredited<br />
for a “short period”, the amendment<br />
proposes that foreign journalists<br />
be accredited “for any period specified<br />
244 So This Is Democracy?<br />
by the commission not exceeding 30<br />
days”. This proposal in the Bill will,<br />
in other words, mean that no foreign<br />
journalist can report from Zimbabwe<br />
for a period <strong>of</strong> more than 30 days.<br />
Clause 2 proposes to widen the definitions<br />
<strong>of</strong> mass media, media services<br />
and journalists. The dissemination <strong>of</strong><br />
information has been widened to mean<br />
the sale, subscription, delivery, diffusion,<br />
or distribution <strong>of</strong> periodically<br />
printed publications, audio recorded,<br />
electronically distributed information<br />
or teletext programmes. This definition<br />
will include such information and dissemination<br />
mechanisms as websites<br />
and cell phone text messages. A mass<br />
media service is proposed to be defined<br />
as a mass medium service and to include<br />
any medium or media consisting<br />
in transmission, circulation or distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> voice, visual, data or textual<br />
messages to an unlimited number<br />
<strong>of</strong> persons and includes an advertising<br />
agency, publisher, production house.<br />
This definition is a catchall, as any<br />
form <strong>of</strong> publication, even by civic society<br />
organizations, will be covered<br />
under that.<br />
The definition <strong>of</strong> a journalist as proposed<br />
under Clause 2 <strong>of</strong> the Bill would<br />
be “a person who gathers, collects,<br />
edits or prepares news, stories and<br />
materials for a mass media service,<br />
whether as an employee <strong>of</strong> the service<br />
or as a freelancer”. Mass media service<br />
would mean “any service that produces<br />
mass media products, whether<br />
or not it also disseminates them”.<br />
Clause 6 <strong>of</strong> the amendment Bill proposes<br />
to make it a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence to<br />
“deliberately falsify information to a<br />
public body”. This information would<br />
have been gathered by any public body<br />
and specifically by the <strong>Media</strong> and In-
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
formation Commission. This clause, in<br />
a way, allows the Commission and<br />
public bodies to attain quasi-judicial<br />
powers. It must be noted that under<br />
Zimbabwean law, any judgments and<br />
determinations <strong>of</strong> any matter under<br />
criminal law are supposed to be administered<br />
by the judiciary (courts) and<br />
its affiliate bodies.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-24<br />
PERSON(S) Aaron Ufumeli, Henry<br />
Makiwa, Trust Maswela<br />
VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored<br />
A crew from “The Daily News” covering<br />
a demonstration by secondary<br />
school students was detained in a<br />
Harare suburb on October 21, 2002.<br />
The three-person crew - reporter<br />
Henry Makiwa, photographer Aaron<br />
Ufumeli and driver Trust Maswela -<br />
was arrested for “inciting students to<br />
protest”. The three were arrested while<br />
covering a demonstration by secondary<br />
school students in the high-density<br />
Harare suburb <strong>of</strong> Mabvuku. The students<br />
were seeking the reinstatement<br />
<strong>of</strong> their dismissed teachers.<br />
The crew was taken to Mabvuku<br />
police station, where they were detained<br />
for over 90 minutes. The police<br />
confiscated a film that Ufumeli had<br />
taken <strong>of</strong> the students, who were later<br />
tear-gassed by the police. The crew<br />
was not charged. State media journalists,<br />
which included a Zimbabwe<br />
Broadcasting Corporation crew, were<br />
not interrupted in their coverage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
demonstration.<br />
Approximately 627 teachers were<br />
recently dismissed by the Zimbabwean<br />
government for allegedly staging an<br />
illegal strike. Raymond Majongwe, the<br />
secretary general <strong>of</strong> the Progressive<br />
Teachers Union <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe (PTUZ),<br />
which called the strike, was arrested<br />
during the week <strong>of</strong> 14 October and<br />
charged under the country’s draconian<br />
Public Order and Security Act for “invading<br />
the rights <strong>of</strong> others”, after he<br />
allegedly called on teachers to join the<br />
strike. He has since been released on<br />
bail.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-28<br />
PERSON(S) Abel Mutsakani, Sydney<br />
Masamvu<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity<br />
Jonathan Moyo and his permanent secretary,<br />
George Charamba, have<br />
launched a scathing attack against<br />
“The Financial Gazette” newspaper<br />
and private media journalists for what<br />
the two called “treasonous” and “antigovernment”<br />
reporting. Moyo and<br />
Charamba have warned that the government<br />
“will not brook any criticism”<br />
and that appropriate measures will be<br />
taken against “errant” journalists.<br />
In a statement, Moyo castigated a<br />
front-page article that appeared in the<br />
October 24, 2002 edition <strong>of</strong> “The Financial<br />
Gazette” as “unlawful” and<br />
“treasonous.” Moyo dismissed the<br />
story, entitled “Mbeki plots Mugabe’s<br />
exit”, as a “fabrication.”<br />
“The Financial Gazette” reported<br />
that South <strong>Africa</strong>n President Thabo<br />
Mbeki was planning to hold consultations<br />
with Zimbabwean President<br />
Robert Mugabe and the opposition<br />
over the crisis in Zimbabwe. The story<br />
further stated that Mbeki wants the<br />
parties to reach a compromise that<br />
would see Mugabe leave <strong>of</strong>fice in 2005<br />
So This Is Democracy? 245
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
246 So This Is Democracy?<br />
and the opposition withdrawing court<br />
cases it has filed against Mugabe’s<br />
“victory” in the March presidential<br />
elections.<br />
Moyo alleges that the story was<br />
planted in the newspaper by British<br />
intelligence operatives and was also<br />
meant to mislead voters in a 26 and 27<br />
October by-election in a rural constituency.<br />
The minister called the author <strong>of</strong><br />
the story, “Financial Gazette” news<br />
editor Abel Mutsakani, a “sell out,<br />
whose association with opposition<br />
politics and anti- Zimbabwean conduct<br />
was self evident.”<br />
In another statement, Charamba<br />
took a swipe at the political editor <strong>of</strong><br />
“The Financial Gazette”, Sydney<br />
Masamvu, for his opinion piece in<br />
which he likened the Zimbabwean regime<br />
to Al Qaeda. Charamba said the<br />
article “compromised a democratically<br />
elected government”, “[breached] the<br />
country’s laws” and was a<br />
“criminalisation <strong>of</strong> the country’s democracy.”<br />
The headline <strong>of</strong> the opinion article<br />
read, “Life under Mugabe’s ‘Al Qaeda’<br />
regime”. Charamba said the government<br />
would “take appropriate measures”<br />
once it is through with “consultations.”<br />
He further threatened that<br />
“any players within the journalism fraternity<br />
who choose to interpret their<br />
roles outside the binding requirements,<br />
and who wish even to goad, provoke<br />
and demonise government for whatever<br />
reasons, would quite naturally<br />
draw a deserved response in fitting<br />
amounts.”<br />
Charamba accused Masamvu <strong>of</strong><br />
seeking to incite the people to rise<br />
against Mugabe’s “legitimate” government<br />
in his article.<br />
“The Financial Gazette” is a business<br />
and political newspaper. The national<br />
weekly is reported to have a<br />
print-run <strong>of</strong> approximately 40 000 copies.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-28<br />
PERSON(S) Blessing Zulu,<br />
Pedzisai Ruhanya<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
Blessing Zulu, a reporter with the<br />
“Zimbabwe Independent”, and<br />
Pedzisai Ruhanya, chief reporter <strong>of</strong><br />
“The Daily News”, were threatened<br />
by police when they went to cover the<br />
funeral <strong>of</strong> an opposition Member <strong>of</strong><br />
Parliament (MP), Learnmore Jongwe,<br />
in Harare. Jongwe died in remand<br />
prison on October 22, 2002.<br />
The two reporters were visiting the<br />
home <strong>of</strong> the deceased MP when 30<br />
police <strong>of</strong>ficers, led by one Inspector<br />
Dowa, <strong>of</strong> the Law and Order Section,<br />
arrived at the residence brandishing<br />
guns. A scuffle ensued between the<br />
police and youth activists from the<br />
opposition Movement for Democratic<br />
Change (MDC), as the <strong>of</strong>ficers forced<br />
their way into the house.<br />
When Zulu and Ruhanya approached<br />
Dowa for a comment on the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> the police’s visit, the inspector<br />
threatened to arrest and shoot the<br />
journalists if they wrote about the incident.<br />
“If you write anything about<br />
what has transpired here, I will not<br />
hesitate to arrest you and shoot you<br />
afterwards,” Dowa reportedly said.<br />
Simon Jongwe, the deceased MP’s<br />
younger brother, told the reporters that<br />
the purpose <strong>of</strong> the police’s visit was<br />
unclear. “Initially they said they<br />
wanted to search the house for two<br />
murder suspects,” Jongwe said.
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Learnmore Jongwe was an MP for<br />
the opposition MDC. He represented<br />
the high-density Harare suburb <strong>of</strong><br />
Kuwadzana. He was arrested in July<br />
for the alleged murder <strong>of</strong> his wife in a<br />
domestic dispute and died in remand<br />
prison on October 22.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-10-28<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Expelled<br />
Joseph Mwale, a member <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe’s<br />
Central Intelligence Organization<br />
(CIO), has declared<br />
Chimanimani, a plantation and farming<br />
region in eastern Zimbabwe, <strong>of</strong>f<br />
limits to the private media. The move<br />
has forced a private company, Radar<br />
Holdings, to cancel a planned media<br />
tour <strong>of</strong> plantations that were gutted<br />
by fire.<br />
Radar Holdings, which owns several<br />
plantations in the area, was planning<br />
an aerial media tour <strong>of</strong> its plantations,<br />
in order to demonstrate the extent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the damage that was done by a<br />
raging fire that occurred on 25 September,<br />
2002. Illegal settlers are believed<br />
to have set 14 000 hectares <strong>of</strong><br />
pine and gum trees on fire as they prepared<br />
their pieces <strong>of</strong> land.<br />
Border Timbers Limited (BTL), the<br />
subsidiary company that manages the<br />
plantations, told the “Zimbabwe Independent”<br />
that the tour was cancelled<br />
for security reasons.<br />
“Mwale denied permission for the<br />
flight, on allegations that it would bring<br />
in private media reporters who would<br />
report negatively on the situation,”<br />
BTL Managing Director John<br />
Gadzikwa said. “He warned us that if<br />
the tour went ahead, it would do so at<br />
the risk <strong>of</strong> the passengers aboard. We<br />
had no option but to shelve the tour,”<br />
Gadzikwa explained.<br />
Mwale is a notorious CIO agent who<br />
was implicated in the 2000 murder <strong>of</strong><br />
opposition activists Talent Mabika and<br />
Tichaona Chiminya. Although the<br />
High Court had earlier directed the<br />
Attorney General to indict Mwale,<br />
nothing has happened to date.<br />
Mwale was also instrumental in the<br />
arrest and detention <strong>of</strong> Peta<br />
Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t, a correspondent for the<br />
British “Daily Telegraph”, in<br />
Chimanimani on March 27.<br />
BTL estimates its losses at approximately<br />
US$168 million in the fire that<br />
gutted the trees.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-10-30<br />
PERSON(S): Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota, Lloyd<br />
Mudiwa<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
The Zimbabwean government has<br />
conceded that Section 80 <strong>of</strong> the Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Act (AIPPA) is unconstitutional,<br />
“The Daily News” reported on<br />
29 October 2002. The government introduced<br />
the 2002 Access to Information<br />
and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Amendment Bill in order to improve<br />
and correct certain anomalies and errors<br />
that have come to the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity’s attention<br />
since the AIPPA became law.<br />
Both Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota, editor-in-chief<br />
<strong>of</strong> “The Daily News”, and Lloyd<br />
Mudiwa, the newspaper’s municipal<br />
reporter, are being charged under Section<br />
80 <strong>of</strong> the AIPPA for allegedly<br />
abusing their journalistic privilege by<br />
So This Is Democracy? 247
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
publishing falsehoods. Despite the<br />
government’s admission that Section<br />
80 is unconstitutional, on 28 October,<br />
the Attorney General’s Office instructed<br />
that Nyarota and Mudiwa be<br />
further remanded until 27 February<br />
2003. Initially the state had undertaken<br />
to either provide them with a trial date<br />
or to remove them from formal remand<br />
when they last appeared at the Harare<br />
Magistrates’ Court on 23 July 2002.<br />
Fatima Maxwell, the senior public<br />
prosecutor for the Eastern Region, admitted<br />
she had not read the bill amending<br />
the AIPPA and noted that she had<br />
been instructed by her superiors to<br />
have the journalists’ case further remanded.<br />
Advocate Chris Andersen had successfully<br />
applied for the journalists’<br />
case to be referred to the Supreme<br />
Court on 23 July, to test its constitutionality.<br />
Andersen argued that Section<br />
80 <strong>of</strong> the AIPPA failed to define journalistic<br />
privilege and falsehood, and<br />
did not specify that intent was a prerequisite<br />
for the <strong>of</strong>fence.<br />
Clause 20 <strong>of</strong> the amendment bill<br />
seeks to substitute Section 80 because<br />
it is “ultra vires” the Zimbabwean<br />
Constitution. “The new provision proposes<br />
to frame the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> ‘abuse<br />
<strong>of</strong> journalistic privilege’ in a manner<br />
that avoids any apparent conflict with<br />
the constitutional [guarantee <strong>of</strong>] freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> expression,” the clause reads.<br />
The clause also seeks to reduce the<br />
maximum fine <strong>of</strong> Z$200,000 (approx.<br />
US$3,600) that can be imposed on a<br />
person convicted <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence to<br />
Z$80,000 (approx. US$1,400). However,<br />
the maximum two-year jail term<br />
will remain.<br />
The proposed substitution reads: “A<br />
journalist who abuses his journalistic<br />
248 So This Is Democracy?<br />
privilege by intentionally or recklessly<br />
falsifying information, or maliciously<br />
or fraudulently fabricating information,<br />
or publishing any statement<br />
knowing it to be false or without having<br />
reasonable grounds for believing<br />
it to be true and recklessly, or with<br />
malicious or fraudulent intent, representing<br />
it as a true statement, or committing<br />
or facilitating the commission<br />
<strong>of</strong> a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence shall be guilty <strong>of</strong><br />
an <strong>of</strong>fence.”<br />
Nyarota and Mudiwa are among<br />
several journalists who were arrested<br />
following the publication <strong>of</strong> a April 23<br />
article in which “The Daily News” reported<br />
that two young girls had witnessed<br />
the beheading <strong>of</strong> their mother<br />
in the rural area <strong>of</strong> Magunje, allegedly<br />
by Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Union-<br />
Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) supporters.<br />
In a April 27 front-page article, “The<br />
Daily News” apologised to the ruling<br />
ZANU-PF party and to the government<br />
after it was revealed that the victim’s<br />
husband may have misled the<br />
newspaper.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-11-20<br />
INSTITUTION(S): <strong>Media</strong> in Zimbabwe<br />
VIOLATION(S): Threatened<br />
On November 18, 2002, Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
Information and Publicity Jonathan<br />
Moyo verbally attacked the private<br />
media for what he called its “anti-nation”<br />
and “anti-government” reporting.<br />
Moyo, who was addressing army<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers in Harare, said that the private<br />
media, especially “The Daily News”<br />
newspaper, was being used by Western<br />
powers to attack the government,<br />
the country’s values and traditions.
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
“They are opposed to the history <strong>of</strong> the<br />
nation, they are opposed to the values<br />
<strong>of</strong> the nation. They are anti-nation,”<br />
said Moyo. “This has put us in conflict<br />
with certain interests. It survives<br />
on sponsored criticism. It is a paper,<br />
which became the voice <strong>of</strong> farmers. It<br />
distorted the whole land issue saying<br />
the land issue was disorderly and that<br />
it was not done according to the rule<br />
<strong>of</strong> law,” said the minister.<br />
Moyo said “The Daily News” was<br />
obsessed with criticising the government<br />
and turned a blind eye to any<br />
wrongdoing or shortcomings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
British government. “They never ever,<br />
ever find any wrong with the British,<br />
never find any wrong with the white<br />
world who criticise the Zimbabwean<br />
leadership,” said Moyo.<br />
Moyo added that the government<br />
could not defend Zimbabwe’s sovereignty<br />
without laws such as the Access<br />
to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Act (AIPPA). He stated that<br />
the AIPPA had brought “sanity” into<br />
the media industry as some Zimbabwean<br />
journalists were being used in<br />
a conspiracy to topple the government.<br />
Moyo also outlined the government’s<br />
stance on the state-owned media.<br />
He said that, “They are allowed to<br />
make their own editorial decisions and<br />
if they are going to criticise the government<br />
they should criticise what they<br />
know. We see them not as a government<br />
media but a national media,” said<br />
Moyo.<br />
However, he pointed out that the<br />
reason why the government invested<br />
in the media at independence in 1980<br />
was to safeguard the media from colonial<br />
apartheid media institutions.<br />
“There was no way we could allow our<br />
national media to be controlled by<br />
apartheid media institutions,” he said.<br />
UPDATE<br />
DATE: 2002-11-25<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Independent<br />
Journalists Association <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
(IJAZ)<br />
VIOLATION(S): Legislation<br />
On November 21, 2002, the Supreme<br />
Court reserved judgment in a case in<br />
which the Independent Journalists<br />
Association <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe (IJAZ) is<br />
challenging certain clauses <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act (AIPPA).<br />
The full bench <strong>of</strong> the Supreme<br />
Court, which sat to hear the constitutional<br />
matter, said that it would need<br />
time to read the lawyers’ submissions.<br />
The court did not confirm when the<br />
judgment would be delivered.<br />
IJAZ is challenging the constitutionality<br />
<strong>of</strong> Sections 79, 80, 83 and 85 <strong>of</strong><br />
the AIPPA. The journalists’ body contends<br />
that these sections, which prescribe<br />
compulsory registration <strong>of</strong> journalists<br />
and also spell out punitive<br />
measures for journalists who break a<br />
code <strong>of</strong> conduct and write falsehoods,<br />
are unconstitutional, as they violate<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. IJAZ cited Information<br />
and Publicity Minister<br />
Jonathan Moyo, <strong>Media</strong> and Information<br />
Commission (MIC) Chairperson<br />
Tafataona Mahoso and Attorney General<br />
Andrew Chigovera as the respondents.<br />
IJAZ, which is being represented by<br />
Sternford Moyo, argued that journalists<br />
are being forced to register with<br />
the MIC, yet the Minister will determine<br />
at a later stage who qualifies to<br />
practice as a journalist. Sternford<br />
Moyo added that journalists are being<br />
So This Is Democracy? 249
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
forced to register before they know the<br />
code <strong>of</strong> conduct that will guide them.<br />
“It is like being forced to enter a house<br />
without knowing whether you are going<br />
to be whipped or given food,” said<br />
Sternford Moyo.<br />
Sternford Moyo added that Section<br />
80, which deals with the publication<br />
<strong>of</strong> falsehoods, is excessively broad, to<br />
the extent <strong>of</strong> penalising stories such as<br />
“April Fools’ Day” jokes.<br />
In his interventions during the proceedings,<br />
Chief Justice Godfrey<br />
Chidyausiku asked state lawyer<br />
Johannes Tomana to explain and justify<br />
to the court why the Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
State for Information and Publicity is<br />
given “so much power”. Tomana tried<br />
to trace the history <strong>of</strong> the law and link<br />
it with what he termed “irresponsible<br />
journalism”, to which the bench reminded<br />
him to relate what he was saying<br />
to the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> the law.<br />
“You are not relating to the constitutionality<br />
<strong>of</strong> the relevant sections,”<br />
said Justice Malaba. “There is [a] need<br />
to regulate, but it has to be regulation<br />
within the law. What you need to demonstrate<br />
to us is whether it has been<br />
done pr<strong>of</strong>essionally,” said Chief Justice<br />
Chidyausiku.<br />
Chidyausiku challenged the state<br />
lawyers to justify why the law makes<br />
the publication <strong>of</strong> a falsehood a criminal<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence when there is no complainant,<br />
as opposed to dealing with the<br />
matter as an ethical issue <strong>of</strong> misconduct.<br />
Tomana conceded that, where there<br />
was no complainant the law could not<br />
be said to be protecting the rights and<br />
reputations <strong>of</strong> persons and that the<br />
wording does not specifically mention<br />
the interests to be protected under the<br />
act. Justice Ziyambi noted that Section<br />
250 So This Is Democracy?<br />
80 (1) <strong>of</strong> the act deems a journalist<br />
guilty <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence as opposed to being<br />
innocent until proven guilty.<br />
On November 21, the Zimbabwe<br />
Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) reported<br />
that the government had expressed<br />
disappointment with the Attorney<br />
General for failing to draft the<br />
media law “correctly” and failing to<br />
defend the government in many cases<br />
that have come before the courts in<br />
recent months. However, it is widely<br />
believed that the Attorney General had<br />
little if any input into the media law.<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Information and<br />
Publicity was largely involved in this<br />
process.<br />
ALERT<br />
DATE: 2002-12-04<br />
INSTITUTION(S): Bornwell<br />
Chakaodza, Farai Mutsaka,<br />
Fungayi Kanyuchi<br />
VIOLATION(S): Victory<br />
On December 4, 2002, a major victory<br />
for press freedom in Zimbabwe<br />
was won when a Harare magistrate<br />
dropped charges against three journalists<br />
from “The Standard”. The three<br />
journalists were accused <strong>of</strong> publishing<br />
falsehoods under the draconian<br />
Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act (AIPPA).<br />
Editor Bornwell Chakaodza, senior<br />
reporter Farai Mutsaka and entertainment<br />
editor Fungayi Kanyuchi, all<br />
from “The Standard”, were arrested on<br />
May 16. Chakaodza and Mutsaka were<br />
charged for publishing a story revealing<br />
that the government had bought<br />
heavy anti-riot gear from Israeli arms<br />
manufacturer Beit Alfa Trailer. The<br />
government disputed the story despite<br />
confirmation from then Israeli foreign
ZIMBABWE<br />
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
minister Shimon Peres.<br />
Chakaodza, along with Kanyuchi,<br />
also faced charges over a story that<br />
highlighted “sex for freedom deals”<br />
involving members <strong>of</strong> the police force<br />
and prostitutes in Harare. The three<br />
journalists, who had been on conditional<br />
bail since May, applied to have<br />
the charges dropped if the state failed<br />
to set a trial date by December 4.<br />
In granting the application, Magistrate<br />
Garikayi Churu stated that the<br />
state could proceed by way <strong>of</strong> summons,<br />
if the need arose.<br />
Soon after leaving the Magistrates’<br />
Court, Chakaodza stated, “There was<br />
never any case at all.<br />
It was just sheer political harassment<br />
and a waste <strong>of</strong> time and money for both<br />
ourselves, the police and the state.”<br />
“However, this represents yet another<br />
major defeat for [Information<br />
Minister] Jonathan Moyo and very<br />
soon he will have nowhere to run. It<br />
also marks yet another milestone in<br />
our quest to emancipate the Zimbabwean<br />
media from the jaws <strong>of</strong> oppression,”<br />
he noted with delight.<br />
Earlier this year, the government<br />
enacted the AIPPA, which requires all<br />
journalists and media houses to be licenced<br />
by the Information Minister.<br />
The law also criminalises journalism<br />
by stating that anyone who publishes<br />
a story which is deemed to be inaccurate<br />
by the government could face<br />
imprisonment.<br />
Since its inception, the law has been<br />
used to victimise journalists from the<br />
independent media. Thus far, 12 independent<br />
media journalists have<br />
been arrested under the AIPPA.<br />
The Independent Journalists Association<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe (IJAZ) is challenging<br />
the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> the<br />
AIPPA in the Supreme Court.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 251
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Selected press statements issued by the MISA<br />
Secretariat and chapters during 2002<br />
INTERNATIONAL STATEMENTS • PRESS RELEASES • LETTERS OF APPEAL<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
January 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Deteriorating press freedom situation in Zimbabwe<br />
Mr K<strong>of</strong>i Annan<br />
United Nations Secretary-General<br />
C/o Office <strong>of</strong> the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General<br />
United Nations, S-378<br />
New York, NY 10017<br />
Dear Sir,<br />
It is with increasing trepidation that the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
(MISA) registers its condemnation <strong>of</strong> the recent passing by the Parliament <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe <strong>of</strong> the Public Order and Security Bill. The Zimbabwe Government<br />
has also released the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill which<br />
is expected to be debated in Parliament soon. It is MISA’s contention that each<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Bills seeks to severely curtail the workings <strong>of</strong> the already beleaguered<br />
independent media in that country. MISA urges the United Nations to persuade<br />
the Zimbabwean Government to reverse the mentioned bills and calls for an<br />
urgent return to the rule <strong>of</strong> law in the country.<br />
MISA protests these Bills for the following reasons:<br />
• They impose excessive restrictions on the content <strong>of</strong> what the media may<br />
publish or broadcast;<br />
• They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government- controlled<br />
body;<br />
• They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products,<br />
including video and audio recordings, to obtain a registration certificate from a<br />
government-controlled body;<br />
• They specify that all foreign-dominated ownership <strong>of</strong> the media is prohibited<br />
and non-citizens are prohibited from working as journalists; and<br />
• They endow the authorities with excessive powers to prevent demonstrations.<br />
2002<br />
MISA issued no less than 33 alerts on different forms <strong>of</strong> media violations against<br />
the independent media in Zimbabwe during 2001. These violations ranged from<br />
a bomb attack on a news organisation, to the arrest and detention <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
journalists, verbal and physical attacks on journalists by both the government<br />
252 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
and its supporters and, possibly most worrying, a barrage <strong>of</strong> threats <strong>of</strong> violence<br />
and incarceration against news organisations and individual journalists that have<br />
served to psychologically cripple the news media.<br />
The threats uttered against the independent newspaper “The Daily News” on<br />
January 23, 2001, by members <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Union Patriotic<br />
Front (ZANU-PF) as they marched through the street <strong>of</strong> Harare, did in no<br />
way prepare the Zimbabwean or international media fraternity for the bomb<br />
attack on the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> that newspaper just five days later.<br />
Two days prior to the bomb attack, ZANU-PF supporters and members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
so-called war veterans publicly declared ‘war’ against “The Daily News” in<br />
two towns outside Harare for alleged “unpatriotic coverage” <strong>of</strong> national issues.<br />
The protesters pounced on newspaper vendors and confiscated copies <strong>of</strong> the<br />
newspaper, burning the copies in front <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC) TV cameras.<br />
On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean Government expelled<br />
two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan Mercedes<br />
Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited immigrants<br />
never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set the scene for a<br />
gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign correspondents<br />
covering news events in Zimbabwe.<br />
On the legislative environment, the Zimbabwean Government on April 3, 2001,<br />
passed into law the controversial Broadcasting Services Bill 2001, as ZANU-<br />
PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee.<br />
The Committee declared some sections <strong>of</strong> the broadcasting regulations<br />
as unconstitutional but the Speaker <strong>of</strong> the House dismissed the report on a technicality.<br />
The Broadcasting Act, among others, hinders opposition parties from<br />
broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister <strong>of</strong> Information and<br />
Publicity excessive powers, while controlling any prospective independent broadcast<br />
stations.<br />
The human rights climate created by the ZANU-PF government in Zimbabwe<br />
leaves much to be desired and places in jeopardy any possibility <strong>of</strong> free and fair<br />
elections expected to take place on March 9 and 10 this year. In response to the<br />
media violations in August 2001, Asma Jahangir (Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,<br />
Summary or Arbitrary Executions) and Abid Hussein (Special Rapporteur<br />
on Freedom <strong>of</strong> Opinion and Expression) <strong>of</strong> the United Nations Commission<br />
on Human Rights expressed their extreme concern about reports <strong>of</strong><br />
death threats against five Zimbabwean journalists who have “publicly denounced<br />
the repeated violations <strong>of</strong> press freedom in their country”. In a communication<br />
to the Zimbabwean Government on August 22, 2001, the Special Rapporteurs<br />
refer to allegations that these journalists appear on a hit list compiled by the<br />
So This Is Democracy? 253
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Law and Order Section <strong>of</strong> the Police and the Central Intelligence Organisation.<br />
The Special Rapporteur on Freedom <strong>of</strong> Opinion and Expression then sent a<br />
request to the Zimbabwean Government to undertake an <strong>of</strong>ficial visit to the<br />
country on September 25, 2001. On October 2, 2001, the ambassador <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
in Geneva sent a reply indicating that he would forward the letter to the<br />
“relevant authorities in Harare” for feedback. To this day, no feedback to this<br />
request has been received. We request that your <strong>of</strong>fice secures the visit <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Special Rapporteur to Zimbabwe as already requested by his <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
MISA would like to call on the United Nations to hold the Zimbabwe Government<br />
accountable to the Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights (Article 19)<br />
which states that “everyone has the freedom <strong>of</strong> opinion and expression; this<br />
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive<br />
and impart information and ideas through any media regardless <strong>of</strong> frontiers”.<br />
Similarly, the UNESCO Windhoek Declaration <strong>of</strong> 1991 calls for the “establishment,<br />
maintenance, and fostering <strong>of</strong> an independent, pluralistic, and free<br />
press … essential to the development and maintenance <strong>of</strong> democracy in a nation,<br />
and for economic development”. Furthermore, the UN General Assembly<br />
Resolution 59 states that “freedom <strong>of</strong> information is a fundamental human right<br />
and … the touchstone <strong>of</strong> all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated”.<br />
MISA would further like to call on the United Nations to impress upon the<br />
Zimbabwean Government that the fundamental importance <strong>of</strong> the right to freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> expression, including <strong>of</strong> the media, is central to the protection <strong>of</strong> equality<br />
and democracy. The respect for freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and information ensures<br />
that all citizens have access to information, a prerequisite to the forming<br />
<strong>of</strong> opinions and making <strong>of</strong> informed decisions.<br />
Yours sincerely<br />
Luckson A Chipare, Regional Director<br />
Signed on behalf <strong>of</strong> MISA by:<br />
Ann Cooper, Executive Director<br />
Committee to Protect Journalists<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
January 28, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Deteriorating press freedom situation in Zimbabwe<br />
2002<br />
The Right Honourable Don Mckinnon<br />
The Secretary General<br />
Commonwealth<br />
Marlborough House<br />
254 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Pall Mall,<br />
London SW1Y 5HX<br />
Dear Sir,<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA), notes that the Commonwealth<br />
Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) decided to include discussions on the situation<br />
in Zimbabwe at its next meeting on January 30, 2002. It is our hope that the<br />
CMAG will seek concrete ways <strong>of</strong> ensuring that the promises given by the<br />
Zimbabwe Government to the Commonwealth are realised. The Commonwealth<br />
should seek ways <strong>of</strong> verifying the veracity <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial reports given by the government<br />
as our experience indicates that the situation on the ground is worsening<br />
as we draw closer to the March 2002 Presidential elections.<br />
MISA wishes to restate its earlier appeal, outlined in a letter to your <strong>of</strong>fice dated<br />
January 18, 2002. MISA then expressed its concern over the crises in Zimbabwe<br />
and appealed for urgent intervention in halting the rapidly deteriorating<br />
socio-political situation in Zimbabwe, which is a member <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth.<br />
In our appeal, we made special reference to the passage <strong>of</strong> the infamous Public<br />
Order and Security Bill on January 10, 2002, and the imminent passage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
repressive Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill.<br />
The Zimbabwean Government has since seemingly given in to international<br />
pressure by introducing 36 amendments to the Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill which were released on January 22. As we write, consideration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the bill has been delayed to allow the Parliamentary Legal Committee<br />
more time to assess it.<br />
However, further analysis <strong>of</strong> the amendments show that they are purely cosmetic.<br />
Despite the amendments, journalists are still required to obtain licences<br />
and face a possible 2 years’ imprisonment for spreading ‘false news’. Extensive<br />
powers over the media and journalists continue to be wielded by the proposed<br />
<strong>Media</strong> and Information Commission, a body firmly under government control.<br />
Despite its title, the Bill does little to guarantee the public’s right to access<br />
information held by public authorities. The Bill does formally establish a right<br />
to access information held by public bodies, but this right is so limited by exclusions<br />
and exceptions that its practical impact is likely to be extremely limited.<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the provisions in the Bill have nothing to do with access to information<br />
but instead impose a range <strong>of</strong> harsh restrictions on media freedom. Although<br />
the amendments do slightly mitigate these criticisms, our main concerns with<br />
the Bill remain and, in its current form, the Bill still represents a very serious<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> the right to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and opinion.<br />
The seemingly government recapitulation on the Access to Information and<br />
So This Is Democracy? 255
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill, was largely negated when President Mugabe signed<br />
into law the Public Order and Security Bill last week. If the Zimbabwe Government<br />
had been genuine in its intentions, the President would have sent back the<br />
bill to parliament rather than sign it into law.<br />
This Act gives the government sweeping powers to clamp down on the opposition<br />
and the media. Among others, it fines anyone who “undermines the<br />
authority <strong>of</strong> the president” or “engenders hostility towards him” through speech<br />
or publication. The new law also bans assemblies, including “spontaneous<br />
meetings”, held without police permission and restores a former law requiring<br />
people to carry identification at all times. Furthermore, this new Act appears<br />
to be more repressive than the 1960 Rhodesian Law and Order Maintenance<br />
Act (LOMA) which it has replaced.<br />
MISA is <strong>of</strong> the opinion that the Zimbabwean Government has yet to demonstrate<br />
an authentic attempt to honour the principles <strong>of</strong> democracy and good<br />
governance, as is desired by the Commonwealth. The Zimbabwean government<br />
continues its campaign <strong>of</strong> suppression <strong>of</strong> free speech, arrest and beatings<br />
<strong>of</strong> media practitioners and members <strong>of</strong> civil society. The sale <strong>of</strong> privately<br />
owned newspapers like the Daily News, The Financial Gazette, The Independent<br />
and The Standard has been banned by the government supported socalled<br />
war veterans in some parts <strong>of</strong> the country.<br />
One such way <strong>of</strong> verification <strong>of</strong> the situation existing on the ground in the<br />
country is through the immediate deployment <strong>of</strong> any observer mission. This<br />
observer mission should be adequately resourced to enable it to cover the<br />
whole country and to work independently <strong>of</strong> government. Its members should<br />
be allowed unfettered access to all parts <strong>of</strong> the country including occupied<br />
farms. The mission should be allowed to work in Zimbabwe before, during<br />
and after the presidential elections. The mission should also look into the<br />
interference <strong>of</strong> the operations <strong>of</strong> the media by the political parties and government<br />
agents.<br />
We wish to urge your good <strong>of</strong>fice to persuade President Robert Mugabe and<br />
his government immediately to allow the media, including foreign correspondence,<br />
to work in the country, covering the current campaign for the presidential<br />
elections and to continue reporting during and after the elections. It is our<br />
view that this would enable the complete coverage <strong>of</strong> the election process as<br />
expected in a democracy.<br />
2002<br />
We further call on you for support for a separate initiative to put together a<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Monitoring Team that will specifically monitor news coverage with an<br />
emphasis on the observation <strong>of</strong> standard journalism ethics such as impartiality,<br />
avoidance <strong>of</strong> inflammatory language, right <strong>of</strong> reply and verification <strong>of</strong><br />
information before publishing.<br />
256 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
And again we restate our appeal to the Commonwealth to proactively participate<br />
in efforts aimed at promoting freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, opinion, information<br />
and association and restoring the rule <strong>of</strong> law in Zimbabwe and to add its voice<br />
to echoes from national, regional and international communities.<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
Luckson A Chipare, Regional Director<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
January 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Deteriorating press freedom situation in Zimbabwe<br />
The President<br />
Council <strong>of</strong> the European Union<br />
Jose Maria Aznar<br />
Honorable President <strong>of</strong> the European Council,<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n appeals to the European Union community<br />
to take immediate action to reverse the deteriorating human rights and<br />
media freedom situation in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA is concerned that despite undertakings made by the Zimbabwean Authorities<br />
at the consultative meeting held on January 11th, 2002 between the<br />
European Union, SADC country representatives and a Zimbabwean delegation<br />
led by The Minister <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, Hon. Dr. I.S.G Mudenge, the<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe continues to pass and present to Parliament repressive<br />
legislation that is eroding any chance <strong>of</strong> independent media coverage<br />
<strong>of</strong> the unfolding events in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA urges the European Union to take concerted action to hold the Zimbabwean<br />
Government to the January 11th agreement.<br />
The Bills that have been passed or are being considered by Parliament in<br />
Zimbabwe are constructing a legal environment for a rule <strong>of</strong> law that is in<br />
itself a framework for civil crisis and conflict in Zimbabwe. Of particular<br />
concern to MISA is that laws such as the Public Order and Security Act,<br />
(passed) and the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill before<br />
Parliament afford powers that effectively legalise the on-going harassment <strong>of</strong><br />
journalists and blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined right to<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
Violations <strong>of</strong> media freedom in Zimbabwe have been escalating for some<br />
time and have reached the point where an unambiguous stand must be taken<br />
to restore the basic tenets <strong>of</strong> democracy and human rights. We would like to<br />
So This Is Democracy? 257
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
bring to your attention the recent events that illustrate the state sponsored<br />
systematic attacks on the free flow <strong>of</strong> independent information. Recorded<br />
incidents clearly indicate that the situation on the ground is worsening and<br />
that despite public statements and agreements the Government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
is continuing with its campaign <strong>of</strong> atrocities designed to stifle independent<br />
commentary and deny citizens balanced information with which to participate<br />
in the forthcoming election.<br />
MISA issued no less than 33 alerts on different forms <strong>of</strong> media violations<br />
against the independent media in Zimbabwe during 2001. These violations<br />
ranged from a bomb attack on a news organisation, to the arrest and detention<br />
<strong>of</strong> individual journalists, verbal and physical attacks on journalists by both<br />
the government and its supporters and, possibly most worrying, a barrage <strong>of</strong><br />
threats <strong>of</strong> violence and incarceration against news organisations and individual<br />
journalists that have served to psychologically cripple the news media.<br />
The threats uttered against the independent newspaper “The Daily News” on<br />
February 23, 2001, by members <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Union<br />
Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) as they marched through the street <strong>of</strong> Harare, did<br />
in no way prepare the Zimbabwean or international media fraternity for the<br />
bomb attack on the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> that newspaper just five days later.<br />
Two days prior to the bomb attack, ZANU-PF supporters and members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
so-called war veterans publicly declared ‘war’ against “The Daily News” in<br />
two towns outside Harare for alleged “unpatriotic coverage” <strong>of</strong> national issues.<br />
The protesters pounced on newspaper vendors and confiscated copies <strong>of</strong><br />
the newspaper, burning the copies in front <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (ZBC) TV cameras.<br />
On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean Government<br />
expelled two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan<br />
Mercedes Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited<br />
immigrants never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set<br />
the scene for a gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign<br />
correspondents covering news events in Zimbabwe.<br />
2002<br />
On the legislative environment, the Zimbabwean Government on April 3, 2001,<br />
passed into law the controversial Broadcasting Services Bill 2001, as ZANU-<br />
PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal<br />
Committee. The Committee declared some sections <strong>of</strong> the broadcasting regulations<br />
as unconstitutional but the Speaker <strong>of</strong> the House dismissed the report<br />
on a technicality. The Broadcasting Act, among others, hinders opposition<br />
parties from broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
Information and Publicity excessive powers, while controlling any prospective<br />
independent broadcast stations.<br />
258 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Today, across the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community, MISA members<br />
and supporting organisations have come out in numbers to protest the<br />
passing <strong>of</strong> the Public Order and Security Act and the consideration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill which together impose<br />
wide-ranging restrictions on freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA protests these bills for the following reasons:<br />
• They impose excessive restrictions on the content <strong>of</strong> what the media may<br />
publish or broadcast;<br />
• They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government-controlled<br />
body;<br />
• They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products,<br />
including video and audio recordings to obtain a registration certificate from a<br />
government-controlled body;<br />
• They specify that all foreign-dominated ownership <strong>of</strong> the media is prohibited<br />
and non-citizens are prohibited from working as journalists; and<br />
• They endow the authorities with excessive powers to prevent demonstrations.<br />
Under the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill, the Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information is afforded great powers as the appointing authority <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Media</strong> and Information Commission. This Commission will, among others:<br />
• receive and act upon comments from the public about the administration<br />
and performance <strong>of</strong> the media in Zimbabwe;<br />
• comment on the implications <strong>of</strong> proposed legislation or programmes <strong>of</strong> public<br />
bodies on access to information and protection <strong>of</strong> privacy;<br />
• receive and evaluate, and consider applications for registration as a journalist;<br />
• accredit all journalists;<br />
• enforce pr<strong>of</strong>essional and ethical standards in the media;<br />
• authorise the collection <strong>of</strong> personal information from sources other than the<br />
person to whom the information relates;<br />
• monitor the media and raise public awareness <strong>of</strong> the media<br />
• register mass media in Zimbabwe<br />
• investigate and resolve complaints<br />
• perform any powers or function that the Minister may, from time to time,<br />
prescribe as a power and function <strong>of</strong> the Commission.<br />
The situation in Zimbabwe has broader ramifications for regional and international<br />
co-operation because it diminishes the plausibility <strong>of</strong> positive regional<br />
initiatives such as the New Partnership for <strong>Africa</strong>’s Development (NEPAD).<br />
We urge you as President <strong>of</strong> the Council <strong>of</strong> the European Union to implement<br />
all necessary action to at a minimum hold the Government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe to its<br />
So This Is Democracy? 259
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
own undertakings with the EU, and to make concerted efforts to restore a<br />
democratic environment for the people <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
Luckson Chipare, Regional director, MISA<br />
Press Statement<br />
January 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Statement on the deteriorating press freedom situation in<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) strongly condemns the passing<br />
<strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> legislation in Zimbabwe, designed to control the media and repress<br />
independent reporting in the run-up to the 2002 presidential elections.<br />
Today, throughout the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community MISA members<br />
and supporting organisations have come out in numbers to protest the passing<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Public Order and Security Act and the imminent passage <strong>of</strong> the Access to<br />
Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill which together impose wide-ranging<br />
restrictions on freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA condemns the attempt <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwean government to pass these repressive<br />
bills in an effort to legalise its on-going harassment <strong>of</strong> journalists and<br />
its blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
We, along with the rest <strong>of</strong> the world, have witnessed a frightening deterioration<br />
in respect <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> law in Zimbabwe and the flow <strong>of</strong> information from and<br />
into Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA protests these bills for the following reasons:<br />
• They impose excessive restrictions on the content <strong>of</strong> what the media may<br />
publish or broadcast;<br />
• They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government controlled<br />
body;<br />
• They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products or<br />
even video or audio recordings to obtain a registration certificate from a government<br />
controlled body;<br />
• They specify that all foreign-dominated ownership <strong>of</strong> the media is prohibited<br />
and non-citizens are prohibited from working as journalists; and<br />
• They endow the authorities with excessive powers to prevent demonstrations.<br />
2002<br />
MISA also denounces the ongoing and intensifying victimisation <strong>of</strong> media<br />
practitioners and violations <strong>of</strong> media freedoms in that country. In 2001 alone,<br />
MISA witnessed an intensified campaign to clamp down on the media and<br />
260 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
independent reporting. Herewith a few <strong>of</strong> the many incidents reported on by<br />
MISA in 2001:<br />
MISA issued no less than 33 alerts on different forms <strong>of</strong> media violations against<br />
the independent media in Zimbabwe during 2001. These violations ranged from<br />
a bomb attack on a news organisation, to the arrest and detention <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
journalists, verbal and physical attacks on journalists by both the government<br />
and its supporters and, possibly most worrying, a barrage <strong>of</strong> threats <strong>of</strong> violence<br />
and incarceration against news organisations and individual journalists that have<br />
served to psychologically cripple the news media.<br />
The threats uttered against the independent newspaper, The Daily News, on<br />
February 23, 2001, by members <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Union Patriotic<br />
Front (ZANU-PF) as they marched through the street <strong>of</strong> Harare, did in no<br />
way prepare the Zimbabwean or international media fraternity for the bomb<br />
attack on the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> that newspaper just five days later.<br />
Two days prior to the bomb attack ZANU-PF supporters and members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
so-called war veterans publicly declared ‘war’ against “The Daily News” in<br />
two towns outside Harare for alleged “unpatriotic coverage” <strong>of</strong> national issues.<br />
The protesters pounced on newspaper vendors and confiscated copies <strong>of</strong> the<br />
newspaper, burning the copies in front <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC) TV cameras.<br />
On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean government<br />
expelled two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan<br />
Mercedes Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited<br />
immigrants never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set<br />
the scene for a gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign<br />
correspondents covering political issues in Zimbabwe.<br />
On the legislative environment, the Zimbabwean government on April 3, 2001<br />
passed into law the controversial Broadcasting Services Bill 2001 as ZANU-<br />
PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal<br />
Committee. The Committee declared some sections <strong>of</strong> the broadcasting regulations<br />
as unconstitutional but the Speaker <strong>of</strong> the House dismissed the report<br />
on a technicality. The Broadcasting Bill, among others, hinders opposition<br />
parties from broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
Information and Publicity excessive powers while controlling any prospective<br />
independent broadcast stations.<br />
MISA therefore appeals to:<br />
• The <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community (SADC) to put in place a<br />
mechanism to ensure that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe adheres to<br />
So This Is Democracy? 261
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
his promises to enable an environment that is conducive to free expression and<br />
a respect <strong>of</strong> the right <strong>of</strong> media practitioners to operate without hindrance. MISA<br />
welcomed and commended SADC governments on the signing <strong>of</strong> the SADC<br />
Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport which commits these governments<br />
to securing and promoting the free flow <strong>of</strong> information in the SADC region.<br />
• MISA believes in the rule <strong>of</strong> law and the separation <strong>of</strong> powers as internationally<br />
accepted norms <strong>of</strong> a democratic system <strong>of</strong> government. We therefore<br />
appeal to the <strong>Africa</strong>n Unity (AU), as the custodian <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on<br />
Human and Peoples’ Rights, to ensure democracy reigns in Zimbabwe. Articles<br />
9 and 11 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, respectively<br />
guarantee every individual the right to receive information and to express<br />
and disseminate his opinions within the law, as well as the right to assemble<br />
freely with others.<br />
• MISA appeals to the Commonwealth Secretariat to ensure that the January 30,<br />
2002 meeting <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group considers concrete<br />
action to ensure that promises made by the Zimbabwe Government are<br />
realised. The CMAG should verify the <strong>of</strong>ficial information given by the government<br />
and make room for representations from civic society groups regarding<br />
the current situation obtaining in the country.<br />
• MISA appeals to the European Union community to take the strongest stand<br />
in opposition <strong>of</strong> the deteriorating human rights and media freedom situation<br />
in Zimbabwe.<br />
• MISA appeals to the United Nations to call a special session <strong>of</strong> the Security<br />
Council to debate and seek to resolve the democratic crises currently facing<br />
millions <strong>of</strong> Zimbabweans.<br />
We therefore call on President Mugabe and his government to repeal the Public<br />
Order and Security Act, to desist from passing the Access to Information and<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill and for the government and its supporters to summarily<br />
stop all harassment <strong>of</strong> journalists and media institutions.<br />
Released by:<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA)<br />
21 Johann Albrecht Street<br />
Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Tel: +264 61 232975<br />
Fax: +264 61 248016<br />
E-mail: director@misa.org<br />
2002<br />
Enquiries:<br />
262 So This Is Democracy?<br />
Luckson Chipare, Regional Director
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
STATEMENTS • PRESS RELEASES • LETTERS OF APPEAL TO THE<br />
AFRICAN UNION (AU)<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
January 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Deteriorating press freedom situation in Zimbabwe<br />
Mr Amara Essy<br />
The Secretary General<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Union<br />
Addis Ababa<br />
Ethiopia<br />
Dear Sir,<br />
We, the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA), wish to appeal to your<br />
good <strong>of</strong>fice to urgently intervene in halting the rapidly deteriorating socio-political<br />
situation in Zimbabwe, which became a member <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Africa</strong>n Union at<br />
its inception in 2001.<br />
We would like to bring to your attention those recent developments in Zimbabwe<br />
which merit the concern <strong>of</strong> all <strong>Africa</strong>n leaders, institutions, the countries<br />
they represent and the citizens <strong>of</strong> this continent. The time has come to take an<br />
unambiguous stand on the situation in Zimbabwe and to use the instruments<br />
available to the <strong>Africa</strong>n Union to orchestrate a concerted effort to restore the<br />
rule <strong>of</strong> law in Zimbabwe.<br />
The government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe is currently engaging in blatant violations <strong>of</strong><br />
media and human rights through harassment, arrest and beatings <strong>of</strong> media practitioners<br />
and members <strong>of</strong> civil society. These activities are now being legalised<br />
through the passing <strong>of</strong> repressive laws like the Public Order and Security Act<br />
and the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill.<br />
We believe that an attack on the media is an attack on the values that underpin<br />
the grand ideals <strong>of</strong> democracy and good governance that are the bedrock <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Union.<br />
The actions <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwean government and the worsening political conditions<br />
in that country is putting in jeopardy the New <strong>Africa</strong>n Initiative, that is<br />
partly being spearheaded by the AU, which aim to reverse the <strong>Africa</strong>n image as<br />
a doom continent and rejuvenate its political, economic and social condition to<br />
prosperity and development.<br />
We therefore, wish to urge your good <strong>of</strong>fice to persuade President Robert Mugabe<br />
