Download - Media Institute of Southern Africa

So This Is Democracy? 

Report on the state of the 

media in Southern Africa 

2002 

Zimbabwean journalists protest outside the Parliament building 

in Harare, Zimbabwe on January 30, 2002 against the repressive 

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill. 

The Bill was enacted on March 15, 2002. Photo: AP 

PROMOTING MEDIA DIVERSITY• 

PLURALISM • SELF SUFFICIENCY 

• INDEPENDENCE 

Compiled by Zoé Titus • Edited by Graham Hopwood 

• Translated by Ricardo Branco, Rui Correia and Jerry dos Santos

State of the media in Southern Africa 2002 

Acknowledgements & Introduction 

So This Is Democracy, which is now in its ninth year of production, 

continues to play a vital role in documenting the numerous media freedom 

violations in the Southern African region. The publication of So 

This is Democracy is further proof of MISA’s commitment to monitoring the 

media freedom environment in order to expose the numerous violations against 

media workers in the region. Alerts help turn spotlights from around the world 

squarely on those responsible for human rights violations - and this can make 

a significant difference, as those who violate human rights often rely on the 

cover of darkness. 

This edition provides incisive insights into and analysis of media freedom 

trends within the region and is a testimony to our commitment to continue the 

fight for the promotion and safeguarding of media freedom and freedom of 

expression. For it is MISA’s vision that our region will become a bastion of 

democracy and good governance, of which media freedom is a key indicator. 

We wish to express sincere appreciation to all partner organisations and donors 

who have contributed to this project – in particular contributors to our 

basket fund. We also extend appreciation to the International Freedom of 

Expression Exchange (IFEX) in Toronto, Canada, which ensures that violations 

recorded by MISA in Southern Africa receives maximum exposure in 

the international community and in so doing, allows for rapid, world-wide 

and coordinated response to press freedom and freedom of expression violations. 

A special word of thanks also to the many independent contributors who wrote 

the various overviews for the countries that MISA monitors. 

A special word of thanks also to those persons who offered technical assistance. 

They are: 

• Copy editing 

Graham Hopwood 

• Proof reading 

Jo Rogge, Eva Johnsen 

• Layout 

Johannes Aoxamub 

• Translation 

Ricardo Branco, Jerry dos Santos, Rui Correia 

2002 

Kaitira Kandjii 

Regional Program Manager: Freedom of Expression and 

Right to Information 

2 So This Is Democracy?



MEDIA INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA 

Contents 

Notes on classification ....................................................................... 4 

Map of the SADC Region ................................................................. 7 

Addresses of Heads of State .............................................................. 8 

Regional Overview .......................................................................... 10 

Country Overview: Angola.............................................................. 23 

Country Overview: Botswana ......................................................... 33 

Country Overview: Lesotho ............................................................ 44 

Country Overview: Malawi ............................................................. 53 

Country Overview: Mozambique .................................................... 73 

Country Overview: Namibia ........................................................... 87 

Country Overview: South Africa ..................................................... 99 

Country Overview: Swaziland ...................................................... 114 

Country Overview: Tanzania ......................................................... 127 

Country Overview: Zambia ........................................................... 141 

Country Overview: Zimbabwe ...................................................... 168 

Selected Press Releases ................................................................. 252 

Breakdown of incidents by category ............................................. 314 

MISA’s Annual Press Freedom Award .......................................... 317 

Previous winners of the MISA Press Freedom Award .................. 318 

How to report an attack on the media ............................................ 322 

MISA in Southern Africa ............................................................... 328 

So This Is Democracy? 3


Notes on classification 

The list and definitions of classifications in this year’s So This Is democracy? 

- which makes up the bulk of the content of this book - are assigned to specific 

categories. Actual alerts issued by MISA are indicated by the “ALERT” 

in the top right hand corner of the entry. In all, there are eleven categories: 

• Beaten • Legislated 

• Bombed • Others 

• Censored • Sentenced 

• Detained • Threatened 

• Expelled • Victory 

• Killed 

As indicated above, the categories are arranged in alphabetical order. Below 

is a description of each category. Each category captures a fairly broad range 

of incidents, and more than just the single word it is represented by. Nevertheless, 

each category is an accurate summation of incidents that are not too 

dissimilar with respect to their nature and the manner in which they affect the 

individual media workers and/or the media in general. Except for victory, the 

categories make up a list of the various types of violations media workers can 

experience during the course of or as a result of their work: 

KILLED - This tops the list in terms of severity, and there is no 

need to explain why. Included under this category, however, are 

incidents where journalists have been kidnapped or gone missing, 

and have disappeared. For the purpose of this publication, that 

means that any incidents involving the latter will add to the statistics 

of this category. The statistic given is for the number of media 

workers involved, as opposed to the number of incidents reported. 

BEATEN - This includes incidents where journalists are assaulted, 

attacked physically, tortured, or wounded during the course of their 

work. The statistic given is for the number of media workers involved. 

2002 

BOMBED - This includes incidents where a home of a journalist 

or the office of a media house/outlet/organisation is sabotaged 

through bombing, arson, vandalism, theft, or is raided or occupied 

forcibly. The statistic given is for the number of media workers 

or media organisations involved. 



DETAINED - This involves a media worker being put behind 

bars. It can be legal or illegal and includes being sentenced to a 

jail term or being detained (without charge, incommunicado, preventative, 

arrest). The statistic given is for the number of media 

workers involved. 

SENTENCED - This is when a judgement is handed down against 

a media worker involving either a prison term or a fine. The statistic 

given is for the number of media workers involved. 

THREATENED - This involves a threat from a public official, a 

death threat, various forms of harassment (such as veiled warnings, 

threats of action, or interference in editorial processes), or 

journalists being questioned or interrogated on their sources. The 

statistic given is for the number of media workers or media organisations 

involved. 

EXPELLED - This category relates to the free movement of media 

workers. It involves incidents where journalists are expelled 

from a country, are prevented from entering a country (denying of 

Visas, work papers or accreditation), are prevented from leaving 

a country, are barred from travelling into a country or from entering 

certain areas, and generally inhibited from moving freely in 

order to perform their work. The statistic given is for the number 

of media workers involved. 

CENSORED - This is where information is suppressed or prevented 

from being published, or where media workers are somehow or 

other prevented from getting their information out. It involves 

straight forward censorship such as a banning, a gagging order, order 

for excisions, preventing the publication of information through 

legislative restrictions, e.g. public officials or the courts, and interdicts, 

court orders or civil litigation resulting in the suppression of 

information. It also involves a publication or broadcaster or programme 

being shut down or suspended, as well as incidents where 

equipment and/or materials are confiscated. The statistic given is 

for the number of media workers or media organisations involved. 

LEGISLATION - This relates to all aspects of the legislative process 

and the application of common law. It includes instances where 

official proposals are made for new laws, legislation is passed, laws 

are amended or struck down either in parliament or by the courts, 

and civil litigation is instituted against media. This category is not 

all about violations, since there can be legislation that enhances 

media freedom and freedom of expression. This has been pointed 



out accordingly through the descriptive terms “threatening legislation 

and “positive legislation”. The statistic given is for the number 

of incidents reported under this category, as opposed to the number 

of media workers or media organisations involved. 

OTHER - These are incidents which do not necessarily involve the 

media, but which affect aspects of freedom of expression or speech 

in general. These can involve cases of sedition against a member of 

the public, a general curb on free speech, parliamentary speech or 

access to information (e.g. matters involving the internet, pornography, 

hate speech, political speech), a violation of the right to freedom 

of assembly and protest, or an incident relating to artistic or 

academic freedom. Incidents involving the media, which do fall 

under this category, involve that of media pluralism (a publication 

closing down because of financial reasons) or incidents involving 

access to the public media. The statistic given is for the number of 

incidents reported under this category. 

VICTORY - This is self-explanatory in terms of its implication 

for the media, but involves different types of incidents. Some incidents 

falling under this category have immediate implications 

for individual media workers or media organisations (being released 

unconditionally, having charges dropped, winning or avoiding 

civil litigation, overturning gagging orders and acquittal on 

criminal charges), while others have broad implications that advance 

media freedom, access to information or freedom of expression 

in general (favourable policy statements from public officials, 

the adoption of media-friendly laws or policies, favourable 

and precedent-setting court judgements, and favourable procedures 

and decisions by statutory or other bodies dealing with 

matters of media content or freedom of expression). The statistics 

given is for the number of incidents reported under this category. 

2002 

The method of classification 

Every dated entry in So This Is Democracy? has been assigned a descriptive 

term. Every dated entry which is indicated as an ‘ALERT’ falls under that 

respective category and thus adds to the statistics in that particular category. 

Some entries do not fall within any of the listed categories and are merely 

included as additional information on media developments in a given country. 

These are not indicated as ‘ALERTS’, rather as ‘UPDATES’ which have 

already been classified. For the sake of statistics, therefore, the assigned category 

of an entry and/or the number involved, is listed only once and not 

repeated in the case of another entry relating to the same case. 



Map of Southern Africa with 

MISA’s eleven focus countries 

Tanzania 

Angola 

Zambia 

Namibia 

Botswana 

Zimbabwe 

Mozambique 

Malawi 

South Africa 

Swaziland 

Lesotho 



List of addresses of Heads of State 

2002 

ANGOLA 

Honourable Eduardo dos Santos 

President 

Gabinete do Presidente 

Futungo Belas 

Luanda, Angola 

Phone: (244) 2 353 837 

Webpage: http://www.angola.org/politics/index.htm 

BOTSWANA 

Honourable Festus Gontebanye Mogae 

President 

Office of the President 

Private Bag 001 

Gabarone, Botswana 

Phone: (267) 350 858/00 

Fax: (267) 581 028 

Webpage: http://www.gov.bw/home.html 

LESOTHO 

Honourable Pakalitha Bethuel Mosisili 

Prime Minister 

c/o The Government Secretary 

P O Box 527 

Maseru 100, Lesotho 

Phone: (266) 311 000 

Fax: (266) 310 444 

Webpage: http://www.lesotho.gov.ls/ 

MALAWI 

H.E. Dr. Bakili Muluzi 

President 

Office of the President and Cabinet 


Lilongwe 3, Malawi 

Phone: (265) 783 044 

Fax: (265) 782 095 

Webpage: http://www.malawi.gov.mw/ 

MOZAMBIQUE 

His Excellency Joaquim Alberto Chissano 

President 

Avenida Julius Nyerere 2000 

Caixa Postal 285 

Maputo, Mozambique 

Phone: (258) 49 11 21 

Fax: (258) 49 20 68 

Webpage: http://www.mozambique.mz/ 

NAMIBIA 

Honourable Sam Nujoma 

President 

State House, Robert Mugabe Ave. 


Windhoek, Namibia 

Phone: (264) 61 220 010 

Fax: (264) 61 221 770 

Email page: 

Webpage: http://www.grnnet.gov.na/intro.htm 



List of addresses of Heads of State 

SOUTH AFRICA 

Honourable Thabo Mbeki 

President 


Private bag X1000 

Union Buildings, 

Government Avenue 

0001 Pretoria, South Africa 

Phone: (27)12 - 3005200 

Fax: (27) 12 - 3238246 

Email: communications@po.gov.za 

Webpage: http://www.gov.za/president 

Webpage: http://www.gov.za/president/index.html 

SWAZILAND 

Honourable Dr. Barnaba Sisbuso 

Prime Minister 

Hospital Hill 

P.O. BOX 395 

Mbabane, Swaziland 

Phone: (268) 40 422 51 

Fax: (268) 40 439 43 

Email: ppcu@realnet.co.sz 

Webpage: http://www.swazi.com/government/ 

TANZANIA 

Honourable Benjamin William Mkapa 

President 

P O Box 9120 

Dar es Salaam, 

Tanzania 

Phone: (255) 222116539 

Fax: (255) 222116898 

Webpage: http://www.tanzania.go.tz/ 

ZAMBIA 

Honourable Levy Mwanawasa 

President 

Office of the President, State House 

P O Box 30135 

Lusaka, Zambia 

Phone: (260) 1 254 487, 259 486 

Fax: (260) 1 221 939 

Email: state@zamnet.zm 

Webpage: h http://www.state.gov.zm/index.html 

ZIMBABWE 

His Honourable Cde Robert Mugabe 

Executive President 


Munhutapa Building 


Causeway, Harare 

Zimbabwe 

Phone: (263) 4 707 091/7 

Fax: (263) 4 708 557 

Webpage: http://www.gta.gov.zw/ 



Regional Overview 

By Kaitira Kandjii 

MISA Regional Programme Manager: Freedom of Expression and Right to 

Information 

By Zoé Titus 

MISA Regional Programme Coordinator: Media Freedom Monitoring 

The media freedom and freedom of expression situation in countries in 

the SADC region has not deteriorated significantly in the last year 

apart from two hotspots – Swaziland and Zimbabwe. 

During 2002 MISA issued a total of 208 alerts on media freedom violations in 

the 11 SADC countries that it monitors compared to a total of 207 alerts issued 

in the previous year. In stark contrast, MISA has issued only 10 (ten) reports of 

victories in the media freedom and freedom of expression landscape in those 

same countries. 

In the two hotspots, in particular in Zimbabwe, there has been a serious regression 

in the media freedom and freedom of expression situation. In Zimbabwe 

the government has openly declared war on the private media, while in Swaziland 

the government has shown no respect for the rule of law. 

The official position of the government of Zimbabwe is to make normal journalistic 

practices criminal so that working in the media becomes a dangerous 

profession. The private media was threatened and attacked throughout 2002, 

particularly by Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, the Army-General, the 

police and President Mugabe, who accused the media of “peddling lies, exaggerations 

and manufacturing news.” This usually occurred as a result of articles 

considered detrimental to the authority of the ruling party and State organs. 

Journalists’ homes were raided and several were barred from or assaulted whilst 

covering public events. The violence did not spare public media journalists 

who were on some occasions harassed by opposition party supporters and a 

ZBC cameraperson was severely beaten by soldiers. 

2002 

Several foreign journalists were denied accreditation to cover the presidential 

elections in March. The Daily News offices and community radio stations Voice 

of the People (VOP) and Radio Dialogue were raided; documentation and tapes 

were illegally removed. Most seriously the Daily News’ Bulawayo offices were 

petrol-bombed, as was the printing press of a company that produced opposition 

campaign material. A bomb destroyed the entire VOP premises in August. 

Police have failed to charge a single person for any of the attacks. 


REGIONAL OVERVIEW 


During 2002 the private media in Zimbabwe was forced to operate in the 

most restrictive legislative environment since independence. The Public Order 

and Security Act (POSA) was enacted in January and marked the commencement 

of a determined assault on constitutional freedoms of speech and 

association. 

Amongst other provisions it criminalises reports undermining the authority of 

the President and publication of false statements prejudicial to the State. 