and his government not to irretrievably reverse these gains <strong>of</strong> democracy that<br />
So This Is Democracy? 263
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
are being realised through <strong>Africa</strong>n renaisance and the progress made by <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
countries who are driven by a genuine interest <strong>of</strong> entrenching democracy and<br />
good governance in the best interest <strong>of</strong> their peoples.<br />
We would like to urge the AU to proactively participate in efforts aimed at<br />
restoring rule <strong>of</strong> law in Zimbabwe and to add its voice to echoes from national,<br />
regional and international communities.<br />
Sincerely<br />
Luckson A Chipare, Regional Director<br />
REGIONAL STATEMENTS • PRESS RELEASES • LETTERS OF APPEAL<br />
IN THE SOUTHERN AFRICA DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY (SADC)<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
January 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Deteriorating press freedom situation in Zimbabwe<br />
Chairperson <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Development Community,<br />
President Bakili Muluzi,<br />
Private Bag 0095,<br />
Gaborone, Botswana<br />
LETTER OF APPEAL ON THE DETERORIATING<br />
PRESS FREEDOM SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) appeals to the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
Development Community Heads <strong>of</strong> State to urgently take a strong stand against<br />
the continued human rights and media freedom violations in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA urges the SADC Heads <strong>of</strong> State to call on the Government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
to halt the passing <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> legislation in Zimbabwe, designed to control<br />
the media and repress independent reporting in the run-up to the 2002 presidential<br />
elections. MISA implores the Heads <strong>of</strong> States to denounce the ongoing and<br />
intensifying victimisation <strong>of</strong> media practitioners and violations <strong>of</strong> media<br />
freedoms in that country.<br />
2002<br />
MISA is concerned about the attempts by the Zimbabwean Government to pass<br />
these repressive bills in an effort to legalise its on-going harassment <strong>of</strong> journalists<br />
and its blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
We, along with the rest <strong>of</strong> the world, have witnessed a frightening<br />
deterioration in respect <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> law in Zimbabwe and the flow <strong>of</strong> information<br />
from and into Zimbabwe.<br />
Violations <strong>of</strong> media freedom in Zimbabwe have been escalating for some time<br />
264 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
and have reached the point where an unambiguous stand must be taken to restore<br />
the basic tenets <strong>of</strong> democracy and human rights. We would like to bring to<br />
your attention the recent events that illustrate the state sponsored systematic<br />
attacks on the free flow <strong>of</strong> independent information. Recorded incidents clearly<br />
indicate that the situation on the ground is worsening and that despite public<br />
statements and agreements the Government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe is continuing with its<br />
campaign <strong>of</strong> atrocities designed to stifle independent commentary and deny<br />
citizens balanced information with which to participate in the forthcoming election.<br />
MISA issued no less than 33 alerts on different forms <strong>of</strong> media violations against<br />
the independent media in Zimbabwe during 2001. These violations ranged from<br />
a bomb attack on a news organisation, to the arrest and detention <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
journalists, verbal and physical attacks on journalists by both the government<br />
and its supporters and, possibly most worrying, a barrage <strong>of</strong> threats <strong>of</strong> violence<br />
and incarceration against news organisations and individual journalists that have<br />
served to psychologically cripple the news media.<br />
The threats uttered against the independent newspaper “The Daily News” on<br />
February 23, 2001, by members <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe <strong>Africa</strong>n National Union Patriotic<br />
Front (ZANU-PF) as they marched through the street <strong>of</strong> Harare, did in no<br />
way prepare the Zimbabwean or international media fraternity for the bomb<br />
attack on the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> that newspaper just five days later.<br />
Two days prior to the bomb attack, ZANU-PF supporters and members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
so-called war veterans publicly declared ‘war’ against “The Daily News” in<br />
two towns outside Harare for alleged “unpatriotic coverage” <strong>of</strong> national issues.<br />
The protesters pounced on newspaper vendors and confiscated copies <strong>of</strong> the<br />
newspaper, burning the copies in front <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation<br />
(ZBC) TV cameras.<br />
On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean Government expelled<br />
two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan Mercedes<br />
Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited immigrants<br />
never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set the scene for a<br />
gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign correspondents<br />
covering news events in Zimbabwe.<br />
On the legislative environment, the Zimbabwean Government on April 3, 2001,<br />
passed into law the controversial Broadcasting Services Bill 2001, as ZANU-<br />
PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee.<br />
The Committee declared some sections <strong>of</strong> the broadcasting regulations<br />
as unconstitutional but the Speaker <strong>of</strong> the House dismissed the report on a technicality.<br />
The Broadcasting Act, among others, hinders opposition parties from<br />
broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
So This Is Democracy? 265
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
and Publicity excessive powers, while controlling any prospective independent<br />
broadcast stations.<br />
MISA is expresses these concerns because Zimbabwe is an important member<br />
<strong>of</strong> the SADC. During the SADC Extraordinary Summit in Blantyre, January<br />
14, 2002 President Mugabe assured Heads <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> his commitment to<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in his country. He also reaffirmed the practice <strong>of</strong> allowing<br />
national and international journalists to cover important national events,<br />
including elections. The SADC Heads <strong>of</strong> State should regard the on-going<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> the much disputed media bill by the Zimbabwean Parliament<br />
as an outright provocation that is counter to the January 14th statements. Additionally,<br />
MISA urges the SADC to hold President Mugabe’s Government<br />
accountable to those commitments.<br />
Today, in 10 <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> countries, MISA members and supporting organisations<br />
are coming out in numbers to protest the consideration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill and the passing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Public Order and Security Act which both impose wide-ranging restrictions<br />
on freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Zimbabwe. MISA is appealing to the Heads <strong>of</strong><br />
State to give support to this protest.<br />
MISA protests these bills because they impose excessive restrictions on the<br />
content <strong>of</strong> what the media may publish or broadcast; they call for all journalists<br />
to obtain accreditation from a government controlled body; they specify that all<br />
foreign-dominated ownership <strong>of</strong> the media is prohibited and non-citizens are<br />
prohibited from working as journalists; and they endow the authorities with<br />
excessive powers to stifle and violate media freedom in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA therefore appeals to Heads <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> the Governments <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community (SADC) to ask President Mugabe to reaffirm<br />
his commitment to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. MISA welcomed and<br />
commended SADC Heads <strong>of</strong> State on the signing <strong>of</strong> the SADC Protocol on<br />
Culture, Information and Sport, which commits their governments to securing<br />
and promoting the free flow <strong>of</strong> information in the SADC region.<br />
Furthermore, we appeal to the Heads <strong>of</strong> States, as signatories to the <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to ensure that democracy reigns in<br />
Zimbabwe. Articles 9 and 11 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Human and Peoples’<br />
Rights respectively guarantee every individual the right to receive information<br />
and to express and disseminate opinions within the law, as well as the<br />
right to assemble freely with others.<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
2002<br />
Luckson A Chipare, Regional Director<br />
266 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
January 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Deteriorating press freedom situation in Zimbabwe<br />
Honourable President Robert Mugabe<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the President<br />
Private Bag 7700<br />
Causeway, Harare<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
Your Excellency<br />
LETTER OF APPEAL ON THE DETERORIATING PRESS<br />
FREEDOM SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) appeals to your excellency President<br />
Mugabe to ensure that your government removes repressive provisions in<br />
the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill. We call for the Bill to<br />
be re-formulated in accordance with internationally and regionally accepted<br />
principles <strong>of</strong> giving maximum freedom to the media.<br />
MISA welcomes and commends the goodwill shown by your government in<br />
deferring the passing <strong>of</strong> the bill for further consultations, in which MISA is<br />
willing to participate. MISA expects the revised bill to omit licensing and accreditation<br />
<strong>of</strong> media practitioners. Amongst other issues, we would also anticipate<br />
the removal <strong>of</strong> clauses referring to the establishment <strong>of</strong> a statutory commission<br />
to regulate the content and other aspects <strong>of</strong> the media.<br />
MISA appeals to you to take a strong stand against the continued human rights<br />
and media freedom violations in Zimbabwe and urges your government to bring<br />
to book the perpetrators <strong>of</strong> media violations in the country.<br />
MISA urges your government to halt the passing <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> legislation in<br />
Zimbabwe designed to control the media and repress independent reporting.<br />
MISA implores you to denounce the ongoing and intensifying victimisation <strong>of</strong><br />
media practitioners and violations <strong>of</strong> media freedoms in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA believes that the passing <strong>of</strong> these repressive bills is an attempt by your<br />
government to legalise the on-going harassment <strong>of</strong> journalists which is no more<br />
than a blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined freedom <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
We, along with the rest <strong>of</strong> the world, have witnessed a frightening deterioration<br />
in respect <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> law in Zimbabwe and the flow <strong>of</strong> information<br />
from and into Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA is expressing these concerns because Zimbabwe is an important mem-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 267
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ber <strong>of</strong> the SADC and we commended your government on the signing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport, which commits governments<br />
in the region to securing and promoting the free flow <strong>of</strong> information.<br />
We anticipate your fulfilment <strong>of</strong> agreements made during the SADC Extra<br />
Ordinary Summit in Blantyre, January 14, 2002 where your Excellency assured<br />
Heads <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> your commitment to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Zimbabwe.<br />
Today, in 10 <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> countries, MISA members and supporting organisations<br />
are coming out in numbers to protest the consideration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill and the passing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Public Order and Security Act which both impose wide-ranging restrictions<br />
on freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA protests these bills because they impose excessive restrictions on the<br />
content <strong>of</strong> what the media may publish or broadcast; they call for all journalists<br />
to obtain accreditation from a government controlled body; they specify<br />
that all foreign-dominated ownership <strong>of</strong> the media is prohibited and non-citizens<br />
are prohibited from working as journalists; and they endow the authorities<br />
with excessive powers to stifle and violate media freedom in Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA therefore appeals you, your Excellency to reaffirm your commitment<br />
to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. Furthermore, we appeal to your government, as<br />
signatories to the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to ensure<br />
that democracy reigns in Zimbabwe. Articles 9 and 11 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter<br />
on Human and Peoples’ Rights respectively guarantee every individual the<br />
right to receive information and to express and disseminate opinions within<br />
the law, as well as the right to assemble freely with others.<br />
Sincerely yours<br />
Luckson A Chipare, Regional Director<br />
Declaration<br />
April 17, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Declaration on the arrests <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwean journalists<br />
2002<br />
* Following is a declaration signed by 28 (twenty-eight) members <strong>of</strong> Parliament<br />
and media pr<strong>of</strong>essionals, currently attending the Indian Ocean Rim Conference<br />
on Parliament and the <strong>Media</strong> in Cape Town, South <strong>Africa</strong>. The event<br />
is co-organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the World<br />
Bank <strong>Institute</strong>, the Commonwealth Press Union, the Commonwealth Journalists<br />
Association, the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association and the<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>n Parliament. MISA is in possession <strong>of</strong> the original document<br />
bearing the signatures.<br />
268 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
We, the undersigned Commonwealth parliamentarians, and media pr<strong>of</strong>essionals<br />
and participants attending the “Indian Ocean Rim Conference on Parliament<br />
and the <strong>Media</strong>”, in Cape Town, South <strong>Africa</strong>, 14-18 April 2002:<br />
1. Note with deep concern<br />
• the arrest and charging <strong>of</strong> Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota and Dumisani Muleya under<br />
the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act <strong>of</strong> 2002.<br />
• the serious obstruction <strong>of</strong> the free flow <strong>of</strong> information to the citizens <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe;<br />
• the restrictive and punitive nature <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act; and<br />
• the deterioration <strong>of</strong> relations between the Government and independent<br />
journalists.<br />
2. Reaffirm, as shared value <strong>of</strong> Commonwealth nations, that a free press is<br />
fundamental to democracy.<br />
3. Call on the Government <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
• to cease the prosecution <strong>of</strong> the two journalists so charged<br />
• to immediately repeal the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy<br />
Act.<br />
Simphiwe Mdlalose<br />
Regional Chairperson, <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Press Statement<br />
April 29, 2002<br />
TOPIC: <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting to be launched on World<br />
Press Freedom Day May 3rd<br />
The <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting will be launched as an <strong>of</strong>ficial activity <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Africa</strong> Commission on Human and People‚s Rights Sessions to be held in<br />
Pretoria between May 2 and May 9, 2002. The launch will be a gala dinner<br />
event held on World Press Freedom Day, May 3, the eleventh anniversary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
penning <strong>of</strong> the Windhoek Declaration. Representatives from a majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
States will be in attendance.<br />
The SADC was the birthplace <strong>of</strong> the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting an<br />
Independent and Pluralistic <strong>Africa</strong>n Press in 1991. Despite this, the region remains<br />
an international centre <strong>of</strong> media violations, and the right to communicate<br />
is almost non-existent for the majority population. Since the adoption <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Declaration, though, there have been gains in media freedom in <strong>Africa</strong> and in<br />
some nation states, the media has begun to take up its role as a cornerstone <strong>of</strong><br />
democracy and source <strong>of</strong> balanced information for citizens. The Windhoek<br />
Declaration has served as a beacon that highlights the extent to which govern-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 269
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ments throughout the world and the region honour their commitments towards<br />
upholding and promoting media freedom, independence and diversity.<br />
However, the Windhoek Declaration focused on promoting independent print<br />
media, and was silent on issues such as broadcasting liberalisation and the<br />
globalisation <strong>of</strong> the communications industry which have increasingly come<br />
into play in the last decade. Globalisation and liberalisation have serious social<br />
and economic implications for media freedom and development, not least because<br />
they threaten to jeopardise the ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>ns to produce media that is<br />
both relevant to audiences throughout <strong>Africa</strong>, and reflects the continent’s rich<br />
cultural diversity.<br />
<strong>Media</strong> practitioners and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression advocates from throughout<br />
<strong>Africa</strong> sought to address these concerns at the UNESCO-supported conference<br />
which was called to celebrate the 10th anniversary <strong>of</strong> the Windhoek<br />
Declaration in Namibia in May 2001. The conference responded by adopting<br />
the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting, which serves as a modern blueprint for<br />
policies and laws determining the future <strong>of</strong> broadcasting and information technology<br />
in <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
A growing partnership <strong>of</strong> media advocacy organisations across <strong>Africa</strong> will present<br />
the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting as an <strong>Africa</strong>n policy platform at the World<br />
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to be held in Geneva in December<br />
2003. In the lead up, the Charter will be strengthened through an advocacy<br />
process that is underway and which will strengthen and deepen ownership <strong>of</strong><br />
the Charter by <strong>Africa</strong>n media organisations and practitioners.<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> regional strengthening strategies is being led by a coalition<br />
<strong>of</strong> media organisations based in southern <strong>Africa</strong>. Through the process, media<br />
agencies across <strong>Africa</strong> will discuss and mobilise around the Charter. At the end<br />
<strong>of</strong> 2003, when the Charter is presented to WSIS, there will be no doubt that this<br />
is a document for which <strong>Africa</strong>n civil society seeks international endorsement.<br />
For further information / interviews contact:<br />
2002<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting:<br />
Tracey Naughton<br />
Regional Broadcast Program Manager<br />
<strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA)<br />
(+27) 082 726 7431<br />
or<br />
John Barker<br />
Head <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Programme, ARTICLE 19<br />
(+27) 082 890 4204<br />
270 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
World Press Freedom Day and regional media issues:<br />
Luckson Chipare<br />
Director, <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA)<br />
(+27) 082 706 2360<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n charter on broadcasting 2001<br />
Acknowledging the enduring relevance and importance <strong>of</strong> the Windhoek Declaration<br />
to the protection and promotion <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and <strong>of</strong> the<br />
media;<br />
Noting that freedom <strong>of</strong> expression includes the right to communicate and<br />
access to means <strong>of</strong> communication;<br />
Mindful <strong>of</strong> the fact that the Windhoek Declaration focuses on the print media<br />
and recalling Paragraph 17 <strong>of</strong> the Windhoek Declaration, which recommended<br />
that a similar seminar be convened to address the need for independence and<br />
pluralism in radio and television broadcasting;<br />
Recognising that the political, economic and technological environment in<br />
which the Windhoek Declaration was adopted has changed significantly and<br />
that there is a need to complement and expand upon the original Declaration;<br />
Aware <strong>of</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> serious barriers to free, independent and pluralistic<br />
broadcasting and to the right to communicate through broadcasting in <strong>Africa</strong>;<br />
Cognisant <strong>of</strong> the fact that for the vast majority <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>, the broadcast<br />
media remains the main source <strong>of</strong> public communication and information;<br />
Recalling the fact that the frequency spectrum is a public resource which<br />
must be managed in the public interest;<br />
We the Participants <strong>of</strong> Windhoek + 10 Declare that:<br />
PART I: GENERAL REGULATORY ISSUES<br />
1. The legal framework for broadcasting should include a clear statement <strong>of</strong><br />
the principles underpinning broadcast regulation, including promoting respect<br />
for freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, diversity, and the free flow <strong>of</strong> information and<br />
ideas, as well as a three-tier system for broadcasting: public service, commercial<br />
and community.<br />
2. All formal powers in the areas <strong>of</strong> broadcast and telecommunications regula-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 271
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
tion should be exercised by public authorities which are protected against<br />
interference, particularly <strong>of</strong> a political or economic nature, by, among other<br />
things, an appointments process for members which is open, transparent,<br />
involves the participation <strong>of</strong> civil society, and is not controlled by any particular<br />
political party.<br />
3. Decision-making processes about the overall allocation <strong>of</strong> the frequency<br />
spectrum should be open and participatory, and ensure that a fair proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
the spectrum is allocated to broadcasting uses.<br />
4. The frequencies allocated to broadcasting should be shared equitably among<br />
the three tiers <strong>of</strong> broadcasting.<br />
5. Licensing processes for the allocation <strong>of</strong> specific frequencies to individual<br />
broadcasters should be fair and transparent, and based on clear criteria which<br />
include promoting media diversity in ownership and content.<br />
6. Broadcasters should be required to promote and develop local content, which<br />
should be defined to include <strong>Africa</strong>n content, including through the introduction<br />
<strong>of</strong> minimum quotas.<br />
7. States should promote an economic environment that facilitates the development<br />
<strong>of</strong> independent production and diversity in broadcasting.<br />
8. The development <strong>of</strong> appropriate technology for the reception <strong>of</strong> broadcasting<br />
signals should be promoted.<br />
PART II: PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING<br />
1. All State and government controlled broadcasters should be transformed into<br />
public service broadcasters, that are accountable to all strata <strong>of</strong> the people as<br />
represented by an independent board, and that serve the overall public interest,<br />
avoiding one-sided reporting and programming in regard to religion, political<br />
belief, culture, race and gender.<br />
2. Public service broadcasters should, like broadcasting and telecommunications<br />
regulators, be governed by bodies which are protected against interference.<br />
3. The public service mandate <strong>of</strong> public service broadcasters should be clearly<br />
defined.<br />
4. The editorial independence <strong>of</strong> public service broadcasters should be guaranteed.<br />
2002<br />
5. Public service broadcasters should be adequately funded in a manner that<br />
272 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
protects them from arbitrary interference with their budgets.<br />
6. Without detracting from editorial control over news and current affairs content<br />
and in order to promote the development <strong>of</strong> independent productions and to<br />
enhance diversity in programming, public service broadcasters should be required<br />
to broadcast minimum quotas <strong>of</strong> material by independent producers.<br />
7. The transmission infrastructure used by public service broadcasters should<br />
be made accessible to all broadcasters under reasonable and non-discriminatory<br />
terms.<br />
PART III: COMMUNITY BROADCASTING<br />
1. Community broadcasting is broadcasting which is for, by and about the community,<br />
whose ownership and management is representative <strong>of</strong> the community,<br />
which pursues a social development agenda, and which is non-pr<strong>of</strong>it.<br />
2. There should be a clear recognition, including by the international community,<br />
<strong>of</strong> the difference between decentralised public broadcasting and community<br />
broadcasting.<br />
3. The right <strong>of</strong> community broadcasters to have access to the Internet, for the<br />
benefit <strong>of</strong> their respective communities, should be promoted.<br />
PART IV: TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CONVERGENCE<br />
1. The right to communicate includes access to telephones, email, Internet and<br />
other telecommunications systems, including through the promotion <strong>of</strong> community-controlled<br />
information communication technology centres.<br />
2. Telecommunications law and policy should promote the goal <strong>of</strong> universal<br />
service and access, including through access clauses in privatisation and liberalisation<br />
processes, and proactive measures by the State.<br />
3. The international community and <strong>Africa</strong>n governments should mobilise resources<br />
for funding research to keep abreast <strong>of</strong> the rapidly changing media and<br />
technology landscape in <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
4. <strong>Africa</strong>n governments should promote the development <strong>of</strong> online media and<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n content, including through the formulation <strong>of</strong> non-restrictive policies<br />
on new information and communications technologies.<br />
5. Training <strong>of</strong> media practitioners in electronic communication, research and<br />
publishing skills needs to be supported and expanded, in order to promote access<br />
to, and dissemination <strong>of</strong>, global information.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 273
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
PART V: IMPLEMENTATION<br />
1. UNESCO should distribute the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting 2001 as<br />
broadly as possible, including to stakeholders and the general public, both in<br />
<strong>Africa</strong> and worldwide.<br />
2. <strong>Media</strong> organizations and civil society in <strong>Africa</strong> are encouraged to use the<br />
Charter as a lobbying tool and as their starting point in the development <strong>of</strong><br />
national and regional broadcasting policies. To this end media organisations<br />
and civil society are encouraged to initiate public awareness campaigns, to form<br />
coalitions on broadcasting reform, to formulate broadcasting policies, to develop<br />
specific models for regulatory bodies and public service broadcasting,<br />
and to lobby relevant <strong>of</strong>ficial actors.<br />
3. All debates about broadcasting should take into account the needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
commercial broadcasting sector.<br />
4. UNESCO should undertake an audit <strong>of</strong> the Charter every five years, given<br />
the pace <strong>of</strong> development in the broadcasting field.<br />
5. UNESCO should raise with member governments the importance <strong>of</strong> broadcast<br />
productions being given special status and recognised as cultural goods<br />
under the World Trade Organization rules.<br />
6. UNESCO should take measures to promote the inclusion <strong>of</strong> the theme <strong>of</strong><br />
media, communications and development in an appropriate manner during the<br />
UN Summit on the Information Society in 2003.<br />
SADC Organisations Associated with the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting:<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Tracey Naughton<br />
broadcasting@misa.org.na<br />
www.misa.org<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) is a non-governmental organisation<br />
with members in 11 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Development Community<br />
(SADC) countries. Officially launched in September 1992, MISA focuses primarily<br />