The enactment of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 

(AIPPA) in mid-March 2002 dealt the greatest blow to freedom of speech and 

press freedom. The Act creates an all-powerful government-appointed Media 

and Information Commission (MIC), which is non-representative of diverse 

journalistic interests. The MIC has quasi-judicial and investigative powers, which 

usurp the function of the courts and the police respectively, and which allow it 

to unjustifiably and unconstitutionally intrude in the affairs of media houses 

and professionals. 

In terms of AIPPA, accreditation of journalists and registration of media houses 

is mandatory for the practice of journalism, and the spectrum of those affected 

is so wide that it may encompass advertisers, publishers, non-governmental 

organisations (NGOs) and web-related industries. Foreign ownership of the 

media is outlawed and foreign correspondents are only permitted to register for 

“a limited period”. Finally, the provisions and penalties relating to false news 

and abuse of “journalistic privilege” are harsher than those found unconstitutional 

by the Supreme Court under the since-repealed Law and Order (Maintenance) 

Act. 

The enforcement of these two Acts have greatly contributed to the increased 

assault on the private media and the denial of freedom of expression and it has 

further impeded the free flow of information to the public inside and outside 

Zimbabwe. 

In South Africa, hailed as a model for the rest for the region, tension arose when 

parliament announced that it would relocate the current press gallery outside 

parliament. The media saw the move as an attempt to make parliament inaccessible. 

Furthermore, the publication of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill raised 

serious concerns over the government’s attempt to compromise the independence 

of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) News. 

However, good news came in October last year with the announcement of a 

last-minute amendment to the controversial Broadcasting Amendment Bill 

which stated that the SABC board would fall under the control of the Independent 

Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and not the 

Minister of Communications as originally proposed. 



In 2002 one of the significant victories for media freedom and freedom of 

expression was recorded in Zambia. Years of sustained campaigning for media 

law reforms, led by the Zambia chapter of MISA, appear to be bearing 

fruit with the lodging in parliament of three private members bills, i.e. the 

Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, Freedom of Expression Bill and the 

Broadcasting Bill. 

The Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, if passed, would provide for 

the establishment of an independent broadcast authority that would regulate 

the industry and grant licences to prospective broadcasters. Currently, the 

Minister of Information and Broadcasting has the power to unilaterally withdraw 

broadcast licences, or reject any application for a licence. If adopted, the 

members of the authority would be drawn from a cross-section of society. 

The Freedom of Expression Act aims to enshrine in the Constitution the freedom 

of the press, while the Broadcast Bill aims to give legal status to broadcasters 

other than the state-owned Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZNBC). 

But before we give the Zambian government a standing ovation for the media 

law reform process, it must be noted that Section 69 of the Zambian Penal 

Code, which creates the offence of criminal libel against the president, continues 

to be flagrantly applied. The mistreatment of journalists by police and 

political party cadres continued unabated in 2002 and the government is still 

very eager to keep its hold on and control of the state 

broadcaster. 

Section 69 is one of the biggest hindrances to free media practice in Zambia. 

It was applied against Post Newspaper Editor Fred M’membe, who was charged 

with defaming President Mwanawasa in a story that quoted Dipak Patel calling 

the President “a cabbage”. The People Newspaper Editor Emmanuel 

Chilekwa, too, came face to face with Section 69 when he was charged with 

defaming the President in an article, which alleged that President Mwanawasa 

was suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. 

Throughout the year journalists were threatened, (twice through bomb scares), 

physically attacked or verbally abused by overzealous political party cadres, 

detained by police even for ‘bailable’ offences as was the case with Chilekwa 

and his reporters, and generally despised by government officials for not supporting 

“national development”. 

2002 

In the rest of the region only the names of the journalists and the media institutions 

targeted may differ, for the attacks suffered were similar, ongoing and 

have in some cases intensified specifically because of targeted campaigns by 

those enemies of press freedom and freedom of expression. 




In Lesotho the media freedom situation is littered with legal and financial 

hurdles. The media is fearful of court settlements or unfavourable rulings 

against them, which have contributed to the folding of number of publications 

while crippling others financially. 

In Mozambique, the murder of Carlos Cardoso on November 20 2000, has 

scarred that country’s image irreparably. Earlier this year heavy sentences 

were passed – between 24 and 26 years – on the accused. The question remains 

whether the president’s son, Nymphine Chissano, who was also implicated, 

will eventually be brought to book. 

In Malawi the media freedom environment is threatened by the manipulation 

of the state-funded media by the government. Threats and intimidation were 

also levelled against independent-minded judges and lawyers who are active 

supporters of media freedom and freedom of expression. Another threat to 

media freedom were the political zealots of the ruling United Democratic 

Front (UDF) party, who have drawn up a plan to “deal” with selected journalists 

who they feel are a threat to their individual and party interests. 

These cadres of the UDF have targeted BBC correspondent Raphael Tenthani 

of the Daily Times, Mabvuto Banda, Ackimu Kaingana of Malawi News, The 

Chronicle newspaper and The Pride magazine team. The reportage of these 

journalists is regarded as a threat and an embarrassment to the government. 

In neighbouring Tanzania the Prime Minister’s Office on August 20 issued a 

four-page statement warning newspapers that they can be punished for publishing 

material in violation of professional ethics. 

In Namibia President Sam Nujoma last year took over the Information and 

Broadcasting portfolio, arguing that he needed to play a role in tackling problems 

at the NBC and disciplining NBC employees. The President has since 

instructed the broadcaster to stop screening foreign films and series that have 

a bad influence on the Namibian youth and instead to show films that portray 

Namibia in a positive light. 

The government maintained its advertising ban against the independent English 

daily newspaper, The Namibian. On March 23, 2001, the government 

slapped an advertising boycott on the paper, claiming it was too critical of its 

policies. A few months later President Nujoma extended the ban to include 

the purchase of The Namibian with state monies. 

Not to be outdone, the Government of Swaziland banned the print versions of 

the Guardian newspaper and the Nation magazine from circulating in the country 

in May 2001. The Guardian’s legal victory on August 31 that year lasted 

less than a week when the government appealed against the court ruling that 



had allowed the Guardian to resume publishing after a four-month ban. 

The newspaper has since closed its offices. The delaying tactics employed by 

the government – and supported by a demobilised judiciary - have indeed succeeded 

in crippling an alternative voice in that country. 

It would appear that Southern African governments are refining strategies to 

stifle free speech and freedom of expression in the region. 

On October 3, 2002, the Swaziland Royal Police, acting on a court order, invaded 

Channel S, the only privately-owned television station in the country, 

and confiscated a video tape containing a sermon that has been described by the 

Swazi government as “threatening the foundations of the kingdom.” 

On the other side of the region, Angolan journalists practice their profession in 

near impossible circumstances. 

Manuel Vieira, a correspondent of the Catholic-owned radio station, Radio 

Ecclesia, in Lubango (southern Huila province) was summoned by the Office 

of Criminal Investigations (DNIC) in May last year for questioning about a 

report related to the high death toll in Unita “demobilisation camps”. 

The peace agreement between the ruling Popular Movement for the Liberation 

of Angola (MPLA) of President Jose Eduardo dos Santos and União Nacional 

para a Independência Total de Angola (Unita) was signed on April 4 – some 45 

days after the death of Unita leader Jonas Savimbi on February 22, 2002. The 

peace agreement, which ended nearly 27 years of civil war, called for the demobilisation 

of approximately 50 000 Unita fighters. 

Angolan journalists operate in an environment characterised by government 

interference. The work of journalists, especially those following an independent 

line, is constantly obstructed making it almost impossible for media professionals 

to adequately cover many issues that provoke public opinion. 

As far as journalists working for the state media are concerned, the use of drastic 

measures are less common, but only because the control mechanisms are 

tighter. The strictness practiced in the state media is even more unacceptable in 

light of the fact that the only daily newspaper in the country – owned by the 

state – makes it pages available to writers who hide behind pseudonyms to 

conduct an unbridled offensive against the private media. 

2002 

The signal sent by SADC governments that freedom of speech in the region is 

in grave danger is quite evident. Every violation of that basic human right shows 

that dissenting opinion will be punished. And where physical attacks do not put 

the lid on the media, the law will be changed to silence dissenting voices. 




So why are the governments in the SADC region so hell bent on silencing the 

media? Our governments don’t seem content with running the affairs of the 

state and providing their people with the necessities of life. They would also 

want to run the very lives and control the thinking of the citizens they govern. 

That was the cornerstone of colonial oppression – to smash any deviant thinking 

of the natives. 

One of the most effective ways in which our governments have achieved this 

has been through blackmail and suppression of all criticism and information 

designed to expose the fallacy of their policies and, in some cases, the crimes 

of their elite. All critics are crushed because very few of our leaders can differentiate 

between a critic and a traitor. There is no regard for the patriotism 

of critics because our ruling political parties consider themselves as the government. 

The SADC Culture, Sport and Information Protocol, signed in August 2001, 

in many respects falls short of what MISA stands for, which is primarily the 

promotion of media freedom in the region through the repealing or amendment 

of anti-media legislation, including criminal defamation, the promotion 

of vibrant and independent media, the establishment of and sustainable management 

of community media, and the promotion of legislation that guarantees 

access to information. 

The Protocol is silent on broadcasting issues, including regulatory aspects 

and community broadcasting. Furthermore, critical issues of media ownership 

and editorial independence of both the public and private media do not 

feature in the Protocol. In some cases where these phrases are mentioned the 

discussion is sub-standard and vague, to say the least. 

Since these countries are signatories to a multitude of international charters 

and conventions - including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 

UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the AU Charter on Human and 

Peoples’ Rights, the Fourth Lome Convention, UNESCO-Windhoek Declaration 

of 1991 and the SADC Declaration on the Role of Information and 

Communication in Building the Southern African Development Community 

– one would hope to be able to paint a different picture of the press freedom 

situation in the region. But it remains to be seen to what extent SADC governments 

will observe their responsibility to press freedom. 

There certainly are grounds to question the sincerity of the SADC governments’ 

commitment to media freedom, pluralism and the growth of a truly 

diverse media. 



Panorâmica geral sobre a liberdade 

da imprensa na região. 

Por: Kaitira Kandjii. 

Coordenador de Programa Regional do MISA: Liberdade de Expressão e o 

direito à Informação. 

Por: Zoé Titus. 

Coordenadora de Programa Regional do MISA: Monitoramento da Liberdade 

de Expressão. 

Aconjuntura da liberdade da imprensa e de expressão nos países da 

região da Africa Austral (SADC) continua estabilizando-se, não ob 

stante os dois países ainda em turbulência – Suazilândia e Zimbabué. 

Durante o ano de 2002, o MISA emitiu 208 alertas sobre a violação da liberdade 

da imprensa registados nos onze (11) países da região que monitora, esta figura 

não constitui uma subida significativa se se comparar com o total de 207 

alertas emitidas no ano passado. Num contraste tenaz, o MISA emitiu somente 

10 relatórios sobre as vitórias conquistadas no campo da liberdade de imprensa 

e de expressão nestes mesmos países da região da SADC. 

Nos dois países em turbulência e em particular o Zimbabué, registou-se uma 

regressão total na esfera da liberdade de imprensa e de expressão – tendo o 

governo declarado abertamente guerra contra a imprensa privada, enquanto 

que na Suazilândia, o governo não demonstrou qualquer indícios de respeito 

à justiça. 

A posição oficial do governo Zimbabueano em relação a imprensa é tornar o 

jornalismo uma profissão criminosa, perigosa e proibida. A imprensa privada 

sofreu ameaças e ataques durante o ano todo de 2002, particularmente pelo 

Ministro da Informação, o catedrático Jonathan Moyo, um general das Forças 

Armadas Zimbabueanas, da policia e até mesmo do presidente Robert Mugabe, 

cujo acusou a imprensa de “vender mentiras, exageros e de fabricar noticiais”. 

Isto ocorreu sempre como resultado dos artigos considerados prejudiciais a 

respeitabilidade e autoridade do partido no poder e os órgãos do Estado. 

2002 

As residências de jornalistas foram vítimas de ataques súbitos; alguns foram 

impedidos, ou atacados quando faziam cobertura de eventos públicos. Estes 

ataques não pouparam os jornalistas da imprensa pública, que em algumas 

ocasiões eram hostilizados por simpatizantes do partido da oposição. O 

operador cinematográfico da Televisão Publica do Zimbabué (ZBC) foi 




severamente espancado por soldados. 

Foi rejeitada a acreditação dos jornalistas estrangeiros que pretendiam fazer 

cobertura das eleições gerais realizada em Março de 2002. Os escritórios do 

diário “The Daily News” da rádio Comunitária “Voice of the People” (VOP) 

e da rádio “Dialogue” foram assaltados; documentos e cassetes foram levados 

ilegalmente. E o mais grave ainda foi o que ocorreu nos escritório do “The 

Daily News” em Bulawayo [a segunda maior cidade do Zimbabué] que foram 

alvos de uma bomba assim como a impressora da empresa que produzia os 

materiais de campanha para o partido da oposição. Uma bomba destruiu na 

sua totalidade os escritórios da VOP em Agosto. A polícia não conseguiu 

identificar nenhum culpado destes ataques. 

Durante o ano de 2002, a imprensa privada no Zimbabué foi forçada a operar 

num ambiente legislativo mas rígido desde a sua independência. O acto para 

a ordem e segurança pública (POSA) entrou em vigor em Janeiro e marcou o 

início do assalto determinado contra as liberdades constitucionais de expressão 

e de associação. 

Dentre outras provisões, ela criminaliza os relatórios que arruínam 

insidiosamente a autoridade do presidente Robert Mugabe e publicações com 

declarações falsas prejudiciais ao estado. 

A promulgação do acto do acesso à informação e Protecção da Privacidade 

(AIPPA) em meados de Março, teve o maior impacto contra a liberdade da 

imprensa e de expressão. O acto decreta a criação de uma poderosa Comissão 

de Imprensa e Informação (MIC), nomeada pelo governo que não representa 

os diversos interesses dos jornalísticos. MIC tem poderes quase judiciais e de 

investigação, que usurpam as funções dos tribunais e da policia 

respectivamente, e que permitam o MIC a interferir-se inconstitucionalmente 

e injustificadamente nos assuntos internos da imprensa e dos jornalistas. 

Em termos do AIPPA, a acreditação dos jornalistas e o registo das publicações 

é obrigatório para a pratica do jornalismo, e o espectro daqueles afectados é 

tão amplo que pode até conter anunciantes, publicadores, organizações não 

governamentais (ONG) e industrias relacionadas com a Internet. É proibida a 

possessão de publicações/jornais a proprietários estrangeiros é proibida por 

lei, e os correspondentes estrangeiros só são permitidos a registar-se por um 

“período de tempo limitado”. Finalmente as provisões e sentenças para as 

informações falsas e “abusos do privilegio jornalístico” são mais duras do 

que aquelas que o tribunal supremo determinou com sendo não constitucionais 

sob o então acto repelido da lei e ordem. 

A aplicação destes dois actos, contribuíram grandemente no aumento de ataques 

contra a imprensa privada e na rejeição da liberdade de expressão e impediu 



ainda mais a disseminação de informação ao público dentro e fora do 

Zimbabué. 