on the need to promote free, independent and pluralistic media, as envisaged<br />
in the 1991 Windhoek Declaration and <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting.<br />
2002<br />
MISA seeks ways in which to promote the free flow <strong>of</strong> information and cooperation<br />
between media workers, as a principal means <strong>of</strong> nurturing democracy<br />
and human rights in <strong>Africa</strong> The role <strong>of</strong> the MISA is primarily one <strong>of</strong> a co-<br />
274 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ordinator, facilitator and communicator, and for this reason MISA aims to work<br />
together with all like-minded organisations and individuals to achieve a genuinely<br />
free and pluralistic media in southern <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
ARTICLE 19<br />
John Barker<br />
+27 (082)<br />
Info@article19.org.za<br />
www.article19.org<br />
Named after Article 19 <strong>of</strong> the Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights, the organisation<br />
works world wide to combat censorship by promoting freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression and access to <strong>of</strong>ficial information.<br />
With partners in over 30 countries, ARTICLE 19 works to strengthen local<br />
capacity to monitor and protest institutional and informal censorship.<br />
ARTICLE 19 activities includes monitoring, research, publishing, lobbying,<br />
campaigning and litigation on behalf <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression wherever it is<br />
threatened. Standards are developed to advance media freedom and assist individuals<br />
to speak out and campaign for the free flow <strong>of</strong> information.<br />
SACOD<br />
Chris K<br />
sacod@icon.co.za<br />
www.sacod.co.za<br />
SACOD is a coalition <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> filmmakers and organisations in related<br />
services whose primary focus is the production and distribution <strong>of</strong> social<br />
responsibility films and videos. It was founded in 1987 by independent institutions<br />
from Zimbabwe, South <strong>Africa</strong> and Mozambique, and Canada to support<br />
the growth <strong>of</strong> independent video movement, and to support the process <strong>of</strong> democratisation<br />
in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> via the audiovisual medium. SACOD now<br />
has members in eight SADC countries. South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
(Regional Office), Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Angola, Lesotho, Zambia, Mozambique<br />
and Namibia with its regional co-operation <strong>of</strong>fice in Johannesburg.<br />
AMARC<br />
Michelle Ntab<br />
regc@global.co.za<br />
www.amarc.org<br />
AMARC is an international non-governmental organisation serving the community<br />
radio movement, with almost 3,000 members and associates in 106<br />
So This Is Democracy? 275
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
countries. Its goal is to support and contribute to the development <strong>of</strong> community<br />
and participation.<br />
Press Statement<br />
May 2, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Launch <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> the media report<br />
* Following is a statement by the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> on the<br />
launch <strong>of</strong> its annual state <strong>of</strong> the media report, So This is Democracy?, 2001.<br />
The report is launched annually on May 3, World Press Freedom Day.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) will again this year be releasing<br />
its annual publication, “So This Is Democracy?: State <strong>of</strong> the media in<br />
<strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>” in commemoration <strong>of</strong> World Press Freedom Day on May 3.<br />
This is the eighth consecutive year in which MISA has issued this publication<br />
which records incidents <strong>of</strong> press freedom violations monitored by MISA in<br />
the previous year. The current edition therefore details press freedom violations<br />
in 2001.<br />
MISA issued 207 alerts in 2001 about press freedom violations in 11 SADC<br />
countries. This is an increase <strong>of</strong> 14 per cent over the 182 alerts recorded the<br />
previous year in 2000 and a 117 per cent increase over the 84 alerts issued in<br />
1994, when MISA first began monitoring press freedom violations in the subcontinent.<br />
The countries monitored include Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique,<br />
Namibia, South <strong>Africa</strong>, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA’s Regional Information Co-ordinator, Kaitira Kandjii, says in the acknowledgements<br />
that the increase in alerts is “as much an indication <strong>of</strong> the<br />
worsening media environment in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>, as it is evidence <strong>of</strong> organised<br />
media monitoring in many countries in the region”.<br />
2002<br />
In a regional overview Tee Ngugi, a lecturer and political and cultural analyst<br />
based in Windhoek, Namibia says: “The attempts to curtail media freedom<br />
and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression are a manifestation <strong>of</strong> a continuing struggle<br />
between two opposed forces: the movement towards the creation <strong>of</strong><br />
true democratic societies and a political leadership still tempted by the old<br />
philosophy <strong>of</strong> governance and politics. This is a struggle the people cannot<br />
afford to lose. Erosion <strong>of</strong> media freedom and restrictions on freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> expression lead to erosion <strong>of</strong> democracy. And … democracy is vital to<br />
development <strong>of</strong> our societies. For people in <strong>Africa</strong> and in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>,<br />
notions and concepts such as media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression<br />
are not idealistic abstractions. Our very survival depends on their materialisation.”<br />
276 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Breakdown <strong>of</strong> the 2001 alerts<br />
A breakdown <strong>of</strong> the 207 alerts issued last year show that 21 media practitioners<br />
were attacked or beaten, four were bombed or suffered damage through<br />
arson, 52 were detained, nine were charged, 30 were threatened, seven were<br />
expelled, 39 incidences <strong>of</strong> censorship were reported, 20 cases <strong>of</strong> legal action<br />
were recorded - where journalists faced legal action or where legislation was<br />
passed that affected the media, 11 victories were recorded and a further 14<br />
incidents were reported that proved a violation <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression that<br />
did not necessarily affect the media.<br />
Trends detected during 2001<br />
Although these alerts, as they are generally referred to, provide some indication<br />
<strong>of</strong> the status <strong>of</strong> press freedom in various countries, they do not necessarily<br />
provide an accurate reading <strong>of</strong> the status <strong>of</strong> press freedom in each country.<br />
Weak media monitoring activities in some countries, such as Lesotho, South<br />
<strong>Africa</strong> and Angola, do not reflect the frequent press freedom violations which<br />
occur in them.<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
The high statistics for Zimbabwe, in turn, are both indicative <strong>of</strong> the consistent<br />
monitoring carried out by the Zimbabwean chapter <strong>of</strong> MISA (MISA-Zimbabwe),<br />
and an increasingly oppressive media environment in that country. Zimbabwe<br />
needs to be singled out not only for leading the pack in the number <strong>of</strong><br />
alerts it attracted, but also because <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> these alerts. They deal with<br />
arrests, detentions and imprisonments <strong>of</strong> journalists; journalists being taken<br />
for questioning by the police; physical attacks on journalists by ruling and<br />
opposition party supporters; legal action against journalists - <strong>of</strong>ten based on<br />
oppressive and archaic legislation; frequent government threats to close or<br />
ban newspapers; attempts to introduce a statutory <strong>Media</strong> Council to licence<br />
journalists and to impose a state-approved code <strong>of</strong> conduct for journalists;<br />
politically-motivated dismissals and demotions <strong>of</strong> journalists in state-controlled<br />
media and other forms <strong>of</strong> intimidation and harassment.<br />
Zambia<br />
Zambia took a backseat to its neighbour, Zimbabwe, with fewer alerts issued on<br />
that country. However, government interference in the media, acts <strong>of</strong> intimidation<br />
and arrests under Zambia’s infamous defamation laws remain rampant.<br />
Swaziland<br />
Exactly one year ago the Swazi government banned The Guardian <strong>of</strong> Swaziland<br />
newspaper and The Nation magazine. Even a positive court ruling in favour <strong>of</strong><br />
unbanning The Guardian had no effect on the Government’s resolve to silence<br />
So This Is Democracy? 277
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
that newspaper. The Nation, although unbanned, is still reeling from the impact<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ban.<br />
Swaziland still has neither a Constitution nor a Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights. It is a monarchy<br />
ruled by royal decree. The Royal Proclamation <strong>of</strong> 1973 by the late Kind Sobhuza<br />
II annulled the 1968 Constitution. The decree effectively outlaws party politics<br />
and annulled the Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights continued in the 1968 Constitution, including<br />
the right to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. A Constitutional Review Commission was<br />
appointed in 1997 to look into the drafting <strong>of</strong> a new Constitution, but progress<br />
is hampered by the lack <strong>of</strong> political will on the part <strong>of</strong> the authorities and civil<br />
society is largely excluded from the process. The introduction <strong>of</strong> a Constitution<br />
with a Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights will no doubt form a solid basis for an improved human<br />
rights situation in Swaziland.<br />
Namibia and Botswana<br />
The governments <strong>of</strong> Namibia and Botswana expressed their intolerance for the<br />
independent media in a slightly different form - through economic sanctions.<br />
Both governments slapped newspapers in their respective countries with farreaching<br />
advertising bans. The Namibian government went a step further by<br />
issuing a ban on the purchase <strong>of</strong> that newspaper by government institutions.<br />
Although Botswana’s Guardian and Midweek Sun were successful in overturning<br />
the ban, it is still in place in Namibia and with little hope <strong>of</strong> review.<br />
On a regional level<br />
MISA welcomed the August 14, 2001, signing <strong>of</strong> the SADC Protocol on Culture,<br />
Information and Sport and commended Governments in the region for<br />
initiating the process <strong>of</strong> harmonising legislation affecting information and<br />
media.<br />
However, given the propensity <strong>of</strong> a large number <strong>of</strong> SADC member States to<br />
violate freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and freedom <strong>of</strong> the media on the flimsiest <strong>of</strong><br />
pretexts, MISA has expressed its concerns with relations to a number <strong>of</strong> aspects<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Protocol. In essence, MISA is <strong>of</strong> the opinion that the Protocol is not<br />
conducive to the promotion, protection and enforcement <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression,<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> the media and the free flow <strong>of</strong> information in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
The Protocol, among others:<br />
2002<br />
• fails to define and elaborate on the nature, content and limits <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression and freedom <strong>of</strong> the media;<br />
• fails to provide for a Special Rapporteur responsible for monitoring compliance<br />
by States;<br />
• does not expressly provide for the participation <strong>of</strong> civil society and special-<br />
278 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ised NGOs in the law-making process for implementing the standards that it<br />
sets, as is the case under United Nations and other regional treaties;<br />
• fails to place strict limitations on the power <strong>of</strong> individual states to restrict<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and freedom <strong>of</strong> the media;<br />
• does not make explicit provision for the right <strong>of</strong> individuals to have access to<br />
information held by States or protection <strong>of</strong> journalistic sources.<br />
NEW FEATURES IN THE BOOK:<br />
The 253-page publication is in book form and boasts a number <strong>of</strong> new features,<br />
including:<br />
• Country overviews written by independent authors from each country;<br />
• Translations into Portuguese <strong>of</strong> all Country Overviews;<br />
• An appraisal <strong>of</strong> the state <strong>of</strong> the media in the region by Tee Ngugi, a lecturer<br />
and political and cultural analyst based in Windhoek, Namibia - an independent<br />
commentator from outside the MISA establishment;<br />
• A list <strong>of</strong> MISA’s previous annual Press Freedom Award winners;<br />
• Graphics showing breakdowns <strong>of</strong> the 2001 alerts as well as the increase in<br />
alerts from 1994 to 2001;<br />
• Contact details <strong>of</strong> MISA’s national chapters for the reporting <strong>of</strong> press freedom<br />
violations;<br />
• Information on how to classify and report media freedom violations;<br />
• Information about MISA and its regional programmes.<br />
MISA thanks all its national chapters in the 11 SADC countries for the contributions<br />
they made in the reporting <strong>of</strong> press freedom violations in their countries<br />
to the MISA Regional Secretariat in Windhoek. These violations form the basis<br />
<strong>of</strong> many regional and international campaigns to draw attention to press freedom<br />
abuses in various countries and to provide protection for media practitioners<br />
who are under threat.<br />
COPIES OF THE BOOK CAN BE ORDERED FROM: Sarah Shivute, MISA<br />
Information Unit, Windhoek, Namibia, Tel. +264 61 232975, Fax. 248016, e-<br />
mail: sarah@misa.org.na, web: http://www.misa.org<br />
Luckson Chipare<br />
Regional Director, <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Press Statement<br />
May 6, 2002<br />
TOPIC: MISA John Manyarara Investigative Journalism Award<br />
Mr. Conrad Nyamutata, former Chief Reporter <strong>of</strong> the Daily News in Zimbabwe,<br />
became the second recipient <strong>of</strong> the MISA John Manyarara Investigative<br />
Journalism Award, when he was named the winner on May 3, 2002 - World<br />
So This Is Democracy? 279
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Press Freedom Day. The award was handed to him by Judge John Oliver<br />
Manyarara at a gala dinner held in Pretoria, South <strong>Africa</strong>. The following is the<br />
full citation read at the award ceremony.<br />
The John Manyarara Investigative Journalism award seeks to recognise excellence<br />
in investigative journalism. And tonight that award will be received by<br />
Conrad Nyamutata for a series <strong>of</strong> investigative stories that probed the 11 September<br />
2000 bombing <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the opposition Movement for Democratic<br />
Change (MDC) in Harare, Zimbabwe. Nyamutata’s investigative work<br />
showed who the players in the September 2000 bomb blast were, and more<br />
importantly, that they had been allowed to go scot-free.<br />
The MDC was launched in September 1999, but by June 2000 it had contested<br />
and won 57 parliamentary seats out <strong>of</strong> the 120 contested seats. The result shocked<br />
the ruling ZANU-PF <strong>of</strong> President Robert Mugabe - that a party barely a year<br />
old could make such significant inroads.<br />
Nyamutata’s articles chronicle the government’s response to the threat to its survival<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the advent <strong>of</strong> the MDC on the Zimbabwean political landscape.<br />
The Zimbabwean government employed the services <strong>of</strong> serving members <strong>of</strong><br />
the security agency to infiltrate the security department <strong>of</strong> the MDC. Once inside<br />
they studied the weaknesses in the opposition party’s security and so went<br />
about their covert mission. Using their state resources, they bombed the MDC<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices in Harare. The idea was to suggest pr<strong>of</strong>ound contradictions within the<br />
opposition party, especially as they were emanating from a department responsible<br />
for security.<br />
Nyamutata’s investigative work showed that the government had planted these<br />
agents in the MDC with the specific objective <strong>of</strong> destabilising the opposition. It<br />
was further discovered that there were similarities in the bombing <strong>of</strong> both The<br />
Daily News and MDC <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
Nyamutata’s research was able to chronicle how a Central Intelligence Organisation<br />
(CIO) operative procured several grenades, who he was, where he lived,<br />
what he did with the grenades and how he celebrated on the night <strong>of</strong> the bombing<br />
by repeatedly shouting “Mission accomplished”.<br />
The police <strong>of</strong>ficer implicated in the articles was “fired” from the service, allegedly<br />
because he was a member <strong>of</strong> the opposition. In reality, the “firing” was a<br />
promotion. He is now in the Police Protection Unit, which <strong>of</strong>fers close security<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers to government ministers. The CIO operative in turn, has since moved<br />
lodgings and returned to his parents’ home in Highfield.<br />
2002<br />
At each turn the police put impediments in the way <strong>of</strong> the investigations. The<br />
280 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
investigations showed the CIO operative had only been “suspended” whilst<br />
police claimed he could not be found anywhere. Instead they leaked the story to<br />
the government-controlled Herald newspaper in the hope <strong>of</strong> confusing the public<br />
about to their own role or failure to act.<br />
There was indeed tension between ZANU-PF and the MDC, but it was more a<br />
question <strong>of</strong> outrage, laced with the realisation <strong>of</strong> the extent to which the organisation<br />
had been compromised. ZANU-PF savoured its coup. The episode has<br />
made the MDC more alert to the landmines placed in its path as it tries to engage<br />
ZANU-PF in the current dialogue.<br />
Both the public and opposition were stunned by the extent to which a government<br />
could go in its panic to safeguard its position. In a sense that was just a<br />
window into how the government would react in its bid to protect itself.<br />
The promotion <strong>of</strong> the police <strong>of</strong>ficer and the inability <strong>of</strong> the law enforcement<br />
agents to arrest the CIO operative unfortunately send the signal that these organisations<br />
are untouchable. It has the effect <strong>of</strong> terrorising people. It makes<br />
them utterly powerless.<br />
Any story that is thoroughly researched and presented has its benefits: It does a<br />
lot for the credibility <strong>of</strong> the newspaper; among the readers it instils a sense <strong>of</strong><br />
trust in the paper’s ability to investigate and report clandestine activities; it has<br />
a spin-<strong>of</strong>f effect in that suddenly everyone inside the organisation wants to pursue<br />
an investigative story. Investigative journalism is good for business.<br />
A well-researched story seldom has legal implications. That was the case with<br />
this particular investigative work. But in other cases it could be crippling, when<br />
the people affected sue, but that only occurs when no thorough investigations<br />
have been undertaken.<br />
After his training at the Harare Polytechnic, Nyamutata began his career at The<br />
Herald, where he specialised in court reporting. In 1999, he joined The Daily<br />
News and soon established himself as a very solid reporter. In recognition <strong>of</strong> his<br />
work, Nyamutata was soon elevated to the position <strong>of</strong> Chief Reporter. Early<br />
this year Nyamutata travelled to the United Kingdom, to further his studies. In<br />
his absence, Mr. Thomas Deve, IT Manager <strong>of</strong> the Daily News, will receive the<br />
award on his behalf.<br />
ABOUT THE AWARD<br />
The John Manyarara Award for Investigative Journalism is presented annually.<br />
The winner receives 2 000 Euro and a study grant <strong>of</strong> 10 000 Euro. The award is<br />
an initiative <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> and the NiZA and is a<br />
tribute to Justice Manyarara, the founding Chairperson <strong>of</strong> the MISA Trust Fund<br />
So This Is Democracy? 281
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Board (TFB) (1994 -2000), who retired from the TFB on September 8, 2000.<br />
Justice Manyarara remains a passionate advocate <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> speech in Zimbabwe<br />
and the region at large.<br />
The award seeks to recognise excellence in investigative journalism in any form<br />
<strong>of</strong> media in the SADC region with the exception <strong>of</strong> the Democratic Republic <strong>of</strong><br />
Congo, Mauritius and Seychelles. The award is given for an article or series <strong>of</strong><br />
articles that demonstrate investigative skills and the presentation <strong>of</strong> such facts<br />
in any media.<br />
A rotational judges’ panel consists <strong>of</strong> former winners <strong>of</strong> the already established<br />
annual MISA Press Freedom Award, with the most recent winner taking over<br />
from the oldest member. They are joined by a representative <strong>of</strong> the Netherlands<br />
<strong>Institute</strong> for <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (NiZA). This year’s judges are Gwen Lister, editor<br />
<strong>of</strong> The Namibian (Namibia), Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota, editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> The Daily<br />
News (Zimbabwe), Fred M’membe <strong>of</strong> editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> The Post (Zambia) and<br />
NiZA representative, Kees Schaepman.<br />
The award was won last year for the first time by ‘Star’ reporter Lynne Altenroxel<br />
for her exposure <strong>of</strong> unethical medical practice between doctors and pathology<br />
laboratories.<br />
Press Statement<br />
May 30, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Mainstreaming Gender Into the World Summit on the Information<br />
Society (WSIS)<br />
* Representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n governments, UN agencies, civil society and the<br />
private sector are currently convening in Bamako, Mali, for the <strong>Africa</strong>n regional<br />
preparatory conference as part <strong>of</strong> preparations for the World Summit on<br />
the Information Society (WSIS). The Summit will take place in 2003 under the<br />
patronage <strong>of</strong> UN Secretary General, K<strong>of</strong>i Annan, with the International Telecommunication<br />
Union (ITU) taking the lead role in its preparation along with<br />
interested UN organizations and the host countries. A General Assembly Resolution<br />
(A/RES/56/183) endorsing the organisation <strong>of</strong> the World Summit on the<br />
Information Society (WSIS) was adopted on 21 December 2001. Following is<br />
a statement by the Gender Caucus for the WSIS. For more information on the<br />
WSIS please see http://www.itu.int/wsis/<br />
STATEMENT:<br />
Mainstreaming Gender Into the World Summit on the Information Society<br />
(WSIS)<br />
2002<br />
The Gender Caucus for the WSIS invites you to consider and implement the<br />
282 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
recommendations contained in the attached statement as your organisation makes<br />
preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society.<br />
The gender caucus consists <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> organisations that responded<br />
to an invitation by UNIFEM to contribute to ensuring that gender dimensions<br />
are included in the process <strong>of</strong> defining and creating a Global Information Society<br />
that contributes to sustainable development and human security. The following<br />
organisations took part in the work towards defining an agenda for the<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n region:<br />
1. Abantu for Development<br />
2. ACWICT<br />
3. <strong>Africa</strong>n Connection Programme<br />
4. AIS-GWG<br />
5. AMARC-WIN<br />
6. AMARC <strong>Africa</strong><br />
7. APC <strong>Africa</strong> Women’s Programme<br />
8. Association <strong>of</strong> YAM-Bukri<br />
9. ENDA<br />
10. GEEP<br />
11. FEMNET<br />
12. MISA<br />
13. NDIMA<br />
14. Network <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Women Economists<br />
15. UNDP/SURF West <strong>Africa</strong><br />
16. UNIFEM<br />
17. Unite d’appui au programme de la cooperation Canada-Malienne<br />
18. WomensNet (SA)<br />
19. WOUGNET<br />
20. ZWRCN<br />
21. Zimbabwe Ministry <strong>of</strong> Transport and Communications<br />
We look forward to working with you in the preparations for the WSIS and in<br />
the programme <strong>of</strong> action that arises out <strong>of</strong> our deliberations at the Summit.<br />
For further information on partnership opportunities and the work <strong>of</strong> the gender<br />
caucus please contact Laketch Dirasse, Chief <strong>Africa</strong> UNIFEM (email<br />
laketch.dirasse@undp.org)<br />
Gender Caucus Statement<br />
For Inclusion in Bamako2002 Declaration<br />
The <strong>Africa</strong>n Regional Preparatory Meeting For the World Summit on the<br />
Information Society<br />
May 25-30 2002<br />
We the members <strong>of</strong> the Gender Caucus meeting in Bamako, Mali during the<br />
So This Is Democracy? 283
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Regional Preparatory Meeting for the World Summit on the Information<br />
Society (WSIS) express and confirm support for the WSIS.<br />
We further bring to the urgent attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Africa</strong>n and international community<br />
engaged in the preparation for the WSIS the need to act now to reduce<br />
the widening gender digital divide within the digital divide faced by <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
Considering the critical role that women play in all societies and their potential<br />
contribution to developing an Information Society, we hereby urge:<br />
1. The UN system and agencies, including the ITU, UNIFEM, UNDP, ECA,<br />
UNESCO<br />
• To develop training and capacity development programmes that can<br />
raise awareness <strong>of</strong> the gendered nature <strong>of</strong> the Information Society and<br />
identify strategies for ensuring fair and equitable participation by Afri<br />
can men and women;<br />
• To apply gender analysis frameworks in the development <strong>of</strong> national,<br />
regional and global policies and strategies;<br />
• To develop gender-disaggregated data on women’s participation in the<br />
Information Society and to carry out research to identify impacts <strong>of</strong><br />
exclusion and opportunities for increased participation;<br />
• To strengthen co-operation among UN agencies working on gender and<br />
ICT issues including support for the working relationships established<br />
between UNDP, UNIFEM and the ITU; and<br />
• To continue to work towards ratifying treaties and protocols that recognise<br />
women’s human rights including the right to communication and<br />
include provisions for supporting implementation <strong>of</strong> these in all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
action plans including those arising out <strong>of</strong> the WSIS process.<br />
2002<br />
2. <strong>Africa</strong>n regional and sub-regional organisations including the UN-ECA,<br />
ADB, ATU and OAU/AU<br />
• To ensure participation <strong>of</strong> the gender advocacy constituencies in <strong>Africa</strong><br />
in the conceptualisation, development and implementation <strong>of</strong> ICT policies,<br />
regulatory framework and plans at national, sub-regional, regional<br />
and global levels;<br />
• To work with the regional economic communities (RECs) to ensure<br />
that the gender dimension is considered and integrated into all policy,<br />
regulatory, work programmes and strategies that deal with ICT and development<br />
and the ICT industry;<br />
• To ensure that the development and implementation <strong>of</strong> the NEPAD<br />
initiative acknowledges and addresses the gender digital divide and<br />
other gender imbalances in <strong>Africa</strong>; and<br />
• To ensure greater efficiency and synergy among <strong>Africa</strong>n institutions<br />
and their partners by increasing effective co-ordination, co-operation<br />
and collaboration n all the activities relating to ICT and development.<br />
284 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
3. National governments and public -sector bodies particularly including<br />
policy making and national regulatory authorities involved in ICT sector<br />
and in sustainable development<br />
• To make full commitment to support democratisation <strong>of</strong> policy processes<br />
within the ICT sector, including use <strong>of</strong> ICT tools to support this<br />
process, and to formulate and implement ICT policy using principles <strong>of</strong><br />
openness and with full, legitimate participation <strong>of</strong> all stakeholders including<br />
civil society;<br />
• To implement ICT policies through transparent processes with due consideration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the need for accountability;<br />
• To ensure that women’s fair participation in all levels <strong>of</strong> the ICT industry<br />
is assured and increased, through use <strong>of</strong> regulatory rules and provisions<br />
that influence shareholder structures and composition <strong>of</strong> governance<br />
mechanisms, especially as market structures change and become<br />
increasingly privatised;<br />
• To increase access to ICT facilities through making arrangements that<br />
support achievement <strong>of</strong> universal access targets and defining specific<br />
targets for women’s access to ICT;<br />
• To develop measurable indicators that can contribute to the assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> ICT policies to women’s empowerment;<br />
• To promote cultural diversity in the implementation <strong>of</strong> national ICT<br />
strategies including through active use <strong>of</strong> local languages and provision<br />
<strong>of</strong> information on strategies in various media including community radio<br />
and non-electronic media;<br />
• To ensure that there is gender equity in education, specifically by providing<br />
opportunities to increase girls’ literacy, and by providing access to<br />
fair and equitable participation in science and technology education<br />
and training at all levels;<br />
• To support use <strong>of</strong> ICT for women’s empowerment including through<br />
application <strong>of</strong> ICTs in health, education, trade, employment and other<br />
women’s development arenas;<br />
• To implement the CEDAW and all other conventions that recognise<br />
women’s human rights and right to communication and economic rights<br />
and to implement ICT policies and programmes that take account <strong>of</strong><br />
these commitments; and<br />
• To recognise, ratify, promote and implement the <strong>Africa</strong>n charter on broadcasting.<br />
4. <strong>Africa</strong>n private sector and <strong>Africa</strong>n entrepreneurs in the diaspora<br />
• To support and encourage fair and equitable employment practices in<br />
cluding gender equality in remuneration and access to promotion and<br />
increased responsibility;<br />
• To take account <strong>of</strong> corporate social responsibility in carrying out their<br />
operations and business development activities;<br />
• To provide increased access to financing for deployment <strong>of</strong> ICT projects,<br />
So This Is Democracy? 285
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
including through active partnerships with UNIFEM, and women’s organisations<br />
particularly in rural areas;<br />
• To participate in mentoring, information exchange and other programmes<br />
to support development <strong>of</strong> private sector initiatives in the <strong>Africa</strong>n Information<br />
Society; and<br />
• To provide infrastructure, services and applications that meet women’s<br />
needs particularly in rural areas.<br />
5. <strong>Africa</strong>n civil society<br />
• To ensure that gender equity is a cross-cutting principle and to commit<br />
themselves to take a gendered approach in all activities, including planning,<br />
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and in the structure<br />
<strong>of</strong> civil society organisations themselves;<br />
• To commit to active continuous participation in global, sub-regional<br />
and national policy processes in the ICT sector;<br />
• To investigate mechanisms for improving the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> civil society<br />
participation in policy conceptualisation and implementation, including<br />
capacity building and formation <strong>of</strong> co-ordinating and information<br />
sharing mechanisms;<br />
• To commit to formation <strong>of</strong> horizontal coalitions on issues relating to<br />
the Information Society that permits sharing <strong>of</strong> ideas and development<br />
<strong>of</strong> joint strategies across various groupings; and<br />
• To use ICTs as an additional strategic tool for action, recognising that<br />
these facilities and applications have advantages for facilitating wide<br />
communication processes.<br />
6. <strong>Africa</strong>n research and academic community<br />
• To contribute to the development <strong>of</strong> a common vision and shared understanding<br />
<strong>of</strong> a Global Information Society that contributes to achieving<br />
the goals <strong>of</strong> sustainable human development in <strong>Africa</strong> and globally;<br />
• To apply interdisciplinary approaches to examining the emerging Information<br />
and Communication Society and culture and its influence on<br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>;<br />
• To allocate adequate resources to research and teaching on gender dimensions<br />
<strong>of</strong> Information Society issues;<br />
• To increase the use <strong>of</strong> gender analysis in producing gender disaggregated<br />
data and research findings on the impacts <strong>of</strong> ICTs on men and women ;<br />
• To encourage and support increased participation <strong>of</strong> women academics<br />
in ICT research and analysis through proactive approaches to support<br />
women’s involvement and mobility in these fields;<br />
• To integrate information literacy and ICT awareness into curricula at<br />
all levels <strong>of</strong> formal and informal training and education programmes; and<br />
• To share and widely disseminate results <strong>of</strong> academic research.<br />
2002<br />
7. Public, private and community media<br />
286 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
• To take account that the convergence <strong>of</strong> technologies - in radio, internet,<br />
email, video and telephone fax etc, has the potential to facilitate communication<br />
and access to information, and to take the necessary steps<br />
work with a wide range <strong>of</strong> media and to adopt a multi-media approach;<br />
• To promote the role that the media can play in transforming society,<br />
encouraging debate and to inform. In particular, noting the potential to<br />
address unequal gender power relationships in society, and within the<br />
media itself;<br />
• To promote and support the particularly pivotal role <strong>of</strong> community media<br />
in the democratisation <strong>of</strong> communication and gender justice;<br />
• To carry out the specific responsibility to provide equal access to media<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> gender and other points <strong>of</strong> exclusion. This includes accountability<br />
to its constituencies with regard to its progress in addressing<br />
gender inequality;<br />
• To promote national languages and local content to ensure the widespread<br />
participation and inclusion <strong>of</strong> women; and<br />
• To ensure that local knowledge, including local gender knowledge is<br />
given importance in media content, and steps are taken to establish stand<br />
ards <strong>of</strong> reporting which include gender dimensions.<br />
8. <strong>Africa</strong>n women movements and organisations<br />
• To commit to mainstream ICT advocacy issues within their women’s<br />
human rights programmes, projects and activities;<br />
• To participate in ICT policy processes at all levels including sharing<br />
information, reflect women’s concerns and integrating gender analysis<br />
expertise into policy formulation and research; and<br />
• To use ICTs as a tool in information dissemination and campaigning,<br />
including around national, sub-regional, global policy processes.<br />
9. International partners and investors<br />
• To recognise that providing increased access to ICTs should be integrated<br />
into programmes that assist with poverty alleviation and em<br />
powerment <strong>of</strong> women;<br />
• To introduce mandatory requirement that all ICT and development<br />
projects include a gender dimension and specific activities to increase<br />
women’s access to ICT facilities and applications and participation in<br />
ICT sector;<br />
• To define measurable performance indicators to identify the impact <strong>of</strong><br />
funded projects on the lives <strong>of</strong> girls and women; and<br />
• To ensure that there is consideration and integration <strong>of</strong> the gender<br />
dimension in global ICT governance.<br />
10. All stakeholders<br />
• To commit to work in partnership, to ensure co-ordination, co-operation<br />
and collaboration in the development <strong>of</strong> a shared vision and com-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 287
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2002<br />
mon understanding <strong>of</strong> a World Information Society that contributes to<br />
human development based on agreed principles including recognition<br />
<strong>of</strong> women’s human rights and right to communicate;<br />
• To commit to reducing the disparities that currently exist in access to<br />
and participation in the Information Society, particularly with respect<br />
to the widening gender digital divide;<br />
• To actively encourage, facilitate and support women’s active participation<br />
in the Global Information Society;<br />
• To commit to ensuring that ICTs be used as an effective tool in reaching<br />
collective goals <strong>of</strong><br />
* Gender equality and women’s empowerment<br />
* Eradication <strong>of</strong> extreme poverty and hunger<br />
* Achieving universal education<br />
* Reducing child and maternal mortality<br />
* Reducing gender based violence and child abuse<br />
* Improving access to health care and particular reproductive health<br />
and reduction <strong>of</strong> child mortality rates<br />
* Combating malaria, HIV/AIDS and other endemic diseases<br />
* Ensuring peace, human security and stability<br />
* Encouraging pursuit <strong>of</strong> freedom and good governance and increased<br />
democratic participation with protection <strong>of</strong> national, regional and<br />
global legitimate interests;<br />
• To ensure that all the proposed training and capacity development programmes<br />
to support developing countries effective participation in the<br />
WSIS including the UNITAR programme integrates appropriate consideration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the gender dimension and includes full participation <strong>of</strong><br />
women;<br />
• To integrate programme development at the World Summits on the Information<br />
Society with the regional and global preparation for World<br />
Conference on Women (Beijing+10) and other sustainable development<br />
initiatives particularly WSSD;<br />
• To use a broad information dissemination programme, that integrates<br />
radio traditional media and other ‘low-technology’ applications to<br />
widely distribute the results <strong>of</strong> the discussions and to invite broader<br />
participation in the development <strong>of</strong> a shared understanding and com<br />
mon vision;<br />
• To take forward the recommendations made in this document beyond<br />
Bamako 2002 particularly in all <strong>of</strong> the preparatory processes for the<br />
WSIS 2003 and 2005;<br />
• To provide specific opportunities for the discussion and further elaboration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the issues raised and the recommendations made to be included<br />
in the programme <strong>of</strong> activities planned for Geneva 2003 and<br />
Tunis 2005; and<br />
• To actively engage in mobilising human and financial resources that<br />
are required to integrate efforts for reducing the gender digital divide<br />
288 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
into the work programme arising from the World Summit on the Information<br />
Society.<br />
Position <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Women in relation to ICTs<br />
1. For many women in <strong>Africa</strong>, the challenge is to overcome a double burden <strong>of</strong><br />
marginalisation. The marginalisation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> is characterised by increased<br />
poverty, lack <strong>of</strong> infrastructure, conflicts, deepening rural/urban disparities and<br />
high illiteracy. Women’s burden is heavier in all these aspects because women<br />
represent the majority <strong>of</strong> the poor and illiterate. The relative high cost <strong>of</strong> access<br />
to ICT facilities and equipment as well as the unavailability <strong>of</strong> access to funding<br />
and credit also contribute to this burden. Further, the unavailability <strong>of</strong> appropriate<br />
technologies designed for an <strong>Africa</strong>n context exacerbates the problems<br />
<strong>of</strong> women’s access and participation in ICT and in the Information Society.<br />
Gender discrimination excludes the majority <strong>of</strong> women from benefiting<br />
from the opportunities that ICTs <strong>of</strong>fer as a tool and catalyst for development<br />
and al human enterprise.<br />
2. The ICT sector is dominated by values which favour pr<strong>of</strong>it over human well<br />
being. This lack <strong>of</strong> concern for human development objectives does not augur<br />
well for women in <strong>Africa</strong>. Within the firms, markets and institutional contexts<br />
through which ICTs are diffused, power relations do not advance women’s<br />
empowerment and the agenda <strong>of</strong> the few groups representing the interests <strong>of</strong><br />
gender equality and human development in policy processes are marginalised.<br />
These groups occupy low status and are seen to have little relevance. In addition,<br />
women are underrepresented in all aspects <strong>of</strong> decision-making in operations,<br />
policy and regulation. Unless this dominant culture and its related practices<br />
are changed, rapid diffusion <strong>of</strong> ICTs will contribute little to gender equality<br />
and human development for the world’s majority.<br />
3. The failure to achieve greater equity in access to the Information Society<br />
poses greater risks that the <strong>Africa</strong>n region and women in that region will fall<br />
further behind, becoming more marginalised and excluded. The Information<br />
Society as it is presently constituted does not reflect different women’s concerns,<br />
needs and interests and fails to recognise and protect women’s human<br />
rights and dignity. This failure is leading to the imposition <strong>of</strong> external models<br />
and perspectives that will aggravate present conditions <strong>of</strong> poverty and exclusion.<br />
The concept on the Information Society as it stands now, leads to an absence<br />
<strong>of</strong> an <strong>Africa</strong>n, and an <strong>Africa</strong>n women’s perspective.<br />
4. Women are seen as passive receivers <strong>of</strong> information rather than actors able to<br />
shape and contribute to decision making and policy formulation in general and<br />
in the ICT sector in particular. <strong>Africa</strong>n women are able to contribute to the<br />
formulation and implementation <strong>of</strong> creative solutions to the digital divide and<br />
are legitimate partners and actors in building an Information Society in <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 289
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
5. ICTs and the upgrading <strong>of</strong> human capacity are increasingly considered to be<br />
agents for development. It is, therefore, critical to ensure equal access and<br />
gender equity in the Information Society. Increased access to ICTs can uplift<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n women’s livelihood through:<br />
* Greater access to and control <strong>of</strong> local and international markets for <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
women producers and traders;<br />
* Employment and other pr<strong>of</strong>it-related opportunities which do not require a<br />
physical presence thereby allowing women to combine the care economy with<br />
their pr<strong>of</strong>essional roles;<br />
* Promotion <strong>of</strong> health, nutrition, education and other human development opportunities;<br />
* The capacity to mobilise for women’s empowerment and societal well being.<br />
Press Statement<br />
December 3, 2002<br />
TOPIC: State <strong>of</strong> broadcasting in SADC<br />
A workshop attended by participants from broadcasting regulators, national<br />
broadcasters and parliamentarians drawn from Angola, Botswana, Malawi,<br />
Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, was hosted in Namibia by the<br />
<strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) and the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting<br />
Association (SABA) in co-operation with the Fredrich Ebert Stiftung,<br />
from November 27 to 29, 2002 with the main objective to assess the state <strong>of</strong><br />
broadcasting in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
Policy Framework<br />
The workshop acknowledged southern <strong>Africa</strong>n and <strong>Africa</strong>n policy documents<br />
as yardsticks to discuss current processes <strong>of</strong> broadcasting reform in the SADC<br />
region, in particular, the<br />
* SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport;<br />
* <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting;<br />
* SADC Declaration on Information and Communications Technology;<br />
* Declaration <strong>of</strong> Principles on Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression in <strong>Africa</strong> adopted by the<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Commission on Human and People’s Rights.<br />
2002<br />
In particular the workshop dealt with the following principles:<br />
* The provision <strong>of</strong> the SADC ICT declaration to create a three tier separation <strong>of</strong><br />
powers in the regulation <strong>of</strong> telecommunications and broadcasting, with the government<br />
responsible for a conducive national policy framework, independent<br />
regulators responsible for licensing and a multiplicity <strong>of</strong> providers. They agreed<br />
that the national framework should <strong>of</strong>fer a broad legislative basis that should be<br />
developed in a participatory process involving all stakeholders and the public at<br />
large, to be implemented by the regulator.<br />
290 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
* The provision by the Principles on Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression stipulating that<br />
any public authorities exercising powers in the area <strong>of</strong> broadcasting, i.e. Boards<br />
<strong>of</strong> regulatory authorities and public service broadcasters, should be independent<br />
and adequately protected against interference, particularly <strong>of</strong> a political or<br />
economic nature process for such bodies should be open, transparent, inclusive<br />
and credible.<br />
* The definition <strong>of</strong> public service broadcasters <strong>of</strong>fered by the <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter<br />
on Broadcasting and the Principles <strong>of</strong> Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression as being accountable<br />
to the public, i.e. the citizens, through the legislature rather than the executive,<br />
governed by a board which is protected against interference <strong>of</strong> a political<br />
or economic nature, editorially independent, and adequately funded in a manner<br />
that protects them from arbitrary interference.<br />
Action Plan<br />
Actions that were determined as the way forward were categorised into three<br />
areas, being policy, technical and operational. Specifically, the plan <strong>of</strong> action is:<br />
Policy Matters:<br />
1. Raising Awareness <strong>of</strong> Policy Documents<br />
1. a. Popularise the documents noted above including enactment into<br />
local regulatory frameworks, including constitutions.<br />
1. b. Define in more detail differences between public service broadcasting<br />
and national / state broadcasting and then develop a process<br />
for transition and criteria to measure progress.<br />
1. c Define more precisely the different roles <strong>of</strong> executive, parliament,<br />
civil society, statutory bodies, stakeholders etc in the process <strong>of</strong><br />
policy development.<br />
2. Audit <strong>of</strong> Current State <strong>of</strong> Legislative Environments<br />
While it was acknowledged that there is no common blueprint applicable<br />
to all nation states, there was consensus on such key principles guiding<br />
broadcast reform.<br />
The workshop consented that parliaments, executives, stakeholders and<br />
the public at large should be made aware <strong>of</strong> the relevance <strong>of</strong> the above<br />
documents, and agreed that an audit should be under taken to compare<br />
existing legislation and regulations in the various countries with the principles<br />
set by the documents.<br />
Such an audit could form the basis for the development <strong>of</strong> regional and<br />
So This Is Democracy? 291
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
national strategies.<br />
3. Advocacy and Lobbying<br />
3. a. MISA, SABA and Broadcasters to engage the legislature so that the<br />
said policy documents and declarations are incorporated into their<br />
national laws.<br />
3. b. Parliamentarians, regulators, broadcasters and media associations<br />
are encouraged to initiate a public process <strong>of</strong> broadcasting and regulation<br />
reform according to the key principles mentioned in the key<br />
documents that framed workshop discussions.<br />
3. c. Conduct awareness campaigns on the need for and principles <strong>of</strong><br />
broadcasting reform.<br />
4. Local Content<br />
4. a Ensure sufficient local content quotas that reflect local cultures, aspirations,<br />
languages and realities in SADC countries.<br />
4. b Broadcasters should be led by the desire to uphold national interest<br />
and security.<br />
4. c. To develop and empower local indigenous content production capacity<br />
to enable broadcasters to attain local content quotas.<br />
Technical Matters:<br />
1. Standardisation<br />
Broadcasters to explore opportunities for standardisation <strong>of</strong> production, and<br />
transmission systems.<br />
2. Coverage<br />
Ensure universal access to broadcasting in terms <strong>of</strong> population reach with<br />
regards to reception equipment and transmission coverage.<br />
3. Digitalisation and Infrastructure<br />
Ensure a regional approach to new broadcast technologies such as digitalisation.<br />
Operational Matters:<br />
1. Funding<br />
Public service broadcasters need to explore avenues for adequate funding<br />
in a manner that protects them from arbitrary interference, e.g. a mix <strong>of</strong><br />
state funding, advertising, licensing and sponsorships.<br />
2002<br />
2. Broadcast Management<br />
292 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Ensure sound, credible and transparent management <strong>of</strong> broadcast and regulation<br />
institutions to make them more effective in discharging their duties.<br />
3. Co-production and Program Exchange<br />
Encourage co-production and program exchange within the region.<br />
4. NEPAD<br />
4. a Encourage public broadcasters to educate themselves and the public<br />
on NEPAD (New Partnership for <strong>Africa</strong>’s Development).<br />
4. b To use NEPAD in accessing funds to meet the development needs<br />
<strong>of</strong> media in the SADC region.<br />
Issued by:<br />
<strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting Association (SABA)<br />
<strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA)<br />
December 2, 2002<br />
ZIMBABWE<br />
Press Statement<br />
January 11, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Press Statement by Zimbabwean Journalist Organisations<br />
Representatives <strong>of</strong> the four main journalistic unions in Zimbabwe met at the<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe <strong>of</strong>fices in Harare, Zimbabwe on Thursday, January 10, to<br />
discuss the impending passage <strong>of</strong> the abominable Access to Information and<br />
Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill. The meeting was attended by leading representatives<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists, the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong>, the Independent Journalists Association (IJAZ), the Foreign Correspondents<br />
Association and the Federation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n <strong>Media</strong> Women-Zimbabwe.<br />
The organisations agreed to challenge the new law in court once it is signed,<br />
as it is patently illegal and designed to deprive the media <strong>of</strong> its constitutional<br />
right to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. In the meantime the unions agreed that journalists<br />
must continue with their work and ignore the Bill which is expected to<br />
be passed next week.<br />
A meeting <strong>of</strong> all journalists to discuss the Bill and conscientise journalists on<br />
how this legislation will impact on the media will be held on Saturday, January<br />
19. The unions will mobilise journalists to defy this undemocratic law by<br />
calling for a boycott <strong>of</strong> the registration process which is arbitrarily controlled<br />
by the Minister <strong>of</strong> Information in the Presidents Office.<br />
The Unions leaders also agreed to send a signed petition to the Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
So This Is Democracy? 293
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
House and Honourable Minister <strong>of</strong> Justice Legal and Parliamentary Affairs<br />
Patrick Chinamasa stating their grave concerns over the implications <strong>of</strong> this<br />
proposed law on freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and <strong>of</strong> the media in Zimbabwe.<br />
Issued by<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> - Zimbabwe (MISA-Zimbabwe)<br />
Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists (ZUJ)<br />
The Independent Journalists Association (IJAZ)<br />
The Foreign Correspondents (FCA)<br />
Federation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n <strong>Media</strong> Women - Zimbabwe. (FAMWZ)<br />
Press Statement<br />
May 2, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Arrest <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwean journalists<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe condemns in the strongest words the detention <strong>of</strong> journalists<br />
Lloyd Mudiwa, Collin Chiwanza and Andrew Meldrum on allegations <strong>of</strong> having<br />
written falsehoods.<br />
These allegations do not in any way correspond with the suffering, humiliation<br />
and intimidation that is being perpetrated on the three journalists. The Zimbabwe<br />
chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA-Zimbabwe) equally<br />
condemns the utterances by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Jonathan Moyo [Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity] on May 1, 2002, that the arrested journalists are criminals and<br />
that his department has nothing to do with the arrests. Such words are unfortunate<br />
and regrettable.<br />
What needs to be mentioned is that it is the Minister’s department that came up<br />
with this “law” which promotes lawlessness. Indeed as he said, this “law”<br />
criminalizes the pr<strong>of</strong>ession <strong>of</strong> journalism as witnessed by the recent spate and<br />
wanton arrests <strong>of</strong> journalists. These arrests are reminiscent <strong>of</strong> the Rhodesia era<br />
in every sense.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe therefore demands the immediate release <strong>of</strong> the three journalists<br />
without any further delays. We note that there is no provision in the socalled<br />
Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act that allows the police<br />
to hold journalists endlessly after charging them. These actions are a clear<br />
sign <strong>of</strong> abuse <strong>of</strong> authority, harassment and lawlessness. MISA-Zimbabwe further<br />
expresses deep concern over the statement made by the Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
and Publicity on Monday April 29 that parastatals must consider stopping<br />
advertising in “The Daily News” and the rest <strong>of</strong> the private media.<br />
2002<br />
We note that this statement, although made in particular reference to a news<br />
report, has wider implications for the sustainability <strong>of</strong> the whole independent<br />
media. We also note that no reasonable policy decision can be made on the basis<br />
<strong>of</strong> an isolated incident as mentioned in the statement.<br />
294 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
It is interesting to note that media ethics only seem to apply to the independent<br />
media in Zimbabwe and not the public media. This is evident by the fact that<br />
not a single mention has ever been made by the Minister or the Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Information over unethical conduct by the public media.<br />
Although both the public and private media make lapses here and there, it is the<br />
position <strong>of</strong> MISA-Zimbabwe that the media must remain sustainable through<br />
recognized and acceptable means such as accessing advertising revenue and<br />
the cover prices <strong>of</strong> newspapers.<br />
As the Minister rightly observed, the money that is used by parastatals is taxpayer’s<br />
money. MISA-Zimbabwe believes therefore that taxpayer’s money cannot<br />
be dictated to by one section or institution in terms <strong>of</strong> its usage. The ultimate<br />
goals <strong>of</strong> any advertising by parastatals are to reach out to the people <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe notes that the intended victims <strong>of</strong> the advertising ban<br />
are Zimbabwean citizens and legally registered media houses who also pay<br />
taxes.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe believes that the way forward in addressing ethical issues in<br />
the media is through a voluntary media council in which journalists themselves<br />
agree on how they are to conduct themselves.<br />
Drastic measures like suffocating media houses financially do not serve the<br />
purposes <strong>of</strong> promoting media diversity that is necessary for our society. In MISA-<br />
Zimbabwe’s view, there isn’t any intention by advertisers to promote unethical,<br />
journalism or the destruction <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe. It is important to note that the existing<br />
media in Zimbabwe is supported by the readers who are interested in reading<br />
newspapers <strong>of</strong> their choice.<br />
Advocating for the stoppage <strong>of</strong> advertising in certain newspapers is unfortunately<br />
a sure way <strong>of</strong> cutting <strong>of</strong>f a sizeable number <strong>of</strong> people from accessing<br />
information. MISA-Zimbabwe, in any case, urges all media houses to operate<br />
in a way that maintains respect and credibility.<br />
Press Statement<br />
April 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Statement on the Arrest <strong>of</strong> Journalists<br />
* Following is a statement by the Zimbabwe chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA-Zimbabwe) on the arrest <strong>of</strong> Editor in Chief <strong>of</strong> The Daily<br />
News, Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota, and Zimbabwe Independent Chief Reporter, Dumisani<br />
Muleya. See www.misa.org for detailed information about the arrest and charges<br />
preferred on the aforementioned journalists.<br />
The recent arrest <strong>of</strong> the Editor in Chief <strong>of</strong> The Daily News, Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota and<br />
So This Is Democracy? 295
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Zimbabwe Independent Chief Reporter, Dumisani Muleya is unreservedly condemned<br />