Na Africa do sul, gloriada como o modelo para o resto dos países da região, 

registou-se a subida de tensão entre a imprensa e o parlamento, quando o 

parlamento anunciou de que havia de estacionar a actual galeria de informação 

fora dos edifícios do parlamento. A imprensa interpretou esta iniciativa como 

forma de tornar o parlamento inacessível. Mas adiante, a publicação do 

projecto-lei para de emenda da lei da Radiodifusão criou serias preocupações 

pela tentativa do governo em comprometer a independência da Corporação 

da Radiodifusão Sul-africana (SABC) os desafios que apresentava a liberdade 

de expressão do difusor. 

Porém, as boas novas chegaram em Outubro do ano passado, com o anúncio 

sobre das emendas feitas nos minutos derradeiros no acto controverso da 

Radiodifusão que declarava que o conselho da SABC estaria sob o controlo 

das Autoridades Independente para as comunicações Sul africanas (ICASA), 

e não sob o ministro das comunicações como inicialmente proposto. 

Registou-se ainda em 2002, uma das vitórias significativas a favor da liberdade 

da imprensa e de expressão na Zâmbia. Os vários anos de campanhas que 

pressionavam para a reforma da lei imprensa, liderada pelo delegação do 

Instituto dos Média na Africa Austral (MISA) aparenta gerar frutos com a 

inserção de três projectos-leis privados no parlamento, exemplo o projectolei 

para uma Autoridade Independente para a Radiodifusão, o projecto-lei 

para a liberdade de expressão assim como para a Radiodifusão. 

Caso seja aprovado o acto para a Autoridade Independente da Radiodifusão, 

providenciará o estabelecimento de uma autoridade independente para a 

radiodifusão que regulará a indústria e emitirá licenças para prospectivos 

difusores. Actualmente o ministro da Informação e Radiodifusão tem o poder 

de retirar unilateralmente licenças de difusores, ou rejeitar qualquer aplicação 

a pedido de licença. Caso seja adoptado, os membros desta autoridade seriam 

indicados a partir dos vários sectores da sociedade. 

O acto para a liberdade de expressão tem como objectivo proteger na 

constituição a liberdade da imprensa, enquanto o acto para a radiodifusão tem 

como objectivo passar estatutos legais aos difusores/publicadores que não 

sejam da Radiodifusão Nacional da Zâmbia (ZNBC). 

2002 

Mas antes de outorgarmos uma aclamação honrosa ao processo de reforma de 

leis da imprensa, deve-se notar de que a secção 69 do código penal da Zâmbia, 

que cria a ofensa de calúnia criminal contra o presidente continua a ser aplicado 

flagrantemente. Os maus-tratos levados a cabo pelos agentes da polícia e 

simpatizantes de partidos políticos contra os jornalistas continuaram impunes 




durante o ano de 2002 e o governo continua ansioso em manter esta pratica e 

a manter controlo sob ZNBC. 

A secção 69 constitui um dos principais impasses a pratica de uma imprensa 

livre na Zâmbia, foi aplicado contra o antigo editor do diário “The Post” Fred 

M’membe que foi acusado de ter difamado o presidente Levy Mwanawasa 

num artigo que citava Dipak Patel ter chamado o presidente de “pateta”. 

O editor do jornal “The People Newspaper” Emmanuel Chilekwa também 

viu-se face a face com a secção 69, quando foi acusado de ter difamado o 

presidente num artigo, que alegava o presidente Mwanawasa de estar a sofrer 

de paralisia agitante. 

Durante o ano, os jornalistas forram ameaçados (duas vezes com bombas), 

atacados fisicamente ou abusados verbalmente por zelosos simpatizantes de 

partidos políticos, detidos pela policia até mesmo por ofensas que permitem a 

“caução” como foi o caso do Chlilekwa na companhia dos seus repórteres e de 

uma forma geral desprezados pelos oficiais do governo por não apoiarem o 

“desenvolvimento nacional”. 

No resto da região só os nomes dos jornalistas e das publicações se diferem 

porque os ataques sofridos continuam sendo da mesma natureza, e contínuas 

e nalguns casos intensificaram-se por causa das campanhas alvejadas pelos 

inimigos da liberdade da imprensa e de expressão. 

No Lesoto a situação sobre a liberdade de imprensa ficou poluída com 

obstáculos legais e financeiros. A imprensa receia pôr fim dos casos no tribunal 

e as decisões não favoráveis ou seja contra os mesmos que contribuíram 

pelo cruzamento dos braços de algumas publicações e pela delapidação 

financeira de outras. 

Em Moçambique, o assassinato do jornalista Carlos Cardoso em Novembro de 

2000, cicatrizou a imagem daquele país irreparavelmente. No início deste ano, 

passaram-se sentenças pesadas – entre 24 e 26 anos de cadeia – para os acusados. 

Mas a questão sobre o envolvimento do filho do presidente Nymphine Chissano 

que também esteve implicado permanece no ar caso também será julgado. 

No Malawi, a esfera da comunicação social é ameaçada com a manipulação 

das publicações financiadas pelo governo. Ameaças e intimidações também 

são feitas contra os advogados de natureza independente, que são apoiantes 

activos da causa da liberdade de imprensa e de expressão. Uma outra ameaça 

contra a imprensa é o fanatismo politico do partido no poder a Frente 

Democrática Unida (UDF) que criou um plano com vista a seleccionar os 

jornalistas no país cujos acham que constituem ameaças aos interesses do 

seus partidos. 



Estes elementos da UDF alvejaram o correspondente da BBC Raphael 

Tenthani do “Daily Times” Mabvuto Banda, Ackimu Kaingana do “Malawi 

News”, o Jornal “The Chronicle” e a equipe do “The Pride”. As reportagens 

destes jornalistas são tidas como ameaça e um embaraço ao governo. 

Na vizinha República da Tanzânia, o gabinete do primeiro-ministro emitiu no 

dia 20 de Agosto uma declaração de quatro páginas advertindo os jornais de 

que poderiam ser punidos por publicar materiais que violassem a ética 

profissional. 

Na Namíbia o presidente Sam Nujoma no ano passado assumiu o reinado da 

pasta de Informação e Radiodifusão dizendo que era uma iniciativa que visava 

sanar os problemas que abalavam a NBC e, prometeu disciplina por parte dos 

trabalhadores da NBC. Sam Nujoma instruiu os funcionários da NBC a deixar 

de apresentar filmes e séries estrangeiras que só eram de má influencia a 

juventude Namibiana e a apresentar filmes que retratassem a Namíbia de uma 

forma positiva. 

Nujoma perpetuou o banimento de publicidades no diário “The Namibian”. 

No dia 30 de Março de 2001, Nujoma arruinou o jornal com uma publicidade 

de boicote clamando que o jornal era bastante critico contra as suas politicas. 

Poucos meses mais tarde o presidente Sam Nujoma estendeu o banimento 

que passou a incluir a ordem para não se fazer a aquisição do jornal com 

dinheiro do estado. 

Ainda na mesma índole, em Maio de 2001, o governo da Suazilândia baniu a 

circulação a nível do país das versões da impressão do jornal “The Guardian” 

e o “The Nation Magazine”. A vitória legal do “The Guardian” no dia 31 de 

Agosto durou menos de uma semana, depois do governo ter apelado contra a 

decisão do tribunal que permitiu o “The Guardian” a retomar as suas actividades 

normais depois de quatro meses banido. 

Os escritórios estavam encerrados. As tácticas de atraso aplicadas pelo governo 

– e apoiadas pelo sistema de justiça desmoralizado – na verdade sucederam 

em enfraquecer a voz alternativa no país. 

Parece que os governos da Africa Austral estão a refinar as estratégias com 

vista a asfixiar a liberdade de imprensa e de expressão na região. 

No dia 03 de Outubro de 2002, a policia real da Suazilândia agindo sob as 

ordens do tribunal invadiu o canal S, o único canal televisivo privado naquele 

país, e confiscou uma cassete de vídeo que continha um sermão que foi 

caracterizado pelo governo Swazi como “ameaça as fundações do reino”. 

2002 

No outro lado da região, os jornalistas Angolanos praticam a sua profissão 




sob circunstâncias impossíveis. 

Manuel Vieira, correspondente da “Rádio Ecclesia” no Lubango (parte sul de 

Angola) propriedade da igreja católica, foi intimado judicialmente pelo 

gabinete de investigação criminal (DNIC) em Maio do ano passado, onde foi 

interrogado sobre o artigo relacionado com o elevado número de mortes nos 

campos de desmobilização da UNITA. 

A CMM é o órgão que implementa as resoluções do acordo de paz de 04 de 

Abril entre o partido no poder o Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola 

(MPLA) do presidente José Eduardo dos Santos e o movimento rebelde da 

UNITA, assinado 45 dias depois da morte em combate do líder Jonas Sidónio 

Malheiro Savimbi, ocorrido no dia 22 de Fevereiro de 2002. O acordo de paz 

que pôs fim a guerra que durou quase 27 anos também proveu a desmobilização 

de aproximadamente 50, 000 soldados da UNITA. 

Os jornalistas angolanos operam num ambiente caracterizado como de 

interferência por parte do governo. O trabalho dos jornalistas especialmente 

aqueles que embarcaram na imprensa independente, é constantemente 

obstruído tornando-o quase impossível para eles cobrirem as várias matérias 

que incitam a opinião pública. 

Em relação aos jornalistas que trabalham para a imprensa controlada pelo 

estado, o uso de medidas drásticas é menos comum, mas só porque os 

mecanismos de controlo são rígidos. A rigorosidade praticada na imprensa 

controlada pelo estado é uma menos aceitável na vista do facto de que o 

único diário no país – propriedade do estado – tornam as suas páginas 

disponíveis a escritores que se escondem por detrás de pseudónimos para 

conduzir uma ofensiva não controlada contra a imprensa privada. 

Tendências? O sinal feito pelos governos da SADC de que a liberdade de 

expressão estava num estado grave era de facto evidente. Toda a violação 

daquele direito básico humano indica que a opinião discordante será punida. 

E onde os ataques físicos não ditam a liderança da imprensa, a lei será mudada 

para silenciar as vozes discordantes. 

Mas então porque é que os governos da SADC estão tão arregaçados a silenciar 

a imprensa? Os nossos governos não aparentam contentar-se com o 

manuseamento das actividades do estado e providenciar ao seu povo as 

necessidades básicas da vida. O governo pretende ainda manusear as próprias 

vidas e controlar o pensamento dos cidadãos que governam. Este foi o principal 

cajado da opressão colonial – esmagar qualquer pensamento não aceitável 

dos nativos. 

Aas formas mais efectivas através das quais os nossos governos atingiram 

isto, foi através das chantagens e a supressão de todo criticismo e informação 



designada a expor a falácia das suas politicas e nalguns casos os crimes da sua 

liga. Todas as criticais são esmagadas porque um número bastante reduzido 

dos nossos líderes podem não conseguem fazer a diferença entre a crítica e o 

traidor. Não existe qualquer reconhecimento pelo patriotismo de criticas porque 

os nossos partidos políticos no poder se consideram como o governo e o 

governo o estado. 

O protocolo para a Cultura e Informação assinado em Agosto de 2001, é em 

vários aspectos limitado em relação o penhor do MISA que é primariamente a 

promoção da liberdade da imprensa na região através da repelência ou emenda 

da legislação anti-média, incluindo a difamação criminal, promoção de uma 

imprensa vibrante e independente, o estabelecimento de uma imprensa 

comunitária sustentável e a promoção da legislação que garante o acesso a 

informação. 

O protocolo é estupefacto correlação os aspectos da radiodifusão, incluindo 

os aspectos reguladores e aspectos sobre a radiodifusão comunitária. Mas 

adiante, o assunto crítico da possessão da média e editoriais independente 

tanto da imprensa privada como pública não se afiguraram no protocolo. 

Nalguns casos onde estas frases são mencionadas, a discussão é vã e sem 

padrão para dizer o mínimo. 

Como signatário de uma série de alvarás e convenções - incluindo a 

Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, o Convénio das Nações Unidas 

sobre os Direitos Civis e Políticos, o Alvará da União Africana sobre os Direitos 

Humanos das Pessoas, a quarta Convenção de Lomé, UNESCO – Declaração 

de Windhoek de 1991, e a Declaração da SADC sobre o Papel da Informação 

e Comunicação na Construção da Comunidade de Desenvolvimento da Africa 

Austral – espera-se que possa pintar uma imagem diferente sobre a situação 

da liberdade da imprensa na região. 

Mas resta ser visto a que ponto é que os governos da SADC observarão as 

suas responsabilidades para a com a liberdade de expressão. 

De facto ainda existe lacunas que nos forçam a questionar a sinceridade da 

dedicação dos governos da SADC para com a liberdade da imprensa, 

pluralismo e crescimento de uma imprensa verdadeiramente pluralística. 

2002 



Angola 

By: Maria da Imaculada Melo, lawyer amd analyst of post-war Angola 

The relationship between the government and the media in Angola, in 

the year 2002, was not one of the most troubled, compared to previous 

years, although the tiresome battle of the media to achieve a dignified 

momentum has remained hazardous. 

Within the current circumstances in Angola where the government of the day - 

MPLA - holds the overwhelming power, the private media is the only instrument 

that wastes no efforts in staging a fierce battle against the government. 

The battle is remarkably fought by the private media and is said to be a battle in 

two dimensions. The first is fought on the level of freedom, while the second is 

staged on a material level. Undoubtedly, the financial and material constraints 

that the private media face undermine their efforts at all levels. 

The review of the Constitutional Law (conducted only at the Parliament level) 

has not produced facts that deserve special attention to this matter and the same 

can be said for legislative initiatives, be they from the National Assembly or the 

Government. 

A profound discussion over the issue of conflicting interests regarding the rights 

protected by the Constitutional Law, as well as the adequate treatment of defamation 

and libel by the press in accordance with the guidelines of the Democratic 

State of Rights, remain postponed. 

The access to public information was peaceful, as long as it remained within the 

boundaries of the convenience of the regime. Sensitive governing issues, however, 

were in a no-go zone. This is the case due to the lack of judicial instruments 

that would allow the exercise of direct participation of the citizens, as 

established in the article 3 of the Angolan Constitution. 

Concerning the media/judiciary relations, the attention was drawn to Radio 

Ecclesia, which stood out both for the way it treated its journalistic material 

and for the criticism it received against its editorial stand and against its pretension 

to broadcast within the whole national territory, although it thereby improved 

its services as a public broadcaster. 

Regarding conflicts in the media, the weekly “Angolense” distinguished itself 

by presenting the best production quality, while being tied up in a court case. 

Nevertheless it is important to note the appearance of two new private newspapers. 

A local biweekly called “A Capital” and a weekly “A Palavra” which 



has undertaken the same editorial line as the existing weeklies. 

The important media reports of the course of history in Angola in 2002 merit 

and continue to merit special attention. It was the year in which on February 

22, Dr. Jonas Malheiro Sidonio Savimbi, leader of the rebel movement UNITA, 

was killed in combat, and soon after, on the April 04, the ceasefire was signed. 

There was a wide range of news coverage and the dignified way the government 

and the ruling party used in dealing with the disgrace befallen on the 

political adversary set a public example. 

In general the media took up a pluralistic posture beneficial to the official 

positioning. For the first time in the history of the country since the second 

Republic, the state and the media revealed maturity in the democratic culture 

far from the usual arrogance and triumphals. 

Excepting itself from this situation was the daily “Jornal de Angola”, the only 

public and national periodical that chose to embrace a negative reporting on 

certain political parties and organizations of civil society in a mercenary way. 

However, the ceasefire between government and the rebel UNITA movement 

on April 04 hypothetically raised the opportunity for UNITA party - of a warlike 

tendency - to reorganise itself and embrace diversity in a peaceful way 

which allows it to contribute positively and democratically to the consolidation 

of the presupposed reconstruction and national reconciliation. 

It is a positive fact that the relation between the media and government in that 

period of time was peaceful, as was the position taken by the government 

with the different media houses. 

Thus, we can say that in 2002 we experienced the dawning of a new era for 

the Angolans. It gave space for a new environment for the media, mainly the 

private media, who strengthened its challenge by abolishing borders of fear 

and of silence to reaffirm itself as a powerful and capable tool to contribute in 

the changes often threatened by the powerful. Along this line, it is important 

to mention the intensification of the public debate on outstanding issues related 

to mal-governance and the Democratic State of Rights, the increase in 

public denunciation and the increase in the circulation of information. It is 

just to distinguish in this process the dynamism of Radio Ecclesia. 

2002 

As a consequence of this dynamism, new media facts were registered such as 

the introduction of a phone-in program on the public debate in the Angolan 

Public Television (which is the only television broadcaster in the country), 

allowing the direct telephonic participation of citizens. The new data in this 

program implemented by the Angolan Public Television, and pioneered by 


ANGOLA 


Radio Ecclesia, has the potential to allow the demystification of the open 

debate of certain issues of public interest and the direct participation of citizens 

which, apart from constituting an effective collective form of reflection, 

is also a strong instrument to manifest of free thinking, and can contribute to 

the construction of a collective and critical consciousness. It is important to 

bear in mind that the Television that for many years transmitted only in Luanda 

has extended its work to other provinces and to two channels. 

Besides the peace, another matter which dominated the media industry in 

2002 was the special attention paid to the judiciary, marked by two important 

events, both of which in some way relied on the aid of the media. 

The first event was the sacking of the Prosecutor General Dr. Domingos Culolo, 

replaced with a seasoned judge of the defunct Popular revolutionary tribunal 

(court), an exceptional court which in the first Republic was part of the supporting 

basis of the ideological repression of the day. 

The media intensified its criticisms against the functioning of the judiciary 

and with special tenacity on the inoperation and position of the office of the 

Prosecutor General as an organ of control and surveillance of legality, bearing 

in mind the various public denunciations of human rights violation in the 

national prisons, excess of preventive prisons and abuse of authority. It was a 

pressure originating both from the media industry and from the civic organizations 

which met other moments equally important and which were at the 

base of the dismissal of the Malanje province governor Flavio Fernandes (one 

of the eighteen provinces of Angola). 

The first public act which the Prosecutor General executed was a forum with 

the public media with the aim to create a healthy partnership in the relationship 

between the media, the government and the judiciary system. During the 

forum the new Prosecutor General did not let go unnoticed his total commitment 

to undertake a new dynamic in correcting the various distortions registered 

within the judicial system, as well as requesting the collaboration of the 

media as intervention from a body that manages a positive and responsible 

spirit in its noble mission of informing. With this the new Prosecutor General 

did throw the seed for the moment which later legitimised the intervention of 

the civil society in defending the public interest. 

The action alerts compiled in 2002 with legal implications are related to the 

case of Gilberto Neto. Neto is still awaiting the prosecution of the case he 

submitted in the Supreme Court against the Ministry of Home Affairs. The 

second case is related to a correspondent Manuel Vieira of Radio Ecclesia in 

Huila province who was called in for interrogation by the Criminal Investigation 

Office for having written an article telling of the huge number of 

deaths registered in the UNITA camps of demobilisation. 



Being so, it is wise to mention that the situation of the various correspondents 

within the various media houses in the provinces has not improved to the same 

level registered in the capital. Generally, the correspondents of Radio Ecclesia 

in the provinces experienced shocks in dealing with the local governments. It 

is important to underline that the openness to the freedom of expression in the 

country is manifesting itself with some slowness and while the speed applied 

in the capital is more likely daring and also has more palpable results, this 

situation is far from desirable, as it is certain that the situation in the provinces 

tend to harden precisely to avoid that the governors and other responsible 

officers go by the riddle of the media and consequently become vulnerable 

and subjected to sanctions and to individual accountability. 

However, the most critical point of the reaction against the media was put 

forward by the judiciary. The judiciary reacted through a public declaration 

broadcasted by the state controlled media and other media because of a programme 

of judicial, political and social analyses broadcasted weekly by Radio 

Ecclesia, at a time when the power of the judiciary was being analysed. 

The Ecclesia Radio station organised a radio phonic forum with the direct 

participation of the citizens about the situation of the judicial power in Angola 

and the result was a negative judgement and denounciation beyond expectations. 

On the other hand, although there has not been a judicial proceeding, the truth 

is that for the first time, in the middle of 2002, a pronouncement by INACOM, 

Angolan Institute of Communications put in question the judicial statutes of 

the Radio Ecclesia, allegedly for broadcasting to some areas of the country 

without holding a permit for it. In question is a comprehension diametrically 

opposed by the existing tools of the judiciary, in which Radio Ecclesia is seen 

as untrustworthy and as lending itself to its owners the Catholic Church and 

more specifically the Episcopal Conference of Angola and Sao Tome. 

With regard to the legislative production related to the media, the Technical 

Commission created by the President of the Republic is still preparing the 

future Press Law which mandates the elaboration of the succession of a rejected 

bill presented by the Government, two years ago, which was not approved 

due to the pressure and energetic efforts of the journalists of the private 

media and the civil society. 

2002 

Besides, a law of State Secrecy was approved almost without opposition. Although 

only the press was summoned to discuss this law (while it was a bill) 

it was absent. Later, after the approval of the law, some parties tried to question 

its compliance with the Constitutional Law. It is still expected that the 

Supreme Court (which decides on matters of this nature, due to non-existence 


ANGOLA 


of a Constitutional Court in Angola) pronounces itself about the non-constitutionality 

or not of the law of State Secrecy. 

We can conclude that there was a slight improvement in the attitude towards 

the state media which has become more open to the pluralist debate, with the 

exception of the Jornal de Angola that is completely out of step with the rest 

who strived to enter into the competition of creating matters of public interest 

and of reference for the population. Without a doubt the Jornal de Angola 

revealed itself to be the most manipulated means of communication with a 

pro-regime policy and as such it became an effective means of counter information 

and of propaganda whether by its omissions about essentials issues of 

public interest or by other ways in which it shaped the information and the 

public opinion. 

With regard to the private media, a certain precipitation in distributing news 

sometimes reveal poor work of investigation and dubious sources, which is 

delicate in the sense that it could benefit agent provocateurs to create an adequate 

environment of fraud of information and as such discredit the private 

press in the public, national and foreign opinion. 

In my understanding the way forward demands the constant search of a point 

of equilibrium and compromise of the truth at the service of the collective 

public interest legitimated by the democratic principles. The media, the journalists, 

must not be mere silhouettes of the powers that be. Independently 

from being politically active it is necessary to maintain the necessary distance, 

to any established power with the distinctive image of a man that informs. 

However, on this road there will not necessarily be a fatal conflict and 

permanent opposition between government and the media. 

Journalists should not see themselves confronting this dilemma and since media 

work does not constitute in its genesis a pure individual act, with an individual 

and for an individual, it is always impregnated with values and references 

that society gives to it, it needed in the defence of this work be noted the 

trace of free thinking, because it is this that confer the media with the assessment 

of the fourth power. 

In this context, the year of 2002, with events more or less important, was still 

not the determining year. Besides, the battle of the media in Angola is not 

dissociated from the whole socio-political context wherein the recently born 

democracy takes excessively slow steps and sometimes confused steps. 



Angola 

Por Maria da Imaculada Melo (Advogada) 

Orelacionamento entre o governo e os mídia em 2002 não foi dos mais 

conturbados relativamente aos anos anteriores, embora se tenham 

mantido os riscos da luta desgastante dos mídia ocuparem um espaço 

digno. Obviamente que nas actuais circunstâncias de Angola, cujo peso do partido 

da situação (MPLA) é devorador, essa luta é marcadamente levada pelos 

órgãos da comunicação social privados. E diga-se que se trata de uma luta com 

uma dupla dimensão. A primeira trava-se no plano das liberdades e a segunda 

no plano material. Sem dúvida que as dificuldades de ordem financeira e material 

dos mídia privados prejudicam o seu desempenho a todos os níveis. 

A fase de revisão da Lei Constitucional que decorre apenas a nível do Parlamento, 

não tem produzido factos que mereçam alguma atenção especial nesta matéria 

e o mesmo se diz em relação à iniciativa legislativa quer da Assembleia Nacional 

quer do Governo. Continua adiada a discussão mais profunda sobre as questões de 

conflitos de interesses perante direitos protegidos igualmente pela Lei Constitucional 

assim como o tratamento adequado da difamação e injúrias por parte da imprensa, 

consentânea com os pressupostos do Estado Democrático de Direito. 

O acesso à informação de interesse público foi pacífico à medida das 

conveniências do regime, mantendo-se como zona interdita as questões sensíveis 

da governação. Isto verifica-se devido a inexistência de mecanismos jurídicos 

que permitam o exercício da participação directa do cidadãos, consagrado no 

artigo 3º da Constituição angolana. 

Na relação justiça/mídia o grande destaque vai para a Rádio Ecclésia, que se 

destacou quer pelo tratamento diferenciado da matéria quer nas criticas que de 

que foi alvo devido a sua linha editorial e pretensão de difusão por todo o território 

nacional, marcando por isso uma melhoraria do seu serviço de servidor público. 

Em termos de conflitos entre ao mídia destaca-se o interno do semanário 

Angolense que se encontra em Tribunal, sendo também este o jornal que 

apresentou uma melhor qualidade. 

É de realçar, no entanto, a criação de mais dois jornais privados. Um bissemanal 

de âmbito local denominado a Capital e outro semanário intitulado a Palavra, 

cujas linhas editoriais enquadram-se nas demais já existentes. 

2002 

O ano de 2002 merece e continuará a merecer a nível da história de Angola e 

dos relatos importantes do mídia uma atenção especial. Trata-se do ano em que 

foi morto em combate o Dr. Jonas Malheiro Savimbi, presidente da União 


ANGOLA 


Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola, UNITA, a 22 de Fevereiro, 

seguido da assinatura do cessar fogo a 4 de Abril. 

A cobertura foi total e a forma digna como o governo e o partido no poder 

lidaram com a desgraça que se abateu sobre o adversário político foi notório. 

De uma maneira geral os mídia assumiram uma postura pluralista fruto do 

posicionamento oficial. Pela primeira vez na história do país, desde a II 

República, o poder e os órgãos de comunicação social públicos revelaram um 

amadurecimento na cultura democrática distante da habitual postura de 

arrogância e de triunfalismo. Exceptuou-se desta postura geral dos mídia o jornal 

de Angola, o único periódico público nacional e diário, que nesta ocasião se 

destacou pela negativa comentando as posições de certos partidos políticos e 

organizações da sociedade civil de forma venal. 

A assinatura do cessar fogo por parte do governo e da UNITA, a 4 de Abril, em 

hipótese, abriu uma oportunidade daquele partido de pendor bélico de se 

reorganizar e pacificar, possibilitando o ensaio no seu seio de uma 

heterogeneidade que lhe permita coabitar e contribuir positiva e 

democraticamente na consolidação dos pressupostos da reconstrução e 

reconciliação nacionais. 

Trata-se de um dado positivo e por esta razão foi pacifico o relacionamento 

entre o governo e os mídia neste período, assim como o posicionamento assumido 

entre os diversos órgãos da comunicação social. 

Podemos assim dizer que em 2002 verificou-se o abrir de uma nova etapa para 

os angolanos e consequentemente deu lugar a uma nova actualidade nos mídia, 

sobretudo os privados, que reforçaram o desafio de abolir as suas fronteiras do 

medo e do silêncio para se reafirmar como um poder forte capaz de contribuir 

para a mudança muitas vezes ameaçada pelos poderosos. Nesta senda importa 

referir a intensificação do debate público sobre questões candentes ligadas à má 

- governação, ao Estado Democrático e de Direito, o aumento da denúncia pública 

e uma maior circulação da informação, sendo justo que se destaque neste processo 

o dinamismo da Rádio Ecclésia. 

Como consequência disso registaram-se factos novos nos mídia como o caso da 

Televisão Pública angolana que é, a única no país, ter inserido no programa de 

debate público a participação directa do cidadão por via telefónica. O dado 

novo neste tipo de debates que a Televisão Pública de Angola inseriu na sua 

programação, de que é pioneira a Rádio Ecclésia, tem o condão de permitir a 

desmistificação do debate aberto de certos assuntos de interesse público e a 

participação directa do cidadão, o que para além de constituir um meio de reflexão 

colectiva eficaz, é um forte instrumento de manifestação do livre pensamento, 

sendo certo que também contribui para a construção de uma consciência colectiva 



crítica. É preciso ter em conta que a Televisão que durante muitos anos transmitiu 

apenas em Luanda estendeu o trabalho a outras províncias do país e com dois 

canais. 

Para além da paz, um outro domínio que também dominou o espaço dos mídias 

no ano de 2002 prende-se com a maior atenção que foi prestada ao sistema 

judicial, marcado por dois acontecimentos importantes e que de algum modo 

contaram com o concurso da força da comunicação social. 

O primeiro tem a ver com a exoneração do Procurador Geral da República, Dr. 

Domingos Culolo, tendo em sua substituição sido nomeado um juiz de carreira 

do extinto tribunal popular revolucionário, um tribunal de excepção que durante 

a 1ª República foi uma das bases de apoio da repressão ideológica então 

reinante. 

Os mídias intensificaram as criticas ao funcionamento do sistema judicial e 

com particular acuidade para a inoperância e postura da Procuradoria Geral da 

República, enquanto órgão de controlo e fiscalizador da legalidade, tendo em 

conta as muitas denúncias públicas de violação dos direitos humanos nas cadeias 

e províncias, excesso de prisão preventiva e abuso de autoridade. Tratou-se de 

uma pressão oriunda tanto dos meios de comunicação social como de 

organizações cívicas que conheceu outros momentos igualmente importantes e 

que estão na base da exoneração do então Governador da província de Malanje, 

( uma das 18 províncias em que Angola se encontra dividida), Flávio Fernandes. 