by MISA-Zimbabwe.<br />
What is most frightening in the arrest <strong>of</strong> the two journalists is that it is the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Information and Publicity that is the complainant in matters that<br />
involve individuals. MISA-Zimbabwe and other media organizations maintain<br />
that the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act is meant to target<br />
certain journalists. Without doubt the recent events are bringing out the real<br />
intentions behind the media law. Rather than bringing “sanity” in the media as<br />
is purported, the law is now being arbitrarily applied to the detriment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
principles <strong>of</strong> free expression.<br />
That the Department becomes a complainant in terms <strong>of</strong> a law that was partisanly<br />
drafted by the same department is undemocratic to say the least. One would<br />
expect that the complainants’ take up any grievances they may hold against<br />
journalists through the civil laws available to everyone else rather than have<br />
government take up matters <strong>of</strong> criminal defamation on behalf <strong>of</strong> individuals.<br />
The effects <strong>of</strong> criminal defamation laws and the sum total <strong>of</strong> the Access to<br />
Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act is to intimidate journalists into silence<br />
and seriously affect the flow <strong>of</strong> information to members <strong>of</strong> the public.<br />
The arrest <strong>of</strong> the journalists however gives a chance for constitutional challenges<br />
to be made on the legality <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Privacy Act and indeed such laws as the Public Order and Security Act. It is the<br />
position <strong>of</strong> MISA-Zimbabwe that a process <strong>of</strong> litigation must be undertaken so<br />
that such repressive laws are struck <strong>of</strong>f our statutes books.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe further calls upon law-enforcing institutions such as the police<br />
to carry their work impartially and above reproach. What is becoming clear<br />
is the psychological war that the police carry out on journalists by arresting and<br />
later releasing them, sometimes without any charges preferred. What is ultimately<br />
necessary and important is the creation <strong>of</strong> a conduicive political environment<br />
in which journalists can carry out their business like any other citizen.<br />
Sarah Chiumbu, MISA-Zimbabwe Director<br />
Press Statement<br />
June 4, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Statement on the appointment <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Media</strong> Commission in<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
2002<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe seeks to clarify that the statement circulating in Zimbabwe<br />
on the need for a gender balanced <strong>Media</strong> Commission is neither an endorsement<br />
<strong>of</strong> the recently appointed body headed by Mr Tafataona Mahoso, nor <strong>of</strong><br />
the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act, which we believe is a<br />
296 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
flawed piece <strong>of</strong> legislation.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe is in fact concerned that although the appointment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
commission has been made, there is still a great deal <strong>of</strong> misunderstanding and<br />
disagreement on the current status <strong>of</strong> the Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act under which the Commission has been appointed. This is indicated<br />
by the legal actions currently underway against some <strong>of</strong> the clauses <strong>of</strong> the Act.<br />
Many Zimbabwean women’s organisations have raised the question <strong>of</strong> the<br />
glaring absence <strong>of</strong> gender balance in the appointed commission as represented<br />
by the statement that is being circulated. The question <strong>of</strong> gender balance, we<br />
believe, cannot be separated from that <strong>of</strong> a complete review <strong>of</strong> the Access to<br />
Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act. As a multi-pronged struggle it is<br />
therefore necessary to look at the whole question <strong>of</strong> the legitimacy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Commission, not only from a legal and constitutional point <strong>of</strong> view, but also<br />
from a social relevance point <strong>of</strong> view, hence the question <strong>of</strong> gender balance<br />
on any public body.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the frequency at which the Act has been used to arrest journalists,<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe believes that the Act has lost the general spirit that it must<br />
promote, i.e. opening up the flow <strong>of</strong> information from public bodies and institutions<br />
to members <strong>of</strong> the public. Many <strong>of</strong> the so-called charges, in our view, do<br />
not warrant such harsh measures. We believe that it is not in the interests <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe for journalists to be arrested almost on a daily basis.<br />
MISA-Zimbabwe therefore believes that it is necessary to build consensus on<br />
the law first, before appointing the Commission. Our position and that <strong>of</strong> almost<br />
all journalists (state and private), is that the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Information and<br />
Publicity must encourage and indeed support the initiative by journalists to<br />
form their own regulatory council along the same lines as the Law Society and<br />
other pr<strong>of</strong>essional bodies. This, we believe will address the question <strong>of</strong> responsible<br />
journalism that the government is always talking about.<br />
Press Statement<br />
June 13, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Zimbabwe’s Editors Forum launched<br />
Editors <strong>of</strong> all Zimbabwe’s privately owned media houses have come together<br />
and launched the Zimbabwe National Editors Forum (ZINEF) in the capital<br />
Harare on June 12, 2002.<br />
ZINEF interim chairperson is Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota, the editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> “The Daily<br />
News”. Other members <strong>of</strong> the executive are Iden Wetherell, editor <strong>of</strong> the “Zimbabwe<br />
Independent”, Francis Mdlongwa, editor-in-chief <strong>of</strong> “The Financial<br />
Gazette”, Bornwell Chakaodza, editor <strong>of</strong> “The Standard”, and Chiza Ngwira,<br />
So This Is Democracy? 297
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
editor <strong>of</strong> the monthly magazine, “Parade”.<br />
Addressing journalists at the launch, Nyarota said that the forum is open to all<br />
editors who uphold principles <strong>of</strong> press freedom. He also said that editors who<br />
apply to become members would be subjected to a peer view process before the<br />
application is approved.<br />
ZINEF said that its role would be that <strong>of</strong> protecting editors against victimization<br />
for carrying out their duty. The forum would also defend and promote<br />
media freedom through all available media institutions. ZINEF will also strive<br />
to nurture media freedom as a democratic value in all the communities and at<br />
all levels <strong>of</strong> society. ZINEF will also seek to resists those laws that impose<br />
restrictions on the media and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and those that are incompatible<br />
in a democratic society.<br />
The Zimbabwe chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA-Zimbabwe)<br />
welcomes the launch <strong>of</strong> the forum, which it had been calling for since<br />
November 2001. MISA-Zimbabwe believes that it is through the forum that<br />
issues such as the media council can be addressed and other matters that affect<br />
the pr<strong>of</strong>ession such as the polarisation currently being witnessed in the Zimbabwe<br />
media.<br />
Press Statement<br />
October 21, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Outcome <strong>of</strong> national journalists and media workers’ meeting<br />
The following resolutions were made at the National Journalists and <strong>Media</strong><br />
Workers Meeting, jointly organised by the Zimbabwe chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong><br />
<strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA-Zimbabwe), Zimbabwe Union <strong>of</strong> Journalists,<br />
Foreign Correspondents Association, Federation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n <strong>Media</strong> Women<br />
in Zimbabwe, The <strong>Media</strong> Monitoring Project and the Independent Journalists<br />
Association <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe on Saturday, October 19, 2002:<br />
2002<br />
1. That the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act (AIPPA) is an<br />
unacceptable piece <strong>of</strong> legislation.<br />
2. That all journalists and media workers will protest against the AIPPA through<br />
demonstrations and defiance <strong>of</strong> the accreditation requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong><br />
and Information Commission. The demonstrations will begin as <strong>of</strong> next week<br />
in protest at the amendments to the AIPPA that are currently before the Parliament<br />
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe.<br />
3. That all journalists and media workers shall engage in a massive public awareness<br />
programme to tell the people <strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe why they are opposed to the<br />
AIPPA.<br />
4. That all journalists and media workers shall seek cooperation with broader<br />
civic society on engaging in the public awareness programme and protection <strong>of</strong><br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> Information in Zimbabwe.<br />
298 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
5. That the decision to become accredited as a media worker or as a journalist<br />
under the AIPPA and the <strong>Media</strong> and Information Commission shall be the sole<br />
prerogative <strong>of</strong> each individual journalist or media worker.<br />
6. That there shall be the setting up <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Media</strong> and Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression<br />
Support Fund that will assist all media workers and journalists that become<br />
accredited or are denied accreditation or alternatively do not want to seek accreditation.<br />
This <strong>Media</strong> Support Fund shall be governed by representatives <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Media</strong> Houses that attended the Saturday 19 October 2002 <strong>Media</strong> Workers and<br />
Journalists meeting.<br />
7. That a Committee be set up comprising <strong>of</strong> the various <strong>Media</strong> Houses and<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Unions or Organisations present at the meeting to ensure that the resolutions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Saturday October 19 meeting are carried out.<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
The Zimbabwe government on Friday, October 11, 2002, announced its intention<br />
to take to parliament a Bill to amend the Access to Information and Protection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Privacy Act (AIPPA). The amendments are meant to plug what the government<br />
calls loopholes in the media law. The Bill will however result in more<br />
powers being accorded to the <strong>Media</strong> and Information Commission and many <strong>of</strong><br />
the so-called loopholes amount to nothing in <strong>of</strong>fering a reprieve to media houses<br />
and journalists.<br />
ZAMBIA<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
June 27, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Application <strong>of</strong> Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Zambian Penal Code<br />
Honourable Levy Mwanawasa<br />
President <strong>of</strong> Zambia<br />
State House<br />
PO Box 30135<br />
Lusaka, Zambia<br />
June 27, 2002<br />
Your Excellency<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) wishes to express its disappointment<br />
and deepest concern over the arrest and charging <strong>of</strong> journalists<br />
Emmanuel Chilekwa, Shadreck Banda, Kings Lweendo and Jane Chirwa with<br />
‘Defamation <strong>of</strong> the President’ under Section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Zambian Penal Code.<br />
Following a successful petition <strong>of</strong> their lawyers, the journalists were released<br />
today, June 27, 2002, after spending nearly three weeks in Kamwala Remand<br />
So This Is Democracy? 299
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Prison. They have pleaded not guilty to the charge and the trial has been set for<br />
July 9, 2002. Furthermore, according to reports Chilekwa, Banda, Lweendo<br />
and Chirwa had also suffered physical assault and verbal abuse during the interrogation<br />
sessions which preceded their arrest.<br />
MISA is strongly opposed to the use <strong>of</strong> criminal defamation legislation and<br />
urges your government to scrap this oppressing legislation from the statute books.<br />
Currently the <strong>Media</strong> Legal Reform Committee, <strong>of</strong> which the Zambia Independent<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Association (the Zambia chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong>) is a partner, regards it as a priority to advocate for the repeal <strong>of</strong> the<br />
criminal libel law (section 69 <strong>of</strong> the Penal Code).<br />
MISA holds the opinion that defamation should be dealt with as a civil matter<br />
and that those who feel that they have been aggrieved should resort to civil<br />
courts where the accusations may be substantiated or otherwise, rather than<br />
order the police to arrest journalists and in so doing criminalise their work.<br />
Criminalising free expression has been the cause <strong>of</strong> severe punishments administered<br />
by a number <strong>of</strong> southern <strong>Africa</strong>n governments. This has the serious effect<br />
<strong>of</strong> intimidating people who may genuinely have information <strong>of</strong> public concern<br />
regarding the activities <strong>of</strong> those in the leadership.<br />
We, therefore, call upon you, Mr President, to ask the Director <strong>of</strong> Public Prosecution<br />
to drop the charges against the journalists as you did in the case <strong>of</strong> Fred<br />
M’membe in February this year when the “Post” newspaper’s editor was charged<br />
under the same piece <strong>of</strong> legislation. MISA believes that journalists should carry<br />
out their duties <strong>of</strong> informing the nation on issues <strong>of</strong> public interest without<br />
direct interference from the Executive or the police.<br />
Furthermore, we urge you, Your Excellency, to uphold Zambia’s international<br />
and national obligations on press freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. We remind<br />
you, Your Excellency, that the media plays an essential role within a democracy<br />
and that attempts to limit their ability to report is in breach <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights, in which, under Article 19, everyone<br />
has the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any<br />
media and regardless <strong>of</strong> frontiers”.<br />
Yours sincerely<br />
Luckson Chipare, Regional Director<br />
SWAZILAND<br />
2002<br />
Press Statement<br />
January 18, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Deteriorating Press Freedom situation in Zimbabwe<br />
300 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
The Swaziland chapter <strong>of</strong> <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA-<br />
Swaziland), Swaziland National Association <strong>of</strong> Journalists (SNAJ) and<br />
Swaziland <strong>Media</strong> and Publishing Allied Workers Union (SMEPAWU) strongly<br />
condemns the passing <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> legislations in Zimbabwe, designed to<br />
control the media and repress independent reporting in the run-up to the 2002<br />
presidential elections. As interested parties, in that the local media is expected<br />
to report and inform the public as part <strong>of</strong> its obligation and duty, it goes without<br />
saying that the recent developments in Zimbabwe are not conducive to<br />
our pr<strong>of</strong>essional mandate.<br />
We herewith join our colleagues and friends, throughout the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n<br />
Development Community, together with supporting organizations in protesting<br />
the passing <strong>of</strong> the Public Order and Security Act and the imminent passage <strong>of</strong><br />
the Access to Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Bill, which together impose<br />
wide-ranging restrictions on freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Zimbabwe.<br />
As media practitioners, we want to call on His Majesty’s Government to seriously<br />
consider protesting on our behalf the attempts <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwean government<br />
to pass these repressive bills in an effort to legalize its on-going harassment<br />
<strong>of</strong> journalists and its blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. Such action is not in the spirit <strong>of</strong> the Windhoek<br />
Declaration, Organization <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Unity and the International Human Rights<br />
Charters.<br />
MISA-Swaziland, SNAJ and SMEPAWU protest these bills for the following<br />
reasons:<br />
1. They impose excessive restrictions on the content <strong>of</strong> what the media<br />
may publish or broadcast;<br />
2. They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government<br />
controlled body;<br />
3. They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products<br />
or even video or audio recordings to obtain a registration certificate<br />
from a government controlled body;<br />
4. They specify that all foreign-dominated ownership <strong>of</strong> the media is prohibited<br />
and non-citizens are prohibited from working as journalists; and<br />
5. They endow the authorities with excessive powers to prevent demonstrations.<br />
The three local media bodies also denounce the ongoing and intensifying victimization<br />
<strong>of</strong> media practitioners and violations <strong>of</strong> media freedoms in that country.<br />
We appeal that His majesty’s government seriously consider the repercussions<br />
there<strong>of</strong> and do something to warn Mugabe’s Government that such oppressive<br />
legislations are no longer acceptable at this time and age. SADC states and<br />
governments are supposed to be more sensitive to the international expectations<br />
and desist creating a situation whereby our economies are affected nega-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 301
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
tively and in the process millions <strong>of</strong> our people in the region are left in poverty<br />
and are not enjoying their rights and freedoms they so deserve.<br />
We have not forgotten how such an oppressive legislation could not get a free<br />
passage through our Parliament here in Swaziland a while ago. Our leaders<br />
were wise enough to listen to our concerns raised by the media stakeholders,<br />
and it is in that same vein that we cannot allow Zimbabwean situation to be left<br />
unchallenged.<br />
We hope our concerns will be raised at relevant forums and that the media<br />
situation in Zimbabwe will improve. Press Freedom is a right that is to be enjoyed<br />
by those who are being governed, and not just a privilege which governments<br />
can take away as they please. The situation in Zimbabwe is not at all<br />
acceptable to us as media practitioners.<br />
Signed:<br />
MISA-Swaziland<br />
SNAJ<br />
SMEPAWU<br />
CC.<br />
Minister Of Public Service and Information.<br />
Prime Ministers’ Office.<br />
Diplomatic Representatives, Resident in Swaziland.<br />
Local <strong>Media</strong> Houses.<br />
Press Statement<br />
October 30, 2002<br />
TOPIC: NGO Statement on abduction <strong>of</strong> girls to become king’s wives<br />
We, the underlisted human rights NGO’s and civil society in Swaziland, are<br />
deeply concerned by the perpetual violation <strong>of</strong> human rights in the country. As<br />
moral accountants <strong>of</strong> our own worth, we felt that if we did not speak out on this<br />
issue, then we would have failed ourselves and neglected the responsibilities<br />
entrusted upon us <strong>of</strong> fostering accountability, creditability and influencing public<br />
debate on issues infringing fundamental human rights.<br />
In order to enforce the culture <strong>of</strong> responsibility we would like to declare our<br />
utmost condemnation <strong>of</strong> the recent abduction <strong>of</strong> three girls by messengers <strong>of</strong><br />
His Majesty King Mswati III. Article one <strong>of</strong> the Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human<br />
Rights <strong>of</strong> 1948, states that “All human beings are born free and equal in<br />
dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should<br />
act towards one another in a spirit <strong>of</strong> brotherhood.”<br />
2002<br />
It is obvious that many rights were violated by these acts <strong>of</strong> abduction, such as:<br />
* The right to education (Article 26)<br />
302 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
* The right to liberty and security (Article 3)<br />
* The right to a free and consensual marriage <strong>of</strong> both spouses (Article 16)<br />
We are greatly disturbed that this comes at a time when the youth <strong>of</strong> Swaziland<br />
is supposed to be on a 5-year period <strong>of</strong> chastity in respect <strong>of</strong> Umcwasho. The<br />
example set by His Majesty King Mswati III serves to water down our efforts<br />
aimed at curbing HIV-AIDS in Swaziland.<br />
It is also worrying that the King may not necessarily marry all three <strong>of</strong> these<br />
girls and that those he chooses not to marry will be stigmatised for the rest <strong>of</strong><br />
their lives - thus denying them their right to respect and dignity.<br />
A recent newspaper report (Times <strong>of</strong> Swaziland - October 21, 2002) quoted<br />
Prince Masitsela challenging Lindiwe, the mother <strong>of</strong> Zena Mahlangu, as to who<br />
she is to challenge the King. We feel this question was not directed to Lindiwe<br />
alone but to all citizens <strong>of</strong> this country. We therefore ask ourselves who are we<br />
in this country. Can we as individuals claim to be Swazi citizens? Can we claim<br />
to have basic human rights? Lindiwe is exercising her rights as articulated in<br />
articles 6, 7 & 12 <strong>of</strong> the Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights that:-<br />
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the Law<br />
(article 6)<br />
* That all are equal before the Law and are entitled without any discrimination<br />
to equal protection (article 7).<br />
* No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his/her privacy, family<br />
and home or to attacks upon his/her honour and reputation.<br />
That her family, privacy, honour and reputation were interfered with is undisputable.<br />
Her family will never be the same again, her children’s school performance<br />
has been greatly affected and that will have a negative impact on their<br />
future economic empowerment. Lastly, the Convention on the Rights <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Child, which His Majesty’s Government signed in 1990, states that, “Parents<br />
have the responsibility to raise the child. The state must respect the parents’<br />
responsibility and help out if necessary” (article 5).<br />
In conclusion, we would like to emphasize that it is time culture is practiced in<br />
accordance with the fundamental human rights. As responsible citizens we feel<br />
we cannot sit and wait for more girls to become victims <strong>of</strong> an outdated cultural<br />
practice. We therefore appeal to the courts to also act responsibly by allowing<br />
the mother to continue to raise and guide the child until she is 21 years old and<br />
ready to engage independently in a lawful consenting relationship.<br />
Signed:<br />
1. Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA)<br />
2. Women and Law in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (WLSA)<br />
So This Is Democracy? 303
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
2. Family Life Association <strong>of</strong> Swaziland (FLAS)<br />
4. Coordinating Assembly <strong>of</strong> Non Governmental Organisation (CANGO)<br />
5. Lawyers for Human Rights<br />
6. Federation <strong>of</strong> the Disabled Persons (FODSWA)<br />
7. Save the Children Swaziland<br />
8. Human Rights Association <strong>of</strong> Swaziland (HUNARAS)<br />
9. Swaziland chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISWA)<br />
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
Press Statement<br />
April 01, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Detention <strong>of</strong> journalist Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
The South <strong>Africa</strong>n chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA-<br />
SA) condemns the detention without trial <strong>of</strong> journalist Peta Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t by the<br />
Zimbabwe Central Intelligence Agency and demands her immediate release.<br />
MISA-SA has noted features <strong>of</strong> Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t’s detention which show that this is<br />
unlawful punitive action against a journalist who has been a consistent and<br />
accurate reporter <strong>of</strong> the evils <strong>of</strong> the Mugabe government and its militant supporters.<br />
The features are:<br />
• The fact that she was detained on charges when a summons to appear in court<br />
would have been sufficient to ensure that she would stand trial;<br />
• The initial refusal <strong>of</strong> the authorities to allow Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t’s lawyer to see her<br />
after her “arrest” and the inability <strong>of</strong> the investigating <strong>of</strong>ficer to give the lawyer<br />
details <strong>of</strong> the allegations against her;<br />
• The sudden absence <strong>of</strong> the relevant police authorities when the lawyer sought<br />
to institute proceedings for the release <strong>of</strong> Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t on bail, thus ensuring that<br />
her detention would continue for the whole <strong>of</strong> the Easter weekend - which<br />
amounted to imprisonment without trial for at least five days;<br />
• Constant confusion about the charges being preferred against her, which at<br />
first were that she was not accredited to work as a journalist, then changed to<br />
publishing false statements likely to be prejudicial to state security and incitement<br />
to public violence and then again reverting to not being accredited.<br />
• The publishing allegations against her are mystifying as she does not write for<br />
Zimbabwe newspapers and little <strong>of</strong> her published material is available in Harare.<br />
It would appear that these allegations have no validity, hence the switch back to<br />
a charge <strong>of</strong> her not being accredited. This last allegation is also spurious as she<br />
has valid accreditation.<br />
2002<br />
MISA-SA regards the unwarranted imprisonment <strong>of</strong> Thornycr<strong>of</strong>t coupled with<br />
new threats that have been made against Harare “Daily News” Editor Ge<strong>of</strong>f<br />
Nyarota - that he published falsehoods - as the first steps in a new throttling<br />
304 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
clampdown on independent media and journalists in Zimbabwe.<br />
It is clear that the Mugabe government is desperate to prevent the truth about<br />
the vicious attacks on opposition supporters from being published in Zimbabwe<br />
and overseas.<br />
Raymond Louw<br />
MISA-SA General Council member<br />
Press Statement<br />
August 02, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Amendment <strong>of</strong> the Broadcasting Act in South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Statement on the Amendment to the Broadcasting Act in South <strong>Africa</strong>, released<br />
at the MISA Annual General Meeting (AGM), Maputo, August 16, 2002<br />
We, the participants at the 10th Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA), including members <strong>of</strong> the southern <strong>Africa</strong>n country<br />
delegations and representatives <strong>of</strong> partner organisations, feel compelled to express<br />
in no uncertain terms our serious concern at the South <strong>Africa</strong>n government’s<br />
attempt to compromise the independence <strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting<br />
Corporation (SABC) News and to curtail the broadcaster’s freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression.<br />
We wish to remind the South <strong>Africa</strong>n government that the editorial independence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the SABC is celebrated as a major achievement and has been trumpeted<br />
as a model to be emulated by other governments in the region.<br />
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill published on August 13, 2002, takes these<br />
achievements backwards into very dark days <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong>n history. The<br />
Amendment flies in the face <strong>of</strong> the democratisation process that has been the<br />
hallmark <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong>n politics since 1994.<br />
Editorial independence means the right <strong>of</strong> journalists and editors to make decisions<br />
on the basis <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional criteria, consistent with universally accepted<br />
principles, such as the newsworthiness <strong>of</strong> an event or its relevance to the public’s<br />
right to know and in accordance with international codes <strong>of</strong> ethics for journalists.<br />
The proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act removes the clause in the Charter<br />
that governs the SABC Board which provides the Corporation with freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence. This is<br />
replaced with clauses that require accurate, accountable and fair reporting. The<br />
amendment gives the Minister the power to define what the terms “accurate”,<br />
“creative” and “accountable”, mean. The amendment further requires journalists<br />
to act in the interests <strong>of</strong> the Corporation. This is very different from a jour-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 305
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
nalistic practice that acts in the public interest.<br />