O primeiro acto público que o novo Procurador desenvolveu foi um fórum 

com a imprensa pública e privada com vista a criar-se uma parceria sadia no 

relacionamento entre a imprensa, o governo e a justiça. Durante este fórum não 

passou despercebido o facto do novo Procurador Geral da República ter 

manifestado a sua disponibilidade total na assunção de uma nova dinâmica 

susceptível de corrigir as muitas distorções que se verificam a nível do sistema 

judicial e com intercepção com o órgão que dirige, assim como pediu aos mídia 

colaboração, espirito positivo e responsável na sua nobre missão de informar. 

Com isso o novo Procurador Geral da República lançou a semente para um 

espaço que legitimou mais tarde a intervenção da sociedade civil na defesa do 

interesse público. 

2002 

Os alertas surgidos de Angola no ano de 2002 com implicações judiciais estão 

relacionados com o caso do jornalista Gilberto Neto. Este jornalista continua a 

aguardar pelo prosseguimento da acção que interpôs no Tribunal Supremo contra 

o Ministério do Interior. O segundo caso está relacionado com o 

correspondente da Rádio Ecclésia, Emissora Católica de Angola, na província 

da Huíla, Manuel Vieira, que foi chamado à Investigação Criminal devido a um 

artigo que relatava a morte de um elevado número de cidadãos nos campos dos 

desmobilizados da UNITA. 


ANGOLA 


A este propósito é mister referir que a situação dos correspondentes dos diversos 

órgãos de comunicação social nas províncias não melhorou na mesma proporção 

que os da capital do país. De uma maneira geral os correspondentes da Rádio 

Ecclésia nas províncias tiveram, numa proporção maior ou menor, choques com 

os governos locais. É preciso sublinhar que a abertura à liberdade de expressão 

no país está a ser feita com uma certa lentidão e, à medida que na capital do país 

se avança de forma mais ousada e com resultados também mais palpáveis, esta 

situação está muito aquém do desejável, sendo certo que nas províncias o 

processo tende a endurecer justamente para evitar que os governadores e outros 

responsáveis passem pelo crivo dos mídia e consequentemente se tornem 

vulneráveis, sujeitos a sanções e a responsabilização individual. 

Mas, o ponto mais critico da reacção contra os mídia partiu do poder judicial 

que reagiu com um comunicado público amplamente difundido na imprensa 

estatal e noutros meios, a um programa de análise política, social e jurídica que 

semanalmente a Rádio Ecclésia difundia, numa ocasião em que esteve em análise 

o poder judicial. 

Os magistrados sentiram-se atingidos e reagiram mal, sobretudo contra os 

analistas. 

A seguir a Rádio Ecclésia organizou um fórum radiofónico com a participação 

directa dos cidadãos sobre a situação do poder judicial em Angola e o resultado 

foi uma apreciação negativa e com denúncias que ultrapassaram as expectativas. 

Por outro lado, embora não tivesse havido um processo judicial, a verdade é 

que houve pela primeira vez em meados do ano transacto um pronunciamento 

da INACOM, Instituto Angolano de Comunicações, a pôr em causa o estatuto 

jurídico da Rádio Ecclésia, alegadamente por estar emitir em algumas dioceses 

do país sem o respectivo licenciamento e alvará. Trata-se de um entendimento 

diametralmente oposto dos instrumentos jurídicos existentes nos quais se dá 

como desconfiscada a Rádio Ecclésia e se entrega ao seu proprietário, a Igreja 

Católica, concretamente à Conferência Episcopal de Angola e São Tóme. 

Quanto a produção legislativa relacionada com os mídia, continua em preparação 

pela Comissão Técnica criada pelo presidente da República a futura Lei de 

Imprensa, mandada elaborar na sequência da rejeição de um ante projecto de 

Lei apresentado pelo Governo, há dois anos atrás, que não chegou a ser aprovado 

graças a pressão e dinamismo dos jornalistas dos órgãos de comunicação privados 

e da sociedade civil. 

Para além disso, foi aprovada a Lei do Segredo de Estado quase que sem 

contestação. Apesar da imprensa ter sido a única convocada para discutir esta 

lei ( enquanto ante-projecto) esteve ausente. Mas tarde, depois de aprovada a 



Lei, alguns partidos tentaram questionar a sua conformidade com a Lei 

Constitucional. Espera-se, ainda, que o Tribunal Supremo ( que decide sobre 

matéria desta natureza, em virtude da inexistência de um Tribunal Constitucional 

em Angola), se pronuncie sobre a inconstitucionalidade ou não da Lei do Segredo 

de Estado. 

Podemos concluir que houve uma ligeira melhoria na atitude dos meios de 

comunicação estatal, que se tornaram mais abertos ao debate pluralista, com 

excepção do jornal de Angola, completamente em contrapasso dos demais que 

se esforçam em entrar para a competição, criando motivos de interesse público 

e de referência para a população. O jornal de Angola sem dúvida que se revelou 

o mais manipulado meio de comunicação com uma política pró- regime e com 

isso tornou-se num instrumento eficaz da contra-informação e propaganda quer 

pelas suas omissões sobre questões essências e de interesse público, quer na 

forma como trabalhou a informação e a opinião pública. 

Quanto aos meios de comunicação privados verifica-se uma certa precipitação 

na divulgação da notícias algumas vezes revelando um fraco trabalho de 

investigação e de fontes dúbias, o que é delicado na medida em que pode ser 

aproveitado pelos agentes provocadores para criarem um ambiente propício de 

fraude na informação e com isso desencadear-se um processo de desacreditar a 

imprensa privada no seio opinião pública nacional e estrangeira 

Em meu entender o caminho a percorrer exige a busca constante de um ponto 

de equilibro e compromisso com a verdade ao serviço do interesse público 

colectivo legitimado pelos pressupostos democráticos. Os mídia, os jornalistas, 

não devem ser puras silhuetas do poder. Independentemente de se ser 

politicamente activo é necessário manter o distanciamento necessário, a qualquer 

poder estabelecido como a imagem de marca do homem que informa. Por outro 

lado, não tem que haver nesta caminhada necessariamente a fatal conflitualidade 

e a permanente oposição entre os mídia e o governo. 

O jornalista não deve se confrontar com este dilema e, como o trabalho da 

comunicação social não constitui na sua génese um acto individual puro, com o 

indivíduo e para o indivíduo, está sempre impregnado dos valores e referências 

que a sociedade lhe outorga, é preciso que na defesa deste trabalho se note o 

traço de livre- pensador, pois é isto que confere aos mídia a avaliação de quarto 

poder. 

Neste contexto, o ano de 2002, com acontecimentos mais ou menos importantes, 

ainda não foi o ano determinante. De resto a luta dos mídia em Angola não está 

dissociada de todo contexto sócio - político, cuja democracia nascente marca 

passos demasiado lentos e algumas vezes confusos. 

2002 



Botswana 

By Mmualefe Raditladi 

Botswana – home to the SADC Headquarters, member of the Commonwealth 

and the African Union (AU) - is often hailed as a shining 

example of democracy in Africa because of its stable political atmosphere 

and economy. This, glorious tribute, however, is given in comparison to 

other countries. However it has, as a plus, the fact that there has not been 

either an attempted coup d’etat or any uprising against the state, real or implied. 

This has earned her the title ‘peace-loving’, possibly because of an 

innate cultural obedience to authority, stemming from the archaic institution 

of chieftainship where royals are almost deified. 

Nonetheless, like other countries, Botswana is undergoing economic, political 

and social transformation and the old order is gradually yielding to the 

new one. The younger generation’s conception of basic freedoms and the need 

for change exert pressure on the old guard to be more conscious of the turn of 

events in a changing world. One of these freedoms is freedom of expression, 

as enshrined in the Constitution of Botswana, because the so-called underlings, 

even though they may not have a ‘cultural’ right to say ‘No’, at least 

they have a ‘constitutional’ right to do so. 

This ‘right’ has been respected by the authorities over the years but has not 

been honoured to its logical conclusion. 

Constitutionally there is press freedom in Botswana but the freedom is not 

absolute. Although there are no definite incidents of Government passing legislation 

that gags the press, public statements have been made by cabinet ministers 

including the Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration, 

Daniel Kwelagobe and State President Festus Mogae, himself, especially 

when abroad, against the private media, print or electronic. 

One instance that is worth noting, though it did not constitute a press gag per 

se, was the programme ‘Hot Potato’ on private radio station, GABZ-fm. On 

this programme the presenters Lettie Gaelesiwe and Solomon Monyame 

opened the doors for people to speak their minds loud and clear on a variety 

of topical issues affecting facets of life in Botswana. A lawsuit against one of 

the presenters was brewing, instituted by Botsalo Ntuane, Executive Secretary 

of the ruling Botswana Democratic Party. The two journalists did not 

have their contracts renewed as the station claimed it could no longer pay 

their salaries. There were allegations that the radio station had run into financial 

problems and the manager argued they were on a restructuring exercise 

to address the situation. 



The relationship between media organisations, over the year under review, 

was cordial but not without pinpricks and provocations. Ruling party Executive 

Secretary, Botsalo Ntuane, on returning from a Masters, programme in 

the United Kingdom, stirred a ‘storm in a tea cup’ by criticising Mmegi-The 

Reporter for owning a printing press, claiming this was a monopoly that was 

not appropriate in Botswana’s fledgling press industry. He was given the opportunity 

to talk to his thesis at an open meeting in the Museum Little Theatre 

in Gaborone. He defended his allegations, and the storm was cleared up by 

Mmegi Managing Editor Titus Mbuya’s explanation of some pertinent points. 

With the paper’s board members, now and then, throwing light on some crucial 

issues, the meeting ended with both parties understanding one another’s 

point of view. 

The spirit of oneness among the media fraternity was not ordinarily observed 

in media houses throughout the year. This is because of the size of our population 

and the dearth of news - therefore there was nothing much to warrant 

frequent meetings. But, in contrast, May 3 every year is a day of excitement 

for everybody who has anything to do with media. The marchers demonstrating 

on the day provided an unforgettable picture in 2002. 

The Media Control Bill was like a siren sounded by government to remind the 

private press of government’s muscle. In the past year, the news had it that the 

Minister of External Affairs, Lieutenant General Mompati Merafhe, wanted 

the Bill passed ‘now’ while the Minister of Communications Science and 

Technology, Boyce Sebetela, wanted it ‘later’ and the year ended without its 

enactment into law. The bottom line is that government is anxious to enact 

legislation that would put the press under tighter control but dithers because it 

has its ‘democracy’ to nurse. 

Our observation here is that even though the press is assumed to be the Fourth 

Realm of the Estate in true democracies, after the Executive, Legislature and 

the Judiciary, it is not seen as such in Botswana. The press exposed certain 

atrocities but the state machinery seemed complacent about these reports, 

whereas, in a true democracy, government would have seen fit to respond to 

such issues and come out openly about what it was doing to address them. 

2002 

Asked if they were aware of any opposition by themselves or their colleagues 

to any infringement of the constitutional rights of the media, the Botswana 

Media Consultative Council responded, “Yes, the media fraternity - more 

especially MISA, BMCC and editors in the private press were outspoken on 

such issues.” The Editor of Mokgosi, the only local vernacular newspaper in 

Botswana, responded thus, “Yes. MISA (Botswana) and other stakeholders 

continued to put pressure on government to scrap the Media Bill and end 

interference at the Department of Information and Broadcasting and at Botswana 

Television.” 


BOTSWANA 


On whether there was ample support of attempts by the media to access information 

from government, Mokgosi goes on: “Generally there is improvement 

in accessing information from government. There is still a major problem of 

departments and ministries not adhering to timeframes and addressing pertinent 

questions adequately.” 

There is a tendency to let sleeping dogs lie and bygones be bygones, which 

seriously erodes rectitude. As a parting shot let us take two excerpts from 

Mmegi Monitor March 10 2003 in an article headed ‘Zim Saves Bots At C/ 

wealth Meet’: (i) “Together with Pakistan and Western Samoa, Botswana was 

in line for the guillotine at the CPU meeting for trying to muzzle the press…” 

(ii) “Botswana had been blacklisted at an earlier Editors Forum, which felt 

that there was need to pressurise the government to stop its intentions to promulgate 

the much-criticised Mass Media bill.” 



Botswana 

Por Mmualefe Raditladi 

OBotswana – o país anfitrião da Sede da SADC, membro da Com 

monwealth e da União Africana (UA) – muitas vezes aclamado como 

um brilhante exemplo de democracia em África devido à sua atmosfera 

política e economia estáveis. Contudo, esta gloriosa homenagem é feita em 

comparação com outros países. Uma vantagem é o facto de nunca se ter 

registado nem efectivamente nem na forma de tentativas um golpe de estado, 

nem qualquer rebelião contra o estado. Isto fez com que o Bostswana fosse 

considerado um país “amante da paz”, possivelmente por causa da obediência 

natural e cultural pela autoridade demonstrada pelo seu povo, originária da 

arcaica instituição da chefia onde os monarcas são quase deificados. 

Apesar disso, como os outros países, o Botswana está a atravessar um período 

de transformação económica, política e social e a velha ordem está 

gradualmente a ceder e a permitir a implementação da nova. A concepção por 

parte das novas gerações de liberdades básicas bem como a necessidade de 

mudança exercem pressão sobre a velha guarda para que seja mais consciente 

dos acontecimentos, num mundo em alteração. Uma destas liberdades é a 

liberdade de expressão, como definida pela Constituição do Botswana, por 

causa dos chamados subordinados, que apesar de não terem o direito “cultural” 

de dizer que “Não”, pelo menos têm o direito “constitucional” de o 

fazer. 

Este direito tem sido respeitado pelas autoridades com o decorrer dos anos 

mas não tem sido cumprido até à sua conclusão lógica. 

De acordo com a constituição existe a liberdade de imprensa no Botswana 

mas a liberdade não é absoluta. Apesar de não haver incidentes específicos do 

governo aprovar legislação que amordace a imprensa, afirmações públicas 

foram já feitas contra a comunicação social privada, a imprensa escrita ou 

electrónica, por membros do gabinete incluindo o Ministro de Assuntos 

Presidenciais e Administração Pública, Daniel Kwelagobe e até pelo próprio 

Presidente da República, Festus Mogae, especialmente quando estão no 

estrangeiro. 

2002 

Uma situação digna de ser mencionada, apesar de não se poder considerar só 

por si, como uma tentativa de amordaçar a informação, é a do programa “Batata 

Quente” na estação de rádio privada GABZ-fm, onde os apresentadores Lettie 

Gaelesiwe e Solomon Monyame “abriram as portas” do estúdio para que os 

ouvintes pudessem expressar-se livremente sobre uma variedade de temas 

importantes que afectam as diferentes facetas da vida no Botswana. Como 


BOTSWANA 


resultado, uma acção nos tribunais contra um dos apresentadores começou a ser 

preparada, instituído por Botsalo Ntuane, Secretário Executivo do Partido 

Democrático do Botswana no poder. Os dois apresentadores não conseguiram 

que os seus contractos fossem renovados uma vez que a estação, como viria a 

afirmar, não podia continuar a pagar os seus salários. Houve alegações de que a 

estação de rádio teve problemas financeiros e o gestor anunciou que a estação 

estava a envolvida num exercício de restruturação para superar as dificuldades. 