It is important that public broadcasters, without undue interference, dedicate<br />
themselves to serving the functions <strong>of</strong> informing citizens about matters <strong>of</strong> public<br />
interest including acting as a watchdog <strong>of</strong> public affairs.<br />
This imposes a responsibility on governments to ensure that these broadcasters<br />
have complete editorial independence. Governments that fail to do so and interfere<br />
with the editorial independence <strong>of</strong> public media are in breach <strong>of</strong> universally<br />
accepted principles.<br />
If the South <strong>Africa</strong>n government feels aggrieved by SABC news coverage, it,<br />
like any other person or institution, has the right to redress through the Broadcasting<br />
Complaints Commission <strong>of</strong> South <strong>Africa</strong> that was created specifically<br />
to adjudicate on such matters.<br />
For more information contact Tracey Naughton<br />
MISA Broadcasting Programme Manager<br />
broadcasting@misa.org.na<br />
NAMIBIA<br />
Press Statement<br />
August 27, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Appointment <strong>of</strong> President Nujoma as Minister <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
It is with mixed feelings that the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA)<br />
received news <strong>of</strong> the appointment <strong>of</strong> President Sam Nujoma as Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
Information and Broadcasting, to take effect on August 28, 2002. We hope that<br />
President Nujoma will use his new <strong>of</strong>fice as Minister <strong>of</strong> Information to promote<br />
and protect media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression in Namibia.<br />
The Ministry <strong>of</strong> Information is the governing agency <strong>of</strong> the National Communications<br />
Commission (NCC), the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)<br />
and the New Era, which play a vital role in assisting the citizenry to make<br />
informed decisions regarding democratic practices and good governance. It is<br />
not only the act <strong>of</strong> voting that constitutes democracy, but also the establishment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the free flow <strong>of</strong> information, checking <strong>of</strong> power, accountability and the monitoring<br />
<strong>of</strong> progress that will keep the system afloat.<br />
MISA, a regional organisation that advocates for media freedom and freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> expression, holds the opinion that the aforementioned agencies should be<br />
operating independently, always in the public interest without government interference<br />
and control.<br />
2002<br />
We welcome President Nujoma’s concern over the problems currently facing<br />
306 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
the NBC. We hope that the president will commit adequate financial and human<br />
resources to ensure that the broadcaster operates efficiently and effectively.<br />
We hope that the decision to place the ministry under the presidency -<br />
the highest <strong>of</strong>fice in the country - will not lead to undue government interference<br />
in the shape, form and content <strong>of</strong> the public media.<br />
MISA calls on President Nujoma to ensure that the editorial independence <strong>of</strong><br />
the NBC and others is established. We urge President Nujoma to ensure that<br />
the NBC successfully fulfils its obligation as a public service broadcaster and<br />
that the public is guaranteed diversity <strong>of</strong> information required for the functioning<br />
<strong>of</strong> democracy.<br />
It is our sincere hope that President Nujoma hastens the restructuring <strong>of</strong> the<br />
NCC and NBC and completes the liberalisation <strong>of</strong> the telecommunications<br />
and broadcasting sectors. It is our position that appointments to regulatory<br />
bodies and public media are made by a public process overseen by Parliament,<br />
and that President Nujoma will be central in the review <strong>of</strong> the current<br />
procedure.<br />
We therefore urge President Nujoma to use his new <strong>of</strong>fice to create an environment<br />
in which public media bodies and regulators act purely in the public<br />
interest and enjoyment <strong>of</strong> all citizens.<br />
Issued by:<br />
Luckson Chipare<br />
Regional Director, <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA)<br />
Press Statement<br />
December 19, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Licensing <strong>of</strong> a second cellular phone company in Namibia<br />
Namibia’s communications regulator has kicked <strong>of</strong>f the process to license a<br />
second cellular phone company before major legislation reforming the regulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the communications industry has been tabled in Parliament.<br />
The Communications Bill, which will establish a new communications regulator,<br />
the Communications Authority <strong>of</strong> Namibia (CAN), to regulate private telecommunications,<br />
broadcasting and postal services, will be presented in Cabinet<br />
only in the new year, after which the Bill will still have to be debated in<br />
Parliament.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the draft Bill, all private broadcasters, telecommunications operators,<br />
and postal service companies will be regulated by CAN. However, Namibia’s<br />
national broadcaster, the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC),<br />
will not fall under CAN’s jurisdiction in terms <strong>of</strong> the draft Bill, and presumably<br />
So This Is Democracy? 307
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
will continue to be regulated by government directly.<br />
The draft Bill states that CAN will be an “independent” regulator. However, in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> the draft Bill, the authority’s decision-making Board <strong>of</strong> directors will<br />
be appointed by the Minister responsible for Information and Broadcasting.<br />
Currently, the President runs this portfolio.<br />
According to press reports today, the incumbent regulator, the Namibian Communications<br />
Commission, on Wednesday December 18, 2002, announced the<br />
appointment <strong>of</strong> German consultancy firm DETECON International to oversee<br />
the bidding for a second cellular phone license.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) questions the launch <strong>of</strong> the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> licensing a second cell phone operator before the pending reform <strong>of</strong><br />
the communications sector has been debated in Parliament.<br />
As it is, MISA takes issue with many aspects <strong>of</strong> the draft Communications Bill,<br />
which we believe falls short <strong>of</strong> international standards - notably the SADC<br />
Protocol on Information, Culture and Sport adopted by Namibia’s National<br />
Assembly earlier in the year - governing broadcasting and the regulation <strong>of</strong><br />
communications in general.<br />
There appear to be similarities between the current process for licensing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
second cell phone company, and the deregulation <strong>of</strong> broadcasting back in the<br />
early ’90s. Then Namibia’s first commercial television broadcaster, M-Net,<br />
started broadcasting before the relevant legislation had been passed. The business<br />
arm <strong>of</strong> the ruling SWAPO Party, Kalahari Holdings, was - and remains -<br />
the majority shareholder in Multichoice Namibia, the company which launched<br />
M-Net.<br />
Enquiries:<br />
Tracey Naughton<br />
Regional Broadcast Program Manager<br />
MISA - <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Phone: +264 61 232 975<br />
Fax: +264 61 248 016<br />
Cell: +264 811 282 669<br />
Email: broadcasting@misa.org.na<br />
Web: www.misa.org<br />
2002<br />
Press Statement<br />
December 19, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Namibia Draft Communications Bill<br />
308 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Namibia’s Communications Bill, which will establish a new communications<br />
regulator, the Communications Authority <strong>of</strong> Namibia (CAN), to regulate private<br />
telecommunications, broadcasting and postal services, will be presented in<br />
Cabinet early in the new year, after which the Bill will be debated in Parliament.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the draft Bill, all private broadcasters, telecommunications operators,<br />
and postal service companies will be regulated by CAN. However, Namibia’s<br />
national broadcaster, the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), will not<br />
fall under CAN’s jurisdiction in terms <strong>of</strong> the draft Bill, and presumably will continue<br />
to be regulated by government directly.<br />
The draft Bill states that CAN will be an “independent” regulator. However, in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> the draft Bill, the authority’s decision-making Board <strong>of</strong> directors will be<br />
appointed by the Minister responsible for Information and Broadcasting. Currently,<br />
the President runs this portfolio.<br />
According to press reports the incumbent regulator, the Namibian Communications<br />
Commission (NCC), on Wednesday December 18, 2002, announced the<br />
appointment <strong>of</strong> German consultancy firm DETECON International to oversee<br />
the bidding for a second cellular phone license.<br />
The NCC has therefore kicked <strong>of</strong>f the process to license a second cellular phone<br />
company before major legislation reforming the regulation <strong>of</strong> the communications<br />
industry has been tabled in Parliament.<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) questions the launch <strong>of</strong> the process<br />
<strong>of</strong> licensing a second cell phone operator before the pending reform <strong>of</strong> the<br />
communications sector has been debated in Parliament.<br />
As it is, MISA takes issue with many aspects <strong>of</strong> the draft Communications Bill,<br />
which we believe falls short <strong>of</strong> international standards - notably the SADC Protocol<br />
on Information, Culture and Sport adopted by Namibia’s National Assembly<br />
earlier in the year - governing broadcasting and the regulation <strong>of</strong> communications<br />
in general.<br />
There appear to be similarities between the current process for licensing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
second cell phone company, and the deregulation <strong>of</strong> broadcasting back in the<br />
early ’90s. Then Namibia’s first commercial television broadcaster, M-Net, started<br />
broadcasting before the relevant legislation had been passed. The business arm <strong>of</strong><br />
the ruling SWAPO Party, Kalahari Holdings, was - and remains - the majority<br />
shareholder in Multichoice Namibia, the company which launched M-Net.<br />
Enquiries:<br />
Tracey Naughton<br />
Regional Broadcast Program Manager<br />
So This Is Democracy? 309
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
MISA - <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Phone: +264 61 232 975<br />
Fax: +264 61 248 016<br />
Cell: +264 811 282 669<br />
Email: broadcasting@misa.org.na<br />
Web: www.misa.org<br />
MALAWI<br />
Press Statement<br />
March 28, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Unethical behaviour <strong>of</strong> Malawian journalists<br />
The Malawi chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>, known as the<br />
National <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (NAMISA), has learnt with deep<br />
concern the physical assault <strong>of</strong> football coach Nsazurwimo Ramadhan by three<br />
Sun Newspaper reporters on Friday evening.<br />
Police records show that Ramadhan was assaulted, in front <strong>of</strong> his wife, by<br />
reporters Chikumbutso Mtumodzi, Thom Chiumia, Ken Ndanga and their aide<br />
Davie Chipembere at Chichiri Shopping Mall. According to law the four were<br />
arrested and later granted bail.<br />
Having talked to all concerned parties, NAMISA finds this act, especially by<br />
practicing journalists, regrettably embarrassing. It is embarrassing and unfortunate<br />
because it comes at a time when media institutions such as NAMISA<br />
and the <strong>Media</strong> Council have engaged Government in dialogue to monitor<br />
violations <strong>of</strong> media freedom. The government is proving to be supportive.<br />
NAMISA would like to remind journalists that their pr<strong>of</strong>ession requires them<br />
to act honourably at all times, and that as seekers <strong>of</strong> the truth they are regarded<br />
as activists and protectors <strong>of</strong> human rights. As such their tool, the pen<br />
- and not the punch as was witnessed in this case, should be used to uplift their<br />
society.<br />
NAMISA sympathises with Mr and Mrs Ramadhan for the agonising experience<br />
and trust that the police will handle the issue pr<strong>of</strong>essionally to the satisfaction<br />
<strong>of</strong> all concerned parties.<br />
2002<br />
Press Statement<br />
May 23, 2002<br />
TOPIC: NAMISA condemns siege <strong>of</strong> Daily Times premises by UDF<br />
cadres<br />
310 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
The National <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (NAMISA) is dismayed by<br />
the demonstration and invasion, on Monday, May 20, 2002, <strong>of</strong> the “Daily<br />
Times” premises by traditional leaders and ruling United Democratic Front<br />
(UDF) loyalists purportedly drawn from Chiradzulu East Constituency. We<br />
believe the action by UDF was a deliberate move to silence the newspaper<br />
against writing articles critical <strong>of</strong> the ruling party and especially on the third<br />
term issue.<br />
According to media reports the crowd was demonstrating against articles the<br />
“Daily Times” and its sister weekly, “The Malawi News”, recently published<br />
quoting some chiefs who allegedly denied having mandated their Member <strong>of</strong><br />
Parliament, Henry Mussa, to support a UDF bid to change the Constitution in<br />
order to allow President Bakili Muluzi to run for a third term in <strong>of</strong>fice in 2004.<br />
Much as we appreciate that the political activists had the right to assemble<br />
and demonstrate peacefully, NAMISA finds the demand by the activists to<br />
see journalists Mabvuto Banda and Akimu Kaingana and the invasion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
newspaper premises by overzealous and excited young democrats as sheer<br />
acts <strong>of</strong> intimidation which violate press freedom as enshrined in section 36<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Republican Constitution.<br />
We fail to understand why the honourable MP and the chiefs could not just<br />
discuss their concerns with Blantyre Newspapers management and resolve<br />
the issue amicably, as opposed to ferrying truckloads <strong>of</strong> party zealots to instill<br />
fear in media workers. One would have expected the Hon. MP and the chiefs<br />
to have demanded an apology from the paper if they, indeed, were misquoted<br />
as they have claimed. This is normal in the media world and we are sure the<br />
Hon. MP knows this. That the demonstration was calculated at intimidating<br />
Blantyre Newspapers workers and, indeed, send a message to other media<br />
houses, is vindicated by the news blackout on the incident in the “Daily Times”<br />
<strong>of</strong> May 21. Yet this event happened in Blantyre Print’s own backyard.<br />
We further condemn earlier attempts by other UDF cadres to scare media<br />
workers from writing news stories and analytical articles that do not favour<br />
the ruling party’s designs to change the Constitution. A few days ago UDF<br />
deputy Regional Governor Samson Msosa warned the media to stop writing<br />
on the third term debate. The party also issued a statement accusing “The<br />
Nation” newspaper <strong>of</strong> having sinister motives. In their view, the crime that<br />
“The Nation” committed was to run interviews which dismissed threats by<br />
Regional Governor Davis Kapito who warned UDF MPs not to vote against<br />
change <strong>of</strong> the Constitution.<br />
NAMISA wishes to remind the UDF and all other political parties that the<br />
media has the noble duty <strong>of</strong> covering issues in a balanced and objective<br />
manner and it should be left to do just this in the interest <strong>of</strong> nurturing an<br />
So This Is Democracy? 311
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
informed society.<br />
* NAMISA is the Malawi chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
(MISA).<br />
Signed:<br />
Lance Ngulube, Chairperson<br />
Lowani Mtonga, National Director<br />
Press Statement<br />
September 5, 2002<br />
TOPIC: Harassment <strong>of</strong> journalists in Malawi<br />
The National <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (NAMISA) - the Malawi<br />
chapter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> - has gathered circumstantial<br />
information that some well placed United Democratic Front (UDF) political<br />
zealots have drawn up a plan to deal with selected journalists in the country<br />
whom they feel are a threat to their individual and party interests.<br />
The cadres have targeted BBC correspondent Raphael Tenthani <strong>of</strong> the “Daily<br />
Times”‚ Mabvuto Banda, Ackimu Kaingana <strong>of</strong> “Malawi News”, “The Chronicle”<br />
newspaper and “The Pride” magazine crew. Mabvuto Banda has changed<br />
houses four times in a short period <strong>of</strong> time to avoid being victimised.<br />
According to the information that NAMISA has gathered, the reportages <strong>of</strong><br />
these journalists are regarded as a threat, an embarrassment to the government<br />
and an obstacle in the way <strong>of</strong> the now failed Open Term Bill.<br />
NAMISA monitored how party functionaries have hunted for the journalists<br />
throughout recent Parliament sitting and during the visit <strong>of</strong> the Libyan Leader<br />
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.<br />
NAMISA would like to remind the nation that the media is only playing its<br />
rightful role in disseminating information to the public. The same journalists<br />
who are targets for harassment have enlightened the society and exposed a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> ills in Malawi society to the extent <strong>of</strong> saving people.<br />
For example, the media saved the lives <strong>of</strong> Malawians by informing the government<br />
about the existence <strong>of</strong> poison in imported maize. The journalists also<br />
ensured enough publicity on the otherwise hurried debate on the Open Bill.<br />
They have exposed corruption and other scandals for the betterment <strong>of</strong><br />
Malawians.<br />
2002<br />
It is shocking to learn that the party functionaries are planning to beat up the<br />
journalists for doing their work. We would like to inform all Malawians that<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> the press is provided for in the Malawi Constitution and the United<br />
312 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Democratic Front Constitution.<br />
In 2001 UDF functionaries beat up and harassed a number <strong>of</strong> journalists. There<br />
is a resurgence <strong>of</strong> that plan to harass journalists or media houses that are<br />
critical <strong>of</strong> the government. It is an act <strong>of</strong> intimidation and terrorism to assault<br />
journalists for doing their work. Such an action will only succeed in tarnishing<br />
the image <strong>of</strong> the government, the ruling party and President Muluzi who<br />
has been advocating for tolerance and the upholding democratic values (including<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> expression). We only hope that the party zealots will<br />
desist from carrying out such devilish plans.<br />
Lance Ngulube<br />
Chairperson, National <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (NAMISA)<br />
So This Is Democracy? 313
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Breakdown <strong>of</strong> recorded incidents by<br />
category<br />
Please refer to page 4 for an explanation<br />
and definition <strong>of</strong> these various categories<br />
Killed<br />
Expelled<br />
Beaten<br />
Censored<br />
Bombed<br />
Legislation<br />
Detained<br />
Other<br />
Sentenced<br />
Victory<br />
Threatened<br />
2002<br />
314 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Total alerts issued in 2002<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> alerts by country: 2002<br />
Angola<br />
Botswana<br />
Lesotho<br />
Malawi<br />
Mozambique<br />
Namibia<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong><br />
Swaziland<br />
Tanzania<br />
Zambia<br />
Zimbabwe<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 120<br />
So This Is Democracy? 315
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Killed<br />
Beaten<br />
Bombed<br />
Detained<br />
Sentenced<br />
Threatened<br />
Expelled<br />
Censored<br />
Legislation<br />
Other<br />
Victory<br />
Angola 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0<br />
Botswana 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 1<br />
Lesotho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1<br />
Malawi 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 1 0<br />
Mozambique 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0<br />
Namibia 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong> 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2<br />
Swaziland 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0<br />
Tanzania 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0<br />
Zambia 0 6 0 7 0 4 0 4 4 0 2<br />
Zimbabwe 0 10 3 37 0 15 10 22 18 2 3<br />
2002<br />
316 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
MISA’s Annual<br />
Press Freedom Award<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) presents an annual Press Freedom<br />
Award with a cash prize <strong>of</strong> US$1 000 to honour excellence in journalism.<br />
Excellence in journalism may be described as the upholding <strong>of</strong> the ethics <strong>of</strong><br />
the pr<strong>of</strong>ession at all costs, and the relentless pursuit <strong>of</strong> the truth. The award is<br />
also in recognition <strong>of</strong> the work <strong>of</strong> an individual or institution contributing<br />
significantly to the promotion <strong>of</strong> media freedom in the region. The excellence<br />
which the award acknowledges, can be achieved either through reportage or<br />
in other ways such as media reform, lobbying or training.<br />
ELIGIBILITY: The MISA Press Freedom Award is open to all forms <strong>of</strong> media<br />
e.g. photography, print, producers, radio, video, film, Internet, or media<br />
associations and institutions. Eligible individuals or institutions should be based<br />
in the southern <strong>Africa</strong>n region (SADC region).<br />
NOMINATIONS: NOMINATIONS FOR THE 2003 AWARD ARE NOW<br />
OPEN. All Nominations should be accompanied by a motivation not exceeding<br />
1 500 words and the CV <strong>of</strong> the nominee. Where applicable, a copy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
work, or a portfolio <strong>of</strong> work, should be included with the nomination. Nominations<br />
should be sent to the MISA Secretariat, for the attention <strong>of</strong> the Regional<br />
Director, to:<br />
Postal: Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek<br />
Namibia<br />
Fax: +264-61-248016<br />
E-mail: director@misa.org<br />
Deadline: June 16, 2003<br />
For further information, please contact the Regional Director at +264-<br />
61-232975<br />
So This Is Democracy? 317
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Previous winners <strong>of</strong> the<br />
MISA Press Freedom Award<br />
1993 - Onesimo Makani Kabweza<br />
The late Onesimo Makani Kabweza, as editor <strong>of</strong> Moto in Zimbabwe, was<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the first Zimbabwean journalists to break the “culture <strong>of</strong> silence”<br />
which followed the country independence in 1980. Onesimo dared to take a<br />
critical stand against the new Zimbabwean government under Robert Mugabe<br />
at a time when others were too scared to criticise or speak out against any<br />
government wrongdoing. He was very enthusiastic about the need for southern<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n media workers to unify and thus shared the dreams and aspirations<br />
<strong>of</strong> MISA. At the time <strong>of</strong> his death in 1993, Onesimo was on his way<br />
back from a trip to Harare on MISA business.<br />
1994 - Basildon Peta<br />
By the time the young Basildon Peta was awarded MISA’s Press Freedom<br />
Award, he had already come up against the full might <strong>of</strong> the Zimbabwean<br />
police. The senior reporter at the Daily Gazette, Basildon was incarcerated<br />
in 1994 for a week, enduring long sessions <strong>of</strong> interrogation by the<br />
police, who failed to break his determination to stand by the truth. Basildon<br />
was also not cowered into silence and he went on to expose further incidents<br />
<strong>of</strong> corruption and abuse <strong>of</strong> power in government.<br />
1995 - Fred M’membe<br />
Fred M’membe, probably one <strong>of</strong> the most persecuted journalist in his country<br />
and the rest <strong>of</strong> the region, is a qualified accountant who, along with colleagues<br />
John Mukela, Masautso Phiri and Mike Hall, founded The Post newspaper<br />
in Zambia in 1991. Since its founding as a weekly paper and its swift<br />
progress to a daily paper, The Post under the helm <strong>of</strong> Fred, tirelessly kept a<br />
watch on the government, exposing numerous incidents <strong>of</strong> corruption, illegal<br />
activities, bad governance, human rights abuses and lack <strong>of</strong> respect for the<br />
rule <strong>of</strong> law. In the process, and despite enormous efforts on the part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government to harass The Post and Fred in particular, Fred has distinguished<br />
himself as a consistent and fearless journalist, committed to the ideals <strong>of</strong> media<br />
freedom.<br />
2002<br />
1996 - Allister Sparks<br />
Allister Haddon Sparks has played a phenomenal role in the media in<br />
South <strong>Africa</strong>. Starting out as a reporter on the Queenstown Daily Representative<br />
in 1951, Allister rose to become a sub-editor under the renowned<br />
Donald Woods at the East London Daily Dispatch, the editor <strong>of</strong> the Sunday<br />
Express, and then the editor <strong>of</strong> the great Rand Daily Mail. It was during his<br />
tenure at the Rand Daily Mail in the late 1970’s that Allister distinguished<br />
318 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
himself as a journalist <strong>of</strong> great valour and strength, willing to stick his neck<br />
out for a story even though it might have reached into the deep echelons <strong>of</strong><br />
government. In 1992, a decade after being dismissed from the Rand Daily<br />
Mail, Allister was instrumental in setting up the <strong>Institute</strong> for the Advancement<br />
<strong>of</strong> Journalism (IAJ), based in Johannesburg, South <strong>Africa</strong>. At the time <strong>of</strong><br />
receiving the MISA Press Freedom Award, Allister was serving on the Board<br />
<strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n Broadcasting Corporation (SABC).<br />
1997 - Gwen Lister<br />
Gwen Lister, as editor <strong>of</strong> The Namibian, almost single-handedly kept up<br />
the mantle <strong>of</strong> Press freedom in Namibia, both before and after independence.<br />
Starting out as a journalist at the Windhoek Advertiser in 1975, she<br />
eventually went to establish The Namibian, which hit the streets for the first<br />
time in August 1985. From the outset, The Namibian was the only newspaper<br />
in Namibia that was brave enough to expose ongoing atrocities and human<br />
rights abuses being committed by the South <strong>Africa</strong>n occupation forces. Gwen’s<br />
determination to uncover and report the truth never wavered, despite concerted<br />
attempts to harass and intimidate her and the rest <strong>of</strong> The Namibian<br />
staff. Gwen’s commitment to a free Press remained steadfast after Namibia’s<br />
independence in 1990, and her paper continued to adopt a watchdog role, this<br />
time over the new government <strong>of</strong> the South West <strong>Africa</strong>n People’s Organisation<br />
(Swapo).<br />
1998 - <strong>Africa</strong>n Eye News Service (AENS)<br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Eye News Service was the first media institution to be honoured<br />
with the MISA award. Based in the first South <strong>Africa</strong>n province <strong>of</strong><br />
Mpumalanga, AENS had established itself as one <strong>of</strong> the sub-region’s truly<br />
investigative news services. In its three years <strong>of</strong> existence, AENS, under the<br />
editorship <strong>of</strong> Mr Justin Arenstein, had either halted or uncovered a series <strong>of</strong><br />
corrupt practices in the public sector - some <strong>of</strong> which had led to public commissions<br />
<strong>of</strong> inquiry, or resignations <strong>of</strong> the affected <strong>of</strong>ficials. Its bold and extremely<br />
courageous reporting earned it several enemies in both the public and<br />
private sectors <strong>of</strong> the South <strong>Africa</strong>n community. The agency attracted numerous<br />
multimillion rand defamation suits, and to date it had won every case. Its<br />
team <strong>of</strong> journalists, especially Mr. Arenstein, had also been the targets <strong>of</strong> physical<br />
and verbal harassment, including death threats and threats <strong>of</strong> assault, while<br />
also being personally maligned. Despite this harassment and hostility, the<br />
AENS team carried on its mission with excellence, exhibiting mature and<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional journalism with depth and carefully verified detail.<br />
1999 - Bright Chola Mwape<br />
For the second time in the history <strong>of</strong> MISA’s Press Freedom Award, the<br />
award honoured somebody posthumously to Mr Bright Chola Mwape in<br />
1999. Bright was still a young man when he tragically died as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
injuries sustained in a car accident in August 1999. In 1994 Bright was Man-<br />
So This Is Democracy? 319
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
aging Editor <strong>of</strong> The Post, Zambia’s leading and only independent daily newspaper.<br />
An article in 1996, in which he criticised a Zambian politician for attacking<br />
a Supreme Court judge who had earlier struck an important victory for<br />
the Right to Protest and Freedom <strong>of</strong> Assembly, saw him being condemned to<br />
indefinite imprisonment. Also imprisoned was his editor-in-chief Fred M’membe<br />
and fellow columnist, Lucy Shichone, by the speaker <strong>of</strong> Parliament. All three<br />
initially went into hiding to avoid being hauled <strong>of</strong>f to prison. Later on Bright<br />
and Fred handed themselves over to the police. They were freed after 24 days.<br />
In 1997, Bright joined MISA’s regional secretariat to head the <strong>Media</strong> Information<br />
Unit. Bright’s disdain for the hypocrisy <strong>of</strong> the SADC governments was<br />
evident on the occasion <strong>of</strong> May 3 1999 in a dynamic speech he delivered in<br />
Windhoek, Namibia. In his speech, Bright angrily dismissed a proposed <strong>Media</strong><br />
Award the SADC governments were considering, questioning their moral<br />
right to confer such an award amid their obvious reluctance to refrain from or<br />
condemn government infringements on the rights <strong>of</strong> the media.<br />
2000 – Ge<strong>of</strong>frey Nyarota<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota’s first courageous stance <strong>of</strong> independence came when, as editor<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Chronicle, he exposed corruption in high places in what was to<br />
become known as the “Willowgate scandal”. Ge<strong>of</strong>f was subsequently unceremoniously<br />
removed from his post and relegated to an obscure position in the<br />
Zimpapers Company - a move no doubt meant to silence him. It did not work.<br />
The resilience <strong>of</strong> Ge<strong>of</strong>f came <strong>of</strong> age in a sense, with the launching <strong>of</strong> The<br />
Daily News in March 1999. It was a magnanimous dream that had as its roots<br />
service to the Zimbabwean citizenry. The trail that The Daily News blazes has<br />
come at a price - the paper’s journalists have been harassed and attacked; in<br />
some parts <strong>of</strong> the country people can only read the paper in secret for fear <strong>of</strong><br />
reprisals; a bomb - no doubt targeted at the paper was detonated in the building<br />
housing the paper early in 2001 while the newspaper itself courageously<br />
exposed a plot by the Central Intelligence Agency to assassinate Ge<strong>of</strong>f. Notwithstanding<br />
this, The Daily News has played a vital role in publishing news<br />
not available in other daily papers or through the electronic media, and in the<br />
process has given knowledge, understanding, strength and courage through<br />
information to its readers. The expansion in readership has been followed by a<br />
massive expansion in advertising, and this is built on the exposure <strong>of</strong> truth<br />
made possible only because <strong>of</strong> the enormous personal courage <strong>of</strong> Ge<strong>of</strong>f Nyarota<br />
and the team he leads. It is for this that he is being recognised as the recipient<br />
<strong>of</strong> the MISA Press Freedom Award.<br />
2002<br />
2001 – Carlos Alberto Cardoso<br />
Carlos Alberto Cardoso, editor <strong>of</strong> Metical, who was murdered on 22 November<br />
2000, was born <strong>of</strong> Portuguese parents in the central city <strong>of</strong> Beira in<br />
1952. He studied in South <strong>Africa</strong>, where be became involved in radical, antiapartheid<br />
student politics, which earned him expulsion from the country.<br />
Back in Maputo, he identified with the revolution against Portuguese colo-<br />
320 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
nial rule, although he never became a member <strong>of</strong> the Mozambique Liberation<br />
Front (Frelimo). His exceptional talents as a writer ensured a rapid rise in the<br />
world <strong>of</strong> journalism. He worked first on the weekly magazine Tempo, then<br />
briefly on Radio Mozambique, before he was appointed chief news editor <strong>of</strong><br />
the Mozambique News Agency (AIM) in 1980.<br />
There were <strong>of</strong>ten tensions between the open and outspoken brand <strong>of</strong> journalism<br />
practiced by Cardoso, and the altogether more cautious approach followed<br />
by the Frelimo leadership and by the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Information.<br />
In 1982, this clash resulted in the sudden imprisonment <strong>of</strong> Cardoso, apparently<br />
because an opinion article he wrote in the daily paper Noticias violated<br />
an obscure government guideline on covering the war. Six days after his arrest<br />
he was released and he was fully reinstated at the head <strong>of</strong> AIM. Cardoso was<br />
deeply affected by the death <strong>of</strong> Machel in a plane crash just inside South <strong>Africa</strong>,<br />
on 19 October 1986. He followed the story <strong>of</strong> the plane crash with tenacity,<br />
and built up a picture <strong>of</strong> the likely causes <strong>of</strong> the crash - deliberate electronic<br />
interference by the Apartheid military.<br />
In the late 1980s, Cardoso found himself in conflict with Information Minister<br />
Teodato Hunguana, leading to his resignation. In 1990, Cardoso was among<br />
a group <strong>of</strong> journalists campaigning for the inclusion <strong>of</strong> a specific commitment<br />
to press freedom in the new constitution. The clauses on the media in the 1990<br />
constitution, and the follow-up press law <strong>of</strong> 1991, are among the most liberal<br />
in <strong>Africa</strong>. In 1992, Cardoso and a dozen others founded a journalists’ cooperative,<br />
<strong>Media</strong>coop, launching <strong>Media</strong>fax. A dispute in <strong>Media</strong>coop in 1997 led to<br />
Cardoso leaving the cooperative to set up Metical.<br />
Cardoso campaigned tirelessly against what he regarded as the disastrous<br />
recipes for the economy imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, championing<br />
the fight <strong>of</strong> the cashew processing industry and later <strong>of</strong> the sugar industry,<br />
against liberalisation measures.<br />
Among the scandals Cardoso had been investigating in the last months <strong>of</strong><br />
his life, one stands out above all others. This was the largest banking fraud in<br />
the country’s history. In 1996, a well-organised criminal network stole the<br />
equivalent <strong>of</strong> $14 million out <strong>of</strong> Mozambique’s largest bank, BCM. Although<br />
the names <strong>of</strong> the main suspects were known there was no prosecution and no<br />
trial. That this was dangerous territory became clear in November 1999, when<br />
the BCM’s lawyer, Albano Silva, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 321
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
How to report an attack<br />
on the media<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) needs your assistance to<br />
compile accurate and detailed alerts on abuses <strong>of</strong> press freedom in the<br />
<strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n region. Alerts serve a very important function in the<br />
advocacy work <strong>of</strong> MISA. The ultimate aim <strong>of</strong> the alert is to spur people on to<br />
take action in the light <strong>of</strong> a particular violation. Apart from that, the alert serves<br />
the purpose <strong>of</strong> reporting and recording a specific event or incident, which<br />
either amounts to a violation <strong>of</strong> media freedom or freedom <strong>of</strong> expression, or<br />
significantly advances it. The alert is thus part <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the most essential<br />
tools <strong>of</strong> advocacy - information.<br />
What to report:<br />
Journalists who are:<br />
◗ Assaulted<br />
◗ Arrested<br />
◗ Censored<br />
◗ Denied credentials<br />
◗ Harassed<br />
◗ Wounded<br />
◗ Kidnapped<br />
◗ Killed<br />
◗ Missing<br />
◗ Threatened<br />
◗ Wrongfully expelled<br />
◗ Wrongfully sued for libel or defamation<br />
News organisations that are:<br />
◗ Attacked or illegally searched<br />
◗ Censored<br />
◗ Closed by force<br />
◗ Raided, where editions are confiscated or transmissions are jammed.<br />
◗ Materials confiscated or damaged<br />
◗ Wrongfully sued for libel or defamation<br />
What to include in your report<br />
◗ MISA needs accurate and detailed information about:<br />
◗ Names <strong>of</strong> journalists and news organisations involved<br />
◗ Date and circumstances <strong>of</strong> the incident<br />
◗ Detailed background information<br />
Anyone with information about an attack on the media should call the Researcher<br />
at MISA by dialling +264 61 232975 or by sending e-mail to<br />
research@misa.org.na<br />
2002<br />
What happens with your information<br />
Depending on the case, MISA will:<br />
◗ Investigate and confirm the report<br />
◗ Pressure authorities to respond<br />
◗ Notify human right groups and press organisations around the world, includ-<br />
322 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ing IFEX, Article 19, Amnesty International, Reporters San Frontiers, Human<br />
Rights Watch and the International Federation <strong>of</strong> Journalists and<br />
◗ Increase public awareness through the press<br />
◗ Publish advisories to warn other journalists about potential dangers<br />
◗ Send a fact-finding mission to investigate<br />
More about MISA alerts<br />
The alert is different to a media statement that the latter is more a reaction and<br />
comment on an incident, while an alert is simply a report about it. Where comment<br />
is included in an alert it is best reported as a quote.<br />
Action alerts also educate people about the nature <strong>of</strong> media freedom violations,<br />
leading to greater sensitivity to threats and violations, thus ensuring that more<br />
and more violations do not go unreported. MISA alerts are used as a source <strong>of</strong><br />
information by media freedom organisations around the world and serve to<br />
augment important international reports and publications which in turn are used<br />
as advocacy tools or research documents.<br />
What types <strong>of</strong> incidents are reported in an action alert?<br />
1. Direct violations against journalists’ right to operate or report freely - these<br />
include physical or verbal attacks or threats against journalists during the course<br />
<strong>of</strong> their work or as a result <strong>of</strong> their work; journalists being barred illegally from<br />
observing events or incidents or inspecting areas, journalists evicted or deported<br />
from a country because <strong>of</strong> their work, journalists imprisoned or detained and,<br />
journalists killed during the course <strong>of</strong> or as a result <strong>of</strong> their work.<br />
2. Censorship - this is where media workers, institutions or activities are banned<br />
or blocked. Where this does happen always indicate who issued the ban, why<br />
and in terms <strong>of</strong> which laws the ban was issued (sometimes countries have more<br />
than one law which could be used to censor media).<br />
3. Court cases - these are court cases involving the media or concerning issues<br />
which affect the media (e.g. a1995 case in Zimbabwe involving cell phone<br />
company Retr<strong>of</strong>it did not include the media but significantly advanced freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> expression and required to be reported). Alerts are not normally issued for<br />
trials or cases which are in progress (unless something significant happens), the<br />
commencement and conclusion (judgement) are the most important to report (it<br />
requires however that the entire trial be monitored). Background information is<br />
very important in alerts relating to court cases e.g. where a newspaper is being<br />
sued ever an article, find out when the contentious article was published and<br />
give a brief idea <strong>of</strong> what the article said or reported. This helps to access whether<br />
a trial is reasonable and fair. In the case <strong>of</strong> a criminal trial, indicate exactly<br />
which law and sections there<strong>of</strong> the journalist or media is being charged under.<br />
So This Is Democracy? 323
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
4. Legislation - This refers to the introduction, amendment or repealing <strong>of</strong> all<br />
legislation affecting media in some way or the other. Very draconian legislation<br />
is usually monitored and reported from the stage at which it is mooted. When<br />
issuing in alert around legislation, we make sure to explain precisely which<br />
parts <strong>of</strong> the law affect the media and how.<br />
5. Policies and statements by elected government <strong>of</strong>ficials - these are monitored<br />
and reported in so far as they have a direct bearing on the workings and operations<br />
<strong>of</strong> the media. Verbal threats or attacks on the media are crucial to report, as<br />
well as statements advancing new policies or clarifying, government policies<br />
with respect to the media.<br />
MISA chapters where one can report media violations in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
ANGOLA<br />
(There is currently no MISA Chapter in Angola. Please report media violations<br />
in Angola to the Regional Secretariat) Regional Secretariat<br />
Zoé Titus<br />
Regional Program Coordinator: <strong>Media</strong> Freedom Monitoring<br />
Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Tel. +264 61 232975<br />
Fax. +264 61 248016<br />
E-mail: research@misa.org<br />
Web: http://www.misa.org<br />
2002<br />
BOTSWANA<br />
Mr Modise Maphanyane (National Director)<br />
Ms Caroline Phiri-Lubwika (Information Officer)<br />
Plot 398 Ext. 4. Kgasa close<br />
P/Bag BO 86<br />
Gaborone<br />
Tel: 00 (267) 3971972<br />
Fax: 00 (267) 561199<br />
Cell: 00 267 71603228<br />
Email: misa@info.bw<br />
Web: http://www.misabotswana.co.bw<br />
LESOTHO<br />
Mr Malefetsane Nkhahle (National Director)<br />
Mr Thomas Mapesla (Information Officer)<br />
House No. 1B, Happy Villa<br />
P O Box14130,Maseru 100<br />
Tel:00 (266) 22 320941<br />
Fax: 00 (266) 22 310560<br />
E-mail: medinles@les<strong>of</strong>f.co.za<br />
324 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
MALAWI<br />
Mr Lowani Mtonga (National Director)<br />
Mr Innocent Chitosi (Information Officer)<br />
E-mail: misama@globemw.net<br />
Onions Complex, <strong>of</strong>f Chilambula Rd, Area 4,<br />
P.O Box 30463, Lilongwe 3<br />
Tel/Fax: 00 265 1 758 091<br />
Tel: 00 265 1 758 090<br />
Cell: 265 8 839651<br />
MOZAMBIQUE<br />
Mr Alfredo Libombo (National Director)<br />
Mr Gustavo Mahoque (Information Officer)<br />
E-mail: MisaMoz@Virconn.com<br />
Avenida Emilia Dausee No. 389<br />
Maputo R/C<br />
C/O <strong>Media</strong>coop<br />
PO Box 73, Maputo<br />
Tel: 00 2581 302833<br />
Fax: 00 258 1 302842<br />
Cell: 00 258 82305215<br />
Cell: 00 258 8248 3568<br />
NAMIBIA<br />
Mrs Tanya Menges (National Director)<br />
E-mail: misanam@mweb.com.na<br />
Tel; 00 (264 61) 236069<br />
Fax: 00 (246 61) 236054<br />
Cell: 081 244 3977<br />
12 Feld Street <strong>of</strong>f Thorer Street<br />
Maerua Park<br />
P.O Box 86075, Eros<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
SOUTH AFRICA<br />
Ms Tusi Fokane (Acting National Director)<br />
Mr Goodman Chauke (Administrative/Information Officer)<br />
20 Melle Street, Van der Stel Building<br />
First Floor, Rooms 115/116<br />
MISA SA, Postnet Suite 122<br />
P/Bag X42, Braamfontein 2017<br />
Tel: 00 (27 11) 403 0207<br />
Fax: 00 (27 11) 403 0208<br />
E-mail: misa-sa@mweb.co.za<br />
E-mail: misa-sa@misa-southafrica.org.za<br />
So This Is Democracy? 325
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
SWAZILAND<br />
Mr Comfort Mabuza (National Director)<br />
Ms Phumelele F. Dlamini (Information Officer)<br />
Dlanubeka House<br />
6 th Floor, Office 604<br />
Corner <strong>of</strong> Tim & Walker Streets<br />
P.O. Box 681<br />
Mbabane H 100<br />
Tel: 00 (268) 404 6677 or 40 49700<br />
Fax: 00 (268) 404 6699<br />
Cell: 605 1142<br />
E-mail: misa@africaonline.co.sz<br />
TANZANIA<br />
Ms Rose Haji (National Director)<br />
Mr Marco Gideon (Information Officer)<br />
Uhuru Street, Plot No. 2<br />
Shari Shamba Area (next to Wazie Club Ilala)<br />
P.O.Box 78172<br />
Dar-es-Salaam<br />
Tel: 255 22 137547<br />
Fax: 255 22 137548<br />
Cell: 255 744 270856 (Director)<br />
Cell: 255 741 564 213 (Information Officer)<br />
E-mail: misatan@africaonline.co.tz<br />
2002<br />
ZAMBIA<br />
Mr Fanwell Chembo (National Director)<br />
Mr Sipo Kapumba (Information Officer)<br />
Mr Lingela Brian Muletambo (Broadcasting Researcher)<br />
Plot 3814<br />
Martin Mwamba Road<br />
Olympia Park<br />
P.O. Box 32295<br />
Lusaka<br />
Tel: 00 (260 1) 292096 or 292097/<br />
Fax: 00 (260 1) 292096<br />
Cell: 00 (260 95) 703747<br />
Resource Centre: (260 1) 294285<br />
Information Officer: (260 1 ) 294286 or 260 97 841615<br />
E-mail: zima@zamnet.zm<br />
E-mail: fanwell@zima.org.zm<br />
E-mail: sipo@zima.org.zm<br />
E-mail: brian@zima.org.zm<br />
Web: http://www.zima.zm<br />
326 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
ZIMBABWE<br />
Ms Sarah Chiumbu (National Director)<br />
Mr Rashweat Mukundu (Information Officer)<br />
Mr Takura Zhangazha (Advocacy Officer)<br />
84 McChlery Drive, Eastlea, Harare<br />
Box HR 8113<br />
Harare, Zimbabwe<br />
Tel/Fax: 00 (263 4) 735441/735442 or 721841<br />
Fax: (call first and ask for fax line)<br />
Cell: 00 263 11 602 685<br />
E-mail: Misa@mweb.co.zw<br />
E-mail: Misazim@mweb.co.zw<br />
REGIONAL SECRETARIAT<br />
Kaitira Kandjii<br />
Regional Program Manager: Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression and Right to<br />
Information<br />
Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Tel. +264 61 232975<br />
Fax. +264 61 248016<br />
E-mail: kkandjii@misa.org<br />
Web: http://www.misa.org<br />
REGIONAL SECRETARIAT<br />
Zoé Titus<br />
Regional Program Coordinator: <strong>Media</strong> Freedom Monitoring<br />
Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Tel. +264 61 232975<br />
Fax. +264 61 248016<br />
E-mail: research@misa.org<br />
Web: http://www.misa.org<br />
So This Is Democracy? 327
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
MISA in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
MISA is a dynamic, member-driven network <strong>of</strong> national<br />
chapters co-ordinated by a pr<strong>of</strong>essional regional secretariat<br />
which seeks - through monitoring, training, capacity building,<br />
research and the distribution <strong>of</strong> information - to foster free,<br />
independent and diverse media throughout southern <strong>Africa</strong> in<br />
the service <strong>of</strong> democracy and development as stated in the<br />
Windhoek Declaration and <strong>Africa</strong>n Charter on Broadcasting<br />
The <strong>Media</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> (MISA) is a non-governmental organisation<br />
with members in 11 <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Development Community<br />
(SADC) countries. Officially launched in September 1992, MISA focuses<br />
primarily on the need to promote free, independent and pluralistic media, as<br />
envisaged in the 1991 Windhoek Declaration.<br />
MISA seeks ways in which to promote the free flow <strong>of</strong> information and cooperation<br />
between media workers, as a principal means <strong>of</strong> nurturing democracy<br />
and human rights in <strong>Africa</strong>. The role <strong>of</strong> MISA is primarily one <strong>of</strong> a<br />
coordinator, facilitator and communicator, and for this reason MISA aims to<br />
work together with all like-minded organisations and individuals to achieve<br />
a genuinely free and pluralistic media in southern <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
THE MISA SECRETARIAT<br />
The MISA Secretariat is based in Windhoek, Namibia, and its main tasks<br />
are:<br />
Advocacy: To conduct advocacy in accordance to the organisation’s mission,<br />
act on media freedom violations and conduct research as the basis <strong>of</strong><br />
specialised and popularised publications.<br />
News Exchange: To facilitate news exchange (to make sure that local news<br />
from the independent media is made accessible to the whole region and that<br />
regional news from the independent media is made accessible to the world)<br />
National Chapters: To establish a MISA platform in each <strong>of</strong> the 11 <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community (SADC) countries, recruit institutional<br />
members from private and community media and individual members from<br />
all media houses in the region. MISA has national chapters in Angola, Botswana,<br />
Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South <strong>Africa</strong>, Swaziland,<br />
Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.<br />
2002<br />
Capacity Building: To capacitate national chapters, individual members<br />
and the independent and community media.<br />
328 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Management: To establish and implement financial control systems for<br />
MISA programmes and core functions, develop and maintain a rolling planning<br />
system for MISA strategies, programmes and core functions and liase<br />
with key opinion and decision makers central to the fulfilment <strong>of</strong> the organisation’s<br />
mission.<br />
MISA PROGRAMME AREAS<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
D<br />
E<br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression and the Right to Information<br />
1. Reform and advocacy on all anti-media laws, policies and<br />
regulations<br />
2. Legal Defence Funds<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Freedom Monitoring<br />
1. <strong>Media</strong> Freedom monitoring and Alerts<br />
2. Research and publications<br />
Campaign for Broadcasting Diversity<br />
1. Policy reforms that provide for diversity, pluralism and<br />
guaranteed public interest<br />
2. Regulating <strong>of</strong> broadcasting and telecommunications<br />
environments.<br />
3. Regional harmonisation <strong>of</strong> policy and practice, particularly in<br />
the provision <strong>of</strong> satellite services.<br />
<strong>Media</strong> Support Activities<br />
1. Ethics and <strong>Media</strong> self regulation<br />
2. Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Training <strong>of</strong> media practitioners<br />
3. <strong>Media</strong> Awards<br />
4. Promotion <strong>of</strong> Local Independent and Community media<br />
5. News Exchange (MISANET)<br />
Legal Support<br />
1. Legal Defence Funds<br />
GENDER<br />
MISA believes that gender is intrinsic to a pluralistic and diverse media;<br />
giving voice to all members <strong>of</strong> the community; realising human aspirations<br />
as well as freedom <strong>of</strong> association. To ensure that gender is being effectively<br />
mainstreamed throughout its programs and activities, MISA will use gender<br />
as one <strong>of</strong> the important indicators for measuring whether each <strong>of</strong> the values<br />
and principles that MISA stands for is being achieved.<br />
The MISA Regional Governing Council adopted the MISA Gender Policy<br />
on March 28, 2002 and affirmed that MISA will play its role in promoting<br />
gender equality through adopting exemplary institutional practices and systematically<br />
taking gender considerations into account in all dimensions <strong>of</strong><br />
its work.<br />
For more information contact gender@misa.org<br />
So This Is Democracy? 329
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
PUBLICATIONS AND MAILING LISTS<br />
MISA produces an annual publication entitled “So This Is Democracy” which<br />
outlines the state <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> and summarises all the<br />
media freedom alerts issued by MISA in the course <strong>of</strong> a year. MISA also<br />
produces the quarterly FreePress magazine, the bi-annual <strong>Media</strong> Directory<br />
and publishes research on a number <strong>of</strong> topical media debates in <strong>Southern</strong><br />
<strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
MISA manages a number <strong>of</strong> mailing lists which alert subscribers to media<br />
freedom violations, media related developments, training opportunities and<br />
advocacy campaigns in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> and further afield. The <strong>Media</strong> Lawyers’<br />
List connects media lawyers in the region. This mailing list is a combined<br />
project between Article 19, MISA and the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression <strong>Institute</strong><br />
(FXI) in South <strong>Africa</strong>.<br />
As a member <strong>of</strong> the International Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression eXchange (IFEX)<br />
MISA’s media monitoring function reaches an extensive community <strong>of</strong> NGO,<br />
governmental and educational organisations, as well as private persons interested<br />
in media-related issues. For more information on these activities<br />
please contact write to info@misa.org<br />
MISA CAMPAIGNS<br />
ASK: information is your right<br />
Civil society is fundamental in the shaping <strong>of</strong> the media’s responsive role<br />
and functions. In fact, the challenges facing the media cannot be isolated<br />
from the challenges facing society as a whole. Likewise, its active participation<br />
in media freedom issues is central to shaping government policies<br />
and legislation. MISA seeks to develop a public culture that is not only<br />
supportive <strong>of</strong> the media and freedom <strong>of</strong> expression issues, but in which citizens<br />
are furthermore empowered to claim information as a right.<br />
The ASK campaign aims to promote the adoption <strong>of</strong> access to information<br />
legislation in the SADC region. Through this campaign MISA aims to raise<br />
public awareness <strong>of</strong> people’s right to access information that would help<br />
them to either understand their situation and remedy it or seek solutions for<br />
it. For more information on the campaign please contact kkandjii@misa.org<br />
2002<br />
SADC Journalists Under Fire<br />
MISA’s Action Alerts are an excellent tool for advocacy as they strengthen<br />
the cause <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> expression. Unfortunately the issuing <strong>of</strong> an alert<br />
does not guarantee the protection <strong>of</strong> journalists. Practical follow-up is required<br />
to forward the momentum and opportunities created by action alerts.<br />
The SADC Journalists Under Fire campaign exposes the persecution <strong>of</strong> journalists<br />
in the SADC region, provides practical support to victims and lastly<br />
330 So This Is Democracy?
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
advocates for an enabling environment for media freedom and freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
expression. For more information on the campaign please contact<br />
research@misa.org<br />
Campaign for Broadcast Diversity<br />
The broadcast program recognises the contemporary context <strong>of</strong> the convergence<br />
<strong>of</strong> broadcast and telecommunications technologies and advocates for<br />
progressive policies that will set the framework for the information society<br />
<strong>of</strong> the next century. The framework must provide for diversity, pluralism<br />
and guaranteed public interest in the legislating, infostructure development<br />
and regulating <strong>of</strong> these environments. In the SADC context the program<br />
advocates for regional harmonisation <strong>of</strong> policy and practice, particularly in<br />
the provision <strong>of</strong> satellite services.<br />
To receive updates on broadcasting and telecommunication developments<br />
in the SADC region and information on MISA’s Broadcasting Program<br />
projects send an email to: broadcasting@misa.org<br />
Speak Out, Participate (Right to Communicate)<br />
The campaign explores people’s rights to communicate in the new information<br />
age.<br />
Speaking for ourselves (in the WSIS)<br />
The campaign, which has a limited lifespan, ensures that an <strong>Africa</strong>n perspective<br />
is presented at the UN World Summit on Information Society.<br />
Advocacy & Campaign Management Training<br />
This project will train trainers and campaigners in 10 SADC countries and<br />
enable civil society advocacy on topical issues.<br />
Open the Waves<br />
The campaign promotes three tiers <strong>of</strong> broadcasting, true public service broadcasters<br />
and independent regulatory environments.<br />
LEGAL DEFENCE FUND<br />
This Fund is intended to assist media workers in distress or test repressive<br />
legislation in the courts <strong>of</strong> law. For more information contact the Regional<br />
Director at director@misa.org<br />
TRAINING<br />
MISA Scholarship Exchange Programme<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> its ongoing commitment to training, MISA <strong>of</strong>fers a scholarship<br />
exchange programme, which is facilitated by the Regional Secretariat in<br />
Windhoek, Namibia. The programme assists individual media practitioners<br />
So This Is Democracy? 331
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
in all areas <strong>of</strong> the media (managerial, editorial, advertising, and technical) to<br />
work on attachment in another media institution to learn new skills and develop<br />
existing ones. Contact the Chapter Mobilisation Officer for details <strong>of</strong><br />
this programme at jennifer@misa.org<br />
MISANET NEWS EXCHANGE<br />
Since 1994, MISA has been hooking up to the Internet media institutions<br />
throughout the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> Development Community (SADC). As a result,<br />
an unprecedented communications network has been developed between<br />
media organisations throughout the region. This network is called the<br />
MISANET News Exchange.<br />
MISANET allows for the exchange <strong>of</strong> news between connected media institutions;<br />
an initiative that has developed into probably the most comprehensive<br />
on-line source <strong>of</strong> <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n news and information available. For<br />
more information about MISANET, contact: info@misanet.org<br />
THE SOUTHERN AFRICA MEDIA DEVELOPMENT FUND<br />
(SAMDEF)<br />
The SAMDEF Fund seeks to promote the development <strong>of</strong> the emergent independent<br />
media in the <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>n Development Community (SADC)<br />
region through financial and technical support. The Fund is based in<br />
Gaborone, Botswana. For more information on the SAMDEF Fund see<br />
www.samdef.bw<br />
THE SOUTHERN AFRICA INSTITUTE OF MEDIA<br />
ENTERPRENERIAL DEVELOPMENT (SAIMED)<br />
SAIMED <strong>of</strong>fers management training and media development services to<br />
accelerate the development <strong>of</strong> media enterprises throughout <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong><br />
including creating the capacity in them to source finance from any financial<br />
institution.”<br />
2002<br />
332 So This Is Democracy?<br />
CONTACT US<br />
MISA Regional Secretariat<br />
21 Johann Abrecht Street<br />
Private Bag 13386<br />
Windhoek, Namibia<br />
Tel: +264 61 232975<br />
Fax: +264 61 248016<br />
info@misa.org<br />
www.misa.org
State <strong>of</strong> the media in <strong>Southern</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> 2002<br />
Notes<br />
So This Is Democracy? 333