O relacionamento entre as organizações da comunicação social durante o período 

em revista, foi cordial apesar de se terem registado certas contrariedades e 

provocações. O Secretário Executivo do partido no poder, Botsalo Ntuane, ao 

regressar de um programa de licenciatura nos Reino Unido, criou “uma 

tempestade num copo de água” quando criticou “Mmegi-The Reporter” por até 

ser proprietário de uma impressora, que segundo ele, representava um monopólio 

que não era digno da indústria da imprensa no Botswana que era ainda muito 

inexperiente. Deram-lhe a oportunidade de defender a sua tese numa reunião 

pública no “Museum Little Theatre” em Gaborone. Defendeu as suas alegações, 

e a tempestade acabou por ser resolvida pela explicação dada pelo Chefe da 

Redacção de “Mmegi” Titus Mbuya em relação a certos pontos pertinentes. 

Depois de membros do Conselho de Direcção do jornal fazerem mais 

esclarecimentos atempados sobre alguns assuntos cruciais, a reunião terminou 

com ambas as partes a compreenderem os pontos de vista de cada uma. 

Durante todo o ano, o espírito de unidade na fraternidade da comunicação social 

não foi observado de forma normal nas empresas de comunicação social. 

Isto deve-se ao tamanho da nossa população e à escassez de notícias – e portanto, 

nada aconteceu que obrigasse à realização de reuniões frequentes. Mas, em 

contraste, o dia 3 de Maio, todos os anos é um dia excitante para todas as 

pessoas que estão envolvidas, por mais insignificante que seja, com a 

comunicação social. Os manifestantes que marcharam neste dia, proporcionaram 

uma imagem inesquecível em 2002. 

O projecto de Lei de Controlo da Comunicação Social foi como uma sirene 

ligada pelo governo, para fazer lembrar aos meios de comunicação privada os 

músculos que o governo possui. No último ano correram notícias de que o 

Ministro dos Negócios Externos, Tenente General Mompati Merafhe, queria 

que o projecto de lei aprovado “agora” enquanto que o Ministro das 

Comunicações, Ciência e Tecnologia, Boyce Sebetela, pretendia que isso 

acontecesse “mais tarde” e o ano terminou sem que o projecto fosse aprovado. 

A realidade é que o governo está ansioso por aprovar legislação que coloque a 

imprensa sob um controlo mais apertado mas estremece porque tem que 

desenvolver a sua “democracia”. 

A nossa observação em relação a isto é que, apesar de nas democracias 

verdadeiras a imprensa ser considerada como a Quarta Esfera do Estado, depois 



do Executivo, da Legislatura e do poder Judiciário, no Botswana não é 

considerada como tal. A imprensa expôs certas atrocidades mas a maquinaria 

do estado parece transigente em relação a estas informações, quando afinal, 

numa verdadeira democracia, o governo ver-se-ia na obrigação de responder 

a tais assuntos e ser totalmente aberto sobre que acções está a tomar para os 

resolver. 

Quando perguntaram se sabia se havia alguma oposição a qualquer violação 

aos direitos constitucionais da comunicação social da sua parte ou da dos seus 

colegas, o Conselho Consultivo para a Comunicação Social do Botswana 

disse: “Sim, a fraternidade da comunicação social - sobretudo a MISA, o 

BMCC e os chefes de redacção da imprensa privada são muito sinceros em 

relação a tais assuntos.” O Chefe de Redacção do “Mokgosi”, o único jornal 

em língua vernácula no Botswana, respondeu que: “Sim. O MISA (Botswana) 

e outras partes interessadas continuam a colocar pressão sobre o governo para 

pôr de parte o projecto de Lei da Comunicação Social e pôr termo à 

interferência no Departamento de Informação e Radiodifusão e na Televisão 

do Botswana.” 

Sobre se havia um apoio intenso das tentativas da comunicação social de 

conseguir informação do governo, o ”Mokgosi” acrescenta: “Duma forma 

geral há uma melhoria no acesso à informação do governo. Há ainda um grande 

problema devido aos departamentos e ministérios não terem aderido aos 

respectivos períodos e não terem tratado adequadamente das questões 

pertinentes.” 

Há uma tendência de deixar que os cães continuem a dormir e esquecer o que 

se passou, o que afecta gravemente a rectidão. Como ponto de partida devemos 

retirar dois excertos do artigo chamado “O Zimbabwe salva o Botswana na 

Reunião da Commonwealth” publicado no “Mmegi Monitor” de 10 de Março 

de 2002: (1) “Juntamente com o Paquistão e com a Somoa Ocidental, o Botswana 

estava na fila para a guilhotina na reunião da CPU tentar amordaçar a 

imprensa…” (2) “O Botswana foi colocado na lista negra no Fórum dos Chefes 

de Redacção que se realizou antes, que decidiu que havia necessidade de 

colocar pressão sobre o governo do Botswana para pôr termo à sua intenção 

de promulgar o tão criticado Projecto de Lei da Comunicação Social.” 

2002 


BOTSWANA 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-06 

PERSON(S): Media in Botswana 

VIOLATION(S): Threatened 

Minister of Presidential Affairs and 

Public Administration Daniel 

Kwelagobe recently lambasted reporters 

from state-owned Botswana 

Television (BTV) for airing what he 

termed “insults” uttered by Neo 

Mothlabane, leader of the opposition 

Botswana People’s Party, at the 

“kgotla” (traditional court) in the 

town of Molepolole. 

The minister explained that the reporters 

should have edited out the offending 

parts of the tape. He urged 

them to sanitise what they report to 

the public and added that the words 

“denigrated the person of President 

Festus Mogae.” 

Kwelagobe’s sentiments over BTV 

reporters was condemned by some 

sectors of civil society, including 

MISA-Botswana, which believes the 

minister was interfering with the media. 

MISA-Botswana National Director 

Modise Maphanyane told a news 

team from Gabz FM radio that his 

organisation does not condone the 

interference from the minister and 

urged Kwelagobe to allow the media 

to work independently. 

However, Kwelagobe launched another 

scathing attack on the private 

media in Parliament, for what he 

called “sensationalism and lack of indepth 

reporting on the ongoing tribal 

debate.” The minister was responding 

to comments by members of parliament 

about the Revised Draft Government 

White Paper on the Presidential 

Commission of Inquiry into the 

Constitution of Botswana. 

The minister expressed his belief 

that the scope of news coverage for 

state media and the private press is 

not the same. He said state media act 

as “a tool for nation building” while 

private media outlets are “driven by 

business motives.” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-06 

PERSON(S): Radio Botswana, 

Modise Maphanyane 

VIOLATION(S): Censored 

On Monday April 22, 2002, thousands 

of Radio Botswana listeners were 

shocked to learn that the much-advertised 

“Live-Line” programme would 

not be aired. The popular talk show, 

which features discussions on topical 

issues, was called off only 30 minutes 

before its scheduled time. The 

station ran an apology instead, to the 

effect that it could not air the programme 

due to circumstances beyond 

its control. 

The weekly “Mmegi Monitor” reported 

that that day’s scheduled programme 

was to feature a discussion 

about the scope of the reporting expected 

from public service media outlets. 

When questioned about the cancellation 

of his programme, the producer 

refused to comment and instead 

directed the “Mmegi Monitor” to the 

office of the Director of Information 

and Broadcasting. 

MISA-Botswana National Director 

Modise Maphanyane was scheduled 

as a panelist on the cancelled programme. 

His views on press freedom, 

especially concerning the independence 

of the editorial process in light 

of recent calls by members of parliament 

to sanitise the public broadcast- 



2002 

er’s content, are well known. 

Director of Information and Broadcasting 

Andrew Sesinyi declined to 

comment on the issue. 

MISA-Botswana reports that over 

the last few months, it has witnessed 

a hunt of persons within the media 

who seemingly do not tolerate governmental 

interference in a specific 

media outlet’s editorial policies. 

The general manager of Botswana 

Television (BTV) recently resigned, 

apparently on personal grounds. He 

is the second general manager to have 

resigned in recent months. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-24 

PERSON(S): Stryker Motlaloso 

VIOLATION(S): Beaten, threatened 

On Saturday May 19, 2002, Stryker 

Motlaloso, news editor from the 

weekly newspaper “Mmegi”, was assaulted 

by opposition Botswana National 

Front (BNF) politician David 

Mhiemang at a political rally held at 

the Botswana Building Society Mall. 

In an interview with MISA-Botswana, 

Motlaloso said he had gone 

to cover the rally when Mhiemang 

approached him and accused him of 

reporting negatively about BNF party 

activities. Mhiemang then punched 

Motlaloso’s right eye and insulted 

him in the presence of his fellow journalists 

and other people who were attending 

the rally. The opposition politician 

later threatened to stab the journalist 

with a knife, which he took out 

of his pocket. 

Motlaloso did not retaliate, but decided 

to walk away from the scene. 

On Monday, May 20, the journalist 

40 So This Is Democracy? 

pressed charges against the politician 

at the Broadhurst Police Station. Police 

Public Relations Officer Chris 

Mbulawa confirmed the charge in a 

telephone interview with MISA-Botswana, 

and said the police were looking 

for Mhiemang, who lives in the 

town of Molepolole, about 50 kilometres 

from the capital, Gaborone. 

The BNF is the country’s main opposition 

party. The party is currently 

reeling from factional fighting. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-07-04 

PERSON(S): Solomon Monyame 

VIOLATION(S): Legislation 

Popular Gabz FM radio presenter and 

MISA-Botswana Chairperson Solomon 

Monyame and Gabz FM management 

have been jointly sued for 

the sum of Botswana Pula 1.7 million 

(approx. US$279,330) in damages 

over announcements broadcast on the 

station’s breakfast show on 6 June 

2002. 

On June 6, Monyame announced 

between 06h45 and 06h55 that he 

would interview Radio Botswana 2 

(RB2) announcer Gloria Kgosi on allegations 

that she was harassed by 

Botsalo Ntuane, executive secretary 

of the ruling Botswana Democratic 

Party (BDP), on RB2’s premises, thus 

delaying the airing of the national 

news by seven minutes. 

The pre-arranged telephone interview 

did not take place as Kgosi was 

not available to comment on the matter. 

Nonetheless, “Gabz FM” callers 

continued to comment on the matter 

the next day. 

Reacting to the announcement, 

Ntuane instructed his attorney, Isaac

BOTSWANA 


Seleko, to have the radio broadcasts 

stopped immediately, and threatened 

to otherwise cite the station for defamation. 

The following day, Seleko 

wrote a letter to “Gabz FM” management 

in which he complained about 

the broadcast, which he alluded to 

“have lowered [his] client in the estimation 

of right thinking men and 

women” and thus jeopardising his 

client’s profession. 

“The sum of Pula 750,000 [approx. 

US$122,936] being amande profitable, 

which we hereby demand within 

30 days from the date hereof, failing 

which we shall institute defamation 

proceedings without any further reference 

to you, the ensuing costs 

whereof shall be for your account,” 

the lawyer’s letter stated in part. 

Another letter followed, demanding 

Pula 1.7 million in damages, 

which, the attorney claimed, was 

caused by comments from callers to 

“Gabz FM” the day after the broadcast 

aired on the radio station. 

“Gabz FM” is a private commercial 

radio station which covers a radius 

of 70 kilometres. It broadcasts 

from the Botswana capital, 

Gaborone, and is co-owned by Tari 

Investments (Pty) Ltd and Hakona 

Investments, a South African-based 

company. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-07-09 

PERSON(S): Monkagedi 

Gaotlhobogwe 

VIOLATION(S): Beaten 

On July 7, 2002, “Botswana Gazette” 

sports reporter Monkagedi 

Gaotlhobogwe was assaulted at the 

newspaper’s offices by prominent 

Botswana national soccer team player 

Seabo Gabanakgosi. 

The incident followed the publication 

in the newspaper of an article 

penned by the reporter. The article 

entitled “Is Seabo born again?” appeared 

in the March 13 edition of the 

“Botswana Gazette”. It raised questions 

about Gabanakgosi’s physical 

and tactical fitness ahead of a big 

match between Botswana’s national 

team, the Zebras, and South Africa’s 

national team, Bafana Bafana. 

According to Gaotlhobogwe, he 

was in the newsroom when he was 

informed that he had a visitor waiting 

in the reception area. 

Gaotlhobogwe told MISA-Botswana 

that he immediately left his desk to 

attend to the visitor, whereupon he 

met Gabanakgosi by the main entrance 

of the “Boswana Gazette” offices. 

Recognising the visitor, Gaotlhobogwe 

said he then greeted Gabanakgosi, 

whose first words in reply were, “Ke 

eng o kwala masepa ka nna?” (“Why 

do you write shit about me?”). The reporter 

said that before he had a chance 

to respond, Gabanakgosi continued, 

“You first wrote shit about me when I 

was coming back from the [United 

States] for the national team and again 

after the match.” The reporter said 

Gabanakgosi then started hitting him 

in the face with his fists, in full view 

of several “Botswana Gazette” staff 

members. 

The marketing and promotions 

manager of the “Botswana Gazette”, 

Moganetsi Mabe, intervened and 

managed to restrain Gabanakgosi. 

Mabe said that after the incident, he 

called Gabanakgosi into his office to 

talk to him. “When I told 



2002 

Gabanakgosi he had just committed 

a criminal offence and that his behaviour 

was unjustifiable, he told me he 

acted that way to ‘prove to 

Gaotlhobogwe that because he had 

been playing dirty by writing shit 

about me I could equally become 

dirty’.” 

Commenting on the incident, “Botswana 

Gazette” Editor Abraham 

Motsokono said, “I cannot imagine a 

clearer demonstration of violation of 

a journalist’s right [to] freedom of 

expression. What Seabo did is totally 

unacceptable, especially by a person 

[with] his public profile. We are certainly 

not taking the matter lightly.” 

The incident has been reported to 

the authorities and MISA-Botswana 

is awaiting a response from the police 

in this criminal matter. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-17 

PERSON(S): Alice Banda 


Alice Banda, a reporter from the privately-owned 

weekly newspaper 

“The Voice”, has received numerous 

threatening telephone calls following 

the publication of an investigative 

article in her newspaper’s October 4, 

2002 edition. The controversial article 

reported on illegal abortions carried 

out by medical doctors in 

Francistown, Botswana’s second largest 

commercial centre, situated some 

433 km from the capital, Gaborone. 

Banda went undercover for three 

months, claiming to be five months 

pregnant. She discovered that five out 

of seven registered doctors in 

Francistown were willing to terminate 

her pregnancy, for a fee ranging from 


Pula 800 (approx. US$133) to Pula 3 

200 (approx. US$533). Abortion is 

illegal in Botswana. 

Banda told MISA-Botswana that 

she has received about 15 intimidating 

calls on her cellphone from 

anonymous callers, both men and 

women, in response to her October 4 

report. “You’ve messed up your life 

and you’ll see! This time you’ll really 

become pregnant. Police won’t 

watch you at night. Watch your step! 

The wages of sin is death! If you think 

you’re standing firm, watch out lest 

you fall,” are among the warnings she 

has received. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-11-06 

PERSON(S): Media in Botswana 

VIOLATION(S): Victory 

The Media Self-Regulation Task 

Force, co-sponsored by the Botswana 

chapter of the Media Institute of 

Southern Africa (MISA-Botswana) 

and the Botswana Media Consultative 

Council (BMCC) on Monday, October 

28, 2002, registered the Notarial 

Deed of Trust of the Press Council of 

Botswana in the Deeds Office of Botswana 

at Gaborone. The Deed was 

registered by the legal firm of Bayford 

and Associates on behalf of Media 

Self-Regulation Task Force. 

The registration of the Press Council 

is a culmination of over two years 

of stakeholder consultations involving 

local media organisations and 

houses, as well as interested individuals 

and a wide cross section of government 

and civil society representatives. 

The registration of the Council 

further fulfils the commitment made 

by representatives of the private me-

BOTSWANA 


dia before the High Level Consultative 

Council to establish an effective 

self-regulatory instrument. 

The Deed of Trust for the Press 

Council of Botswana provides for the 

establishment and support of an independent 

Complaints Committee to 

receive petitions from the public 

about the performance of members of 

the press and to “adjudicate on such 

matters and apply appropriate remedies, 

including sanctions, where necessary, 

in order to promote an atmosphere 

of mutual trust and respect between 

the press and the public.” 

The Deed further provides for an 

Appeals Committee that will be empowered 

to hear appeals from the 

Complaints Committee. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-12-09 

PERSON(S): Moreri Moroka, 

Moreri Sejakgomo 


On December 5, 2002, University of 

Botswana (UB) students, armed with 

bricks and stones, attacked two journalists 

from the bi-weekly newspaper 

“Mokgosi”. 

At around 05h00 on December 5, 

Moreri Moroka, a “Mokgosi” freelance 

reporter and well-known poet, 

who is also a third-year student at the 

UB, and photographer Moreri 

Sejakgomo were covering student 

demonstrations on campus, when a 

crowd of about 100 students surrounded, 

verbally abused and manhandled 

them. The Student Representative 

Committee (SRC) and UB 

security personnel later identified and 

freed Moroka. He was then forced to 

dodge flying bricks from the mob as 

he was walking out of the campus 

gates. Sejakgomo had managed to flee 

the campus earlier, but not before being 

manhandled by the students. 

“Mokgosi” management said it 

viewed the incident with contempt, 

finding it both disturbing and unfortunate. 

“The fact that [the journalists] 

were made the target of misdirected 

anger of rampaging students serves as 

a warning and a threat against those 

who put their lives on the line to inform 

the nation of problems facing the 

country,” said “Mokgosi” editor 

Pamela Dube. “The fact that the students 

felt strongly about the university 

administration’s disregard to their 

demands does not give them a licence 

to target innocent messengers.” 

Moroka says he fears for his life 

since his attackers are fellow students, 

with some of whom he shares lecture 

rooms. 



Lesotho 

Sophia M. Tlali 

Sophia Tlali is the Director/Principal Shareholder of KKMedia & Editorial 

Services PTY LTD. KK Media is a member of MILES since 1997/98. She is 

also a Co-Editor of the Lesotho Monitor. 

Generally, in the recent past Lesotho has moved away from assassina 

tion, injury to persons and harassment of journalists by government. 

It could be expected, then, that there is relative freedom within which 

the various independent media houses operate. But there are several hurdles 

that restrict the Lesotho media from meeting their challenges in a democratic 

dispensation. If we accept the premise that there can be no democracy without 

the media, then of necessity the national mindset should be that of true 

acceptance of the media as a forum for exchange of ideas. The legal system 

should provide room for freedom of expression. 

Maqutu J. said, “Lesotho has not yet matched our law with freedom of expression 

as stated in the constitution. We have largely based our law on 

Roman-Dutch law of defamation as received from the Cape of Good Hope 

and modified by English Law of slander and libel.” Pakathitha Mosisili v 

Candy Ramainoane CIV/T/51/97. 

This legal environment means that reprisal for publication alleged to be 

wrongful is still so severe as to discourage publication. On December 22 

1999, Candy Ramainoane, the editor of Moafrika news magazine, was found 

liable for defamation in a ruling by Lesotho’s High Court. A member of 

parliament Moeketsi Sello was awarded US$15,000 as compensation for 

damages to his dignity and fame and a further US$2,500 in punitive damages 

and payment of all legal costs incurred in the pursuit of the case. 

In July 2002, the Lesotho Evangelical Church (LEC), paid M15,000 

(R15,000) in an out of court settlement to the former Lesotho Mounted Police 

Service Officer Sello Lesita, now Lesotho Football Association administrative 

secretary. The news report alleged that Lesita was linked to the 

disappearance of a M10,000 cheque intended to buy a Mercedes-Benz. Lesita 

sought to be compensated for damages as a result of the publication. He had 

asked for fifty thousand maloti (M50,000) as compensation. 

It is not far-fetched to conclude that the paper, Leselinyana la Basotho would 

have been afraid to appear in court over this matter in light of the previous 

cases that for instance Moafrika had not won, which have set a precedent 

that a newspaper would find it difficult to win a defamation suit. 

2002 

In another incident an English Weekly Publication, Public Eye, faces a defa- 


LESOTHO 


mation suit from National University of Lesotho (NUL) Pro-vice Chancellor 

Dr. Nqosa Mahao. He is demanding R800,000 as damages, 18.5 percent of 

the claimed damages, and payment of the cost of the suit. Mahao, in court 

papers dated April 25 2002, says that the Public Eye Publication had greatly 

and irretrievably impaired and damaged his dignity and fame in the eyes of 

right thinking members of society in both Lesotho and South Africa as well as 

in other countries in Africa and overseas. 

It would seem that the stage has been set for the media to fight a war of 

survival in the courts of law. 

One of the challenges that face the media in Lesotho is the provision of regular 

audience audits. In some countries a newspaper or magazine is required 

by law to conduct regular audience audits. The purpose the audits serve is to 

determine a paper’s boundaries in terms of readership in order to determine 

the extent of population coverage of the paper in relation to the actual population 

of the country. I believe the audits may also help the court to determine 

the extent of the damage suffered by a plaintiff and enable the judge to award 

fair compensation for damages to dignity and fame. It may be argued too that 

an English paper in reality is read by a few thousand people and therefore 

anybody who suffers injury in the form of loss of dignity and fame from such 

a publication, has not suffered much, except in his or her own imagination. 

But there is no frame of reference to support this interpretation in the absence 

of a media-specific law. 

It is the media’s contention that the aim of reprisal should not be to discourage 

publication but to encourage professional and ethical conduct by the media. 

It is important to realise that if the courts are forcing media houses to deplete 

all their resources in payments, this is tantamount to gagging the media and 

defeating the freedom of speech entrenched in the Constitution and in Article 

19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes 

freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and 

impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. 

In May 2002 EPIC Printers was charged as fourth defendant in the defamation 

case of Mahao for printing a Public Eye issue that contained the report 

headlined ‘Sex Scandal hits NUL’. As a result of EPIC Printers being “dragged 

into court primarily because of libel not caused or precipitated by us as printers 

but by you as publishers” the chairman of the company, Mampone 

Nthongoa, threatened to suspend printing newspapers unless they signed a 

disclaimer indicating that: “Any comments, views, opinions, editorial, news 

analysis in this issue are those of the publishers and not of EPC Printers.” 



Newspapers were also required to settle their debts and pay in full costs for 

forthcoming printing work. 

EPIC Printers required in addition that a newspaper should sign a separate 

legal document stating that: “EPIC Printers is not liable and should not be 

held accountable from any legal action arising from the publications of any 

sort by the publishers.” 

Although the publications did not shut down, the environment within which 

they now have to publish is littered with legal and financial hurdles. The media 

can no longer be considered free if they are under threat of having to shut 

down or are fearful of court settlements from the ever-growing trend of defamation 

suits. Until the environment is such that everyone feels free to make 

the media the playing field for exchange of ideas, true democracy may not be 

realised. 

Since the 1993 democratic elections, the independent media began to emerge. 

The airwaves began to open up for independent broadcasting stations that 

were not run as government departments. Because this was a first, after many 

years of government control and the media war between the Southern African 

states and then Apartheid South Africa, the media expected that people would 

use their new found freedom to the fullest. A new and healthy culture of expressing 

opinions not necessarily those of the establishment was ushered in. 

The media fraternity, however, began to sense that some of the excesses in 

reporting were not in the public interest and, as a result, began to seek ways of 

curbing wild reports to pave the way for a more professional approach. 

In 2002, an important milestone was reached in the establishment of democracy. 

Since we had blamed the ‘first past the post’ Westminster model of elections 

for a lack of equal opportunity to participate in the affairs of our country 

and since we have been able to come up with the Mixed Member Proportional 

Model of election, we have high expectations that this forum of open debate 

between people of differing opinions will exist not only in parliament but in 

all public institutions that are meant to protect and advocate for the public 

interest. 

The media still requires an Ombudsman who will protect individual rights, 

public interest and freedom of expression. Such an Ombudsman may mediate 

between media houses and aggrieved individuals to set conflict in its proper 

perspective. 

2002 

Despite the growing trend for legal suits, a new English tabloid was registered 

in February 2002. Its first issue, with a circulation of 1,000 copies, hit 

the streets on May 23. It hopes to improve the fragile democracy of Lesotho 


LESOTHO 


among other objectives. Another paper, however, The Southern Star, ceased 

publication in June 2002. 

The year 2002 saw an increase in telecommunications tariffs, which will impact 

on development of independent broadcasters. Only one radio station, 

apart from the government-owned Radio Lesotho, can be received beyond 50 

kilometres of the capital city Maseru. It is hoped that a time will come when 

government will make available resources for independent broadcasters to 

reach all corners of Lesotho. 

A Media Ombudsman may be a proper lobbyist for the media in parliament. 

The Media Institute of Lesotho is working towards making some of the media 

fraternity’s hopes a reality. 



Lesoto 

Por: Sophia Tlali 

Sophia Tlali é a Directora/principal accionista dos serviços da KK media & 

editorial PTY LTD. KK media é membro da delegação do MISA-Malawi 

[MILES] desde 1997/98. Ela é ainda a co-editora do Lesoto monitor. 

Introdução: 

De uma forma geral, o Lesoto moveu-se do recente passado marcado 

por assassinatos, ferimento de pessoas e perseguições de jornalistas 

por parte do governo. Pode, porém, esperar-se que exista uma 

liberdade relativa na qual operam as publicações/jornais. 

Mesmo assim ainda existem vários obstáculos que coarctam a imprensa do 

Lesoto dos seus desafios numa esfera democrática. Se acatarmos o supracitado 

de que pode não pode haver democracia sem a imprensa, então seria necessário 

que a mente tenha uma verdadeira aceitação da imprensa, como um fórum para 

o intercâmbio de ideias. O sistema legal deve providenciar espaço para a liberdade 

de expressão. 

Maqutu J. Disse, “O Lesoto ainda não equiparou as nossas leis com a liberdade 

de expressão como estipulado na constituição. Baseamos amplamente a nossa 

lei na lei de difamação Românica e Holandesa como recebida do Cabo de Boa 

Esperança [Cape of Good Hope] e modificada pela lei Inglesa de difamação e 

calúnia.” Pakathita Mosisili v Candy Ramainoane CIV/T/51/97. 

Este ambiente legal significa que a represália por uma publicação alegadamente 

errónea continua ainda sendo tão severa de modo a desencorajar a publicação. 

No dia 22 de Dezembro de 1999, Ramaoinoane, o editor do Moafrika news 

Magazine, foi declarado pelo tribunal supremo do Lesoto culpado por difamação. 

Sello [o difamado] foi atribuído USD 15,000 como compensação pelos danos 

infringidos contra a sua dignidade e USD 2,000 pelos danos punitivos e cobertura 

dos custos legais contraídos durante o processo judicial. 

Em Julho de 2002, a Igreja Evangélica do Lesoto (LEC), efectuou o 

pagamento de M15,0000 [convertido também 15,000 Rands, “moeda Sul 

Africana”] num caso resolvido fora do tribunal, ao antigo agente da Policia 

Sello Lesita, actualmente secretário administrativo da Associação de Futebol 

do Lesoto. O artigo publicado alegava que Lesita estava envolvido no 

desaparecimento de um cheque de M10,000 que se destinava para a compra 

de um Mercedes-Bens. 

2002 

Lesita, procurou compensação pelos danos por causa da publicação. Lesita tivera 

antes solicitado pelos danos, uma compensação no valor de M50,000. 


LESOTHO 


Não constitui qualquer superstição, por isso, concluir que a publicação 

Leselinyana la Basotho recearia aparecer diante do tribunal num caso similar 

que por exemplo Moafrika ganhou, e criou um precedente no qual o jornal acha 

difícil vencer num caso de difamação. 

Num outro incidente o sumario publicado em inglês “Public Eye” enfrenta um 

caso de difamação levantado pelo pro vice-chanceler da Universidade Nacional 

do Lesoto (NUL), Dr. Nqosa Mahao. Mahao exige a recompensa de R800,000 

pelos danos estimados em 18.5% e o pagamento pelos custos legais. Nos papeis 

de Mahao datados 25 de Abril de 2002, diz que o “Public Eye” danificou e 

arruinou grandemente e irrecuperavelmente a sua dignidade e reputação perante 

os membros da sociedade intelectual no Lesoto, Africa do Sul assim como noutros 

países ultramarinos. 

Este aparenta ter sido apropriadamente estabelecido para que a imprensa combata 

uma guerra de sobrevivência nos tribunais de justiça. 

Um dos desafios que a imprensa enfrenta no Lesoto, é a provisão de uma 

audiência regular de ouvintes/leitores. Nalguns países os jornal e/ou revista são 

exigidos pela lei para manter e servir uma audiência regular. A audiência tem o 

propósito de determinar as barreiras do jornal em termos de leitura a fim de 

determinar a extensão de cobertura do jornal no seio da população em relação a 

actual população do país. 

Acredito que a audiência pode também assistir os tribunais a determinar o nível 

de danos e a capacitar o tribunal a estabelecer a compensação para a recuperação 

causados contra a reputação e a dignidade [das vitimas]. Pode-se discutir que 

um jornal publicado na língua inglesa tenha na realidade um número de leitores 

estimado em poucos milhares de pessoas, por isso seja quem for, que for alvo 

de difamação de tal publicação, não terá sofrido tanto assim, excepto na sua 

própria imaginação. Infelizmente, não existe qualquer padrão que apoie esta 

interpretação na ausência de uma lei de imprensa específica. 

É esta a discórdia da imprensa de que o objectivo de represálias não deve 

desencorajar as publicações, mas sim encorajar uma conduta ética e profissional 

para a imprensa. 

É importante notar que se os tribunais estiverem a forçar as publicações/jornais 

a esgotar os seus recursos em pagamentos, seria equivalente a amordaçar a 

imprensa e arruinar a liberdade de expressão, ambos instituídos na Constituição 

e no artigo 19 da Declaração Universal para os direitos humanos: 

Todos os cidadãos têm o direito a liberdade de opinião e de expressão; este 

direito inclui o direito de manter opiniões sem interferência e a procurar, 

receber e transmitir informações e ideias através de qualquer imprensa 



independentemente das fronteiras. 

Em Maio de 2002, EPIC Printers foi acusado como o terceiro defensor num 

caso de difamação de Mahao por ter imprimido a edição do “Public Eye” que 

continha a manchete “Escândalo sexual abala NUL”. Como resultado o EPIC 

Printers foi “levado ao tribunal por causa da calúnia não causada ou precipitada 

por nós como impressores, mas sim por vocês como publicadores” o presidente 

da empresa Mampone Nthongoa, ameaçou suspender a impressão do jornal a 

não ser que assinassem uma renúncia indicando que: “Qualquer comentário, 

convicções, opiniões, editoriais, analise de noticiais desta edição pertencem ao 

jornal e não a impressora EPC Printers.” Os jornais eram também exigidos a 

regularizarem as sua contas em atraso, e a efectuarem o pagamento total dos 

serviços que haviam de se seguir. 

EPC Printers em adição exigiu que o jornal tinha que assinar um documento 

legal em anexo declarando: “EPC Printers não assume qualquer responsabilidade, 

e nem deve ser responsabilizada por qualquer acção legal que advier na 

publicação de qualquer publicação/jornal”. 

Embora as publicações não tenham encerrado as suas portas, a esfera na qual 

devem fazer as suas publicações ficou poluído com a imposição de obstáculos 

judiciais e financeiros. De forma alguma se pode considerar a imprensa como 

sendo livre, quando permanecem sobre a ameaça de encerrar as suas portas ou 

qualquer intimação judicial que exige elevadas somas de valores monetários 

por difamação. Sem que o ambiente seja aquele no qual todos se sintam livres a 

tornar a imprensa o campo comum para o intercâmbio de ideias, jamais será 

realizada a verdadeira democracia. 

A imprensa independente começou a emergir com a realização das eleições 

democráticas em 1993. As ondas sonoras começaram a expandir-se para as 

estações de difusão independentes que não eram operados como departamentos 

do estado. Como este processo estava na fase embrionária, depois de muitos 

anos de controlo pelo estado, e a guerra da imprensa que existia entre os estados 

da Africa Austral e o então regime do Apartheid na Africa do Sul, a imprensa 

esperava que o povo usasse ao máximo a sua liberdade recentemente conquistada. 

Entretanto, a fraternidade da imprensa, começou a pressentir que alguns dos 

excessos na reportagem não eram de interesse público e como resultado, começou 

a procurar formas que dirimissem as reportagens desenfreadas pavimentando 

desta forma a via para uma aproximação cada vez mais profissional. 

2002 

Com o estabelecimento da democracia em 2002, atingiu-se um momento de 

carácter muito importante. Desde que acusávamos que ‘ganha quem merece’ o 

modelo de eleições de Westminster, por falta de oportunidades equiparadas na 

participação dos assuntos do nosso país e desde que fomos capazes de 


LESOTHO 


implementar o sistema de eleições proporcional de membros mistos, temos 

grandes expectativas pela existência de povos de diferente opiniões num fórum 

de debate aberto, não só no parlamento mas também nas instituições públicas 

que devem proteger e advogar os interesses públicos. 

A imprensa ainda necessita do Ombudsman que protegerá os direitos individuais 

e públicos e a liberdade de expressão. Tal Ombudsman pode mediar em casos 

de conflitos entre indivíduos magoados e publicações/jornais de uma forma 

apropriada. 

Não obstante a tendência crescente dos casos legais, foi registado um novo 

tablóide inglês em Fevereiro de 2002. A sua primeira edição, com a circulação 

de 1,000 cópias, circulou nas ruas de Maseru no dia 23 de Maio. Este Tablóide 

pretende realçar a frágil democracia no Lesoto dentre outros objectivos. 

Um outro jornal porém, “The Southern Star” cessou a sua tiragem em Junho de 

2002. 

O ano de 2002 registou um aumento nas tarifas das telecomunicações, que 

causarão um impacto no desenvolvimento dos radiodifusores independentes. 

Só uma estação de rádio para além da rádio estatal “Rádio Lesoto” pode ser 

recebido para alem de cinquenta kilometros fora da capital Maseru. Espera-se 

pelo tempo em que o governo tornará disponível os recursos necessários para 

que os radiodifusores independentes possam cobrir todas as partes do Lesoto. 

Um Ombudsman para imprensa seria o órgão propício para se representar no 

parlamento. O Instituto dos Média do Lesoto está engajado em projectos que 

visam tornar realidade a fraternidade da média no Lesoto. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2003-03-04 

PERSON(S): Candi Ramainoane 



On 17 February 2003, High Court 

Judge Semapo Peete ruled in favour 

of the weekly Sesotho tabloid newspaper 

“MoAfrika”. “MoAfrika” editor 

Candi Ratabane Ramainoane was 

summoned to court to explain why 

he should not be ordered to remove 

an announcement that appears in the 

top right-hand corner of the front 

page of every issue of his newspaper. 

Judge Peete rejected the argument 

that the announcement dealt with a 

matter that was before the courts and 

therefore could not be discussed publicly. 

He added that although the 

High Court was the bulwark of the 

essential freedoms of Lesotho’s 

newly acquired democracy, the press 

did not have “carte blanche” to abuse 

the rule against commenting on cases 

before the courts without good cause 

and a true sense of responsibility. 

Peete ruled that the “MoAfrika” announcement 

was protected by Section 

14 of the Constitution, which 

upholds freedom of expression and 

press freedom. 

In late 2002, Judge Peete ordered 

Ramainoane to explain why he 

should not be ordered to remove an 

announcement in “MoAfrika” that 

says, “Ntsu Mokhehle and P.B. 

Mosisili,, who assassinated S.M. 

Baholo [x] weeks ago, on April 14, 

1994? The killers of Selometsi 

Baholo have still not been arrested 

nor prosecuted”. Twenty-five members 

of the Lesotho Defence Force 

(LDF) were arrested in 1999 in connection 

with Baholo’s murder. 

Ramainoane was summoned because 

Judge Peete was concerned that the 

“MoAfrika” announcement could 

therefore be considered to be commenting 

on a case that was before the 

courts. 

Judge Peete’s 17 February ruling 

stressed that suspects are presumed 

innocent until proven guilty. Peete 

also ruled that the announcement, 

which had been published long before 

any arrests of suspects were 

made, refers directly to the assassins 

and not necessarily to the suspects 

who are currently standing trial. 

MISA’s Lesotho chapter (Miles) 

hailed the ruling as a major victory 

for press freedom in Lesotho. Miles 

commended “MoAfrika” on its boldness 

and further praised Judge Peete 

for issuing an informed judgement, 

in conformity with the concepts of 

press freedom and freedom of expression. 

Mokhehle was the predecessor of 

current Prime Minister P.B. Mosisili. 

Baholo, who was deputy prime minister 

when he died, was assassinated 

by rebellious elements within the 

LDF. 

“MoAfrika” was established in 

1990. Soon after Baholo’s death, the 

newspaper began featuring the announcement 

in question, which lobbied 

for justice in the former deputy 

prime minister’s murder.


Malawi 

By Lance Ngulube 

Media analyst and former National Governing Council chairperson of the 

Malawi chapter of MISA 

The Malawian media, especially the public broadcaster, is under siege. 

And as the country moves towards the next presidential and parlia 

mentary general elections due in 2004, it can be predicted that worse 

things that would impinge on the freedom of expression and of the media in 

Malawi are yet to unfold. 

The freedom of the media to function without undue interference from the 

state apparatus took a downward plunge in 2002. Evidence of this abounds in 

the numerous attacks levelled against media houses from the political podium 

by eminent persons, including State President, Bakili Muluzi, coupled with 

calculated propaganda campaigns executed through the state media to advance 

the cause of the ruling United Democratic Front. In this vein, the Malawi 

Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) and Television Malawi (TVM) - both 

financed by taxpayers - have degenerated to the extent of broadcasting blatant 

lies to over 10 million helpless people who have no way of verifying the 

information they broadcast. 

For instance, just before the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003, the state 

abused the powerful electronic media by announcing on MBC that leader of 

the breakaway National Democratic Alliance (NDA) pressure group, Brown 

Mpinganjira, had been arrested by Zambian police at a border post. This turned 

out to be a total lie and the broadcast house knew this before airing the news 

item. It transpired later that the whole purpose of broadcasting false news was 

to create confusion in the pressure group that was holding a national convention 

a few days later. Mpinganjira was Muluzi’s right hand man before he fell 

out of grace with the ruling cadres and today, like other opposition figures, is 

denied access to the state- and ruling party-controlled electronic media. 

Then on January 13 2003 police arrested Maganizo Mazeze, a broadcaster at 

a training radio station run by the Malawi Institute of Journalism (MIJ) in 

Blantyre, and accused him of broadcasting false news likely to instil fear in 

the public and cause alarm. The police claimed in a statement issued to MBC 

and TVM that, prior to locking him up, they had picked up Mazeze and taken 

him to Thyolo district to go and identify his source for a story alleging that 

vampires were on the loose in the district sucking blood from villagers while 

they slept. Mazeze said later that the police’s claim was totally false. MBC 

and TVM rushed into broadcasting this information without attempting to 

check Mazeze’s side of the saga. And the manner in which the news was 



broadcast gave one the impression that the electronic media newsreaders were 

rejoicing and celebrating over the arrest of a fellow media worker. Clearly 

both MBC and TVM had been used by the system, to achieve its goal of 

disinformation. 

Although government and ruling party authorities would want the world to believe 

that media freedom exists in Malawi, the environment in which media 

workers are operating today has moved several steps backwards. It is Not Yet 

Uhuru for media freedom in Malawi. 

Those at the helm of government who claim to be democrats and open to criticism 

should be ashamed of driving the country back into the dark ages of public 

media monopoly and manipulation to suit their whims. 

The trend to suppress freedom of expression and send the country back into an 

era of fear, has taken two major forms: condemnation of courageous media 

workers and media houses from political platforms, and physical attacks on 

media practitioners and houses that are seen to be exposing the wrongs committed 

by public figures. 

In September and October, a series of incidents occurred which are indicative 

of the threat that hangs over freedom of expression in Malawi. Witness the 

following: 

2002 

• On September 12, President Muluzi at a rally in Lilongwe launched a tirade 

against The Chronicle newspaper accusing it of inciting people to rise against 

Muslims because of an article it published alleging that Muslims in Malawi, 

funded by Osama Bin Laden, were plotting to torch churches. If Muluzi has a 

right to utter inflammatory statements without proving them to hundreds of his 

blind followers at party functions, one still questions whether MBC and TVM 

can be justified to ‘go to town’ on such allegations without seeking the views of 

the newspaper under attack. 

• Barely a few weeks later, a UDF functionary, Alick Makina, was killed in 

Mulanje. This death resulted from a clash between overzealous supporters of 

the ruling party and people alleged to be members of NDA. Muluzi accused 

NDA officials of the murder. MBC and TVM were at it again! They, almost 

with joy and in festive mood, trumpeted the story so loudly that listeners and 

viewers would be forgiven for believing that the stations had proof about the 

identity of the killers. The two public broadcasters threw ethics to the wind in 

an effort to receive recognition from their political masters, without giving officials 

of NDA a chance to reply to the accusations. 

• On September 15 the State President suppressed freedom of expression by 

attacking chairperson of the Public Affairs Committee, Rev. Constantine 

Kaswaya, at a church function of the Seventh Day Adventists at Malamulo. He 

criticised clergymen who, according to him, were intruding into politics. Muluzi 


MALAWI 


threatened to crack down on any form of dissent and demonstrations against his 

third term bid. Ten days later, Muluzi bashed the Daily Times for editorialising 

a statement issued by the PAC, which contradicted his claim to having founded 

this committee. ‘What is the Daily Times’ motive?’ he asked in a manner indicating 

that he and the UDF would not tolerate anyone or any media house that 

tried to accommodate views that are contrary to his party’s stand. 

• On September 23 MBC started recording and airing what were supposed to be 

the views of the public on the third term issue. Nine out of every 10 interviews 

broadcast in this programme favoured the idea of Muluzi being given a chance 

to run for office for a third term. But I am told in confidence by researchers at 

MBC that these recordings were manipulated by the bosses who only chose to 

air views favourable to the ruling clique. 

• The truth on the ground was that out of every five people interviewed, four 

were totally opposed to Muluzi’s bid for a third term. Is freedom of the media 

only that which favours one side - the ruling side - as MBC and TVM kept on 

demonstrating through their biased one-sided broadcasts on important political 

affairs? 

• On September 29 the National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA), 

the Malawi chapter of MISA, learned that The Nation newspaper owned by 

first vice president of the UDF and cabinet minister, Aleke Banda, had slapped 

a ban on coverage of third term issues through a management directive. Members 

of staff complied for fear of losing jobs. This anti-media freedom development 

meant readers of the newspaper lost a reliable source of information on 

this topical issue. Later on October 23 a journalist working for The Nation, 

Gedion Munthali, was roughed up at parliament for trying to verify accusations 

that a parliamentarian from Blantyre, Fidson Chisesele, was betraying the wishes 

of his constituents by daring to support the third term for Muluzi. The Nation 

ignored this incident in its coverage of events at parliament. 

The list can go on and on. In my view these incidents and many others recorded 

by MISA and reproduced in this book are a glaring testimony of the dire state of 

the media in Malawi. Unfortunately, efforts to sensitise media practitioners in 

the country as well as the general public about the need to protect the rights of 

media workers to access information freely and disseminate it without let or 

hindrance, do not seem to be having any real mark on society. The best NAMISA 

has done so far is issue statements condemning ‘so’ and ‘so’ for violating media 

freedom. These statements, while necessary to alert the general public about 

gross violations of media freedom in the country, do not mean anything to politicians 

and decision-makers in government who are impervious to such revelations. 

Worse still, the statements do not even get printed or broadcast by media 

houses on whose behalf NAMISA is fighting. How pathetic! 

It is time that NAMISA started flexing its muscles and being seen to be biting 

where a situation warrants action and not mere verbiage. For instance, when 

Munthali of The Nation was allegedly harassed by a UDF parliamentarian, 



NAMISA should have mobilised media workers covering parliament to stage a 

peaceful demonstration against this barbaric behaviour. It should also have petitioned 

speaker of parliament, Sam Mpasu, to take disciplinary action against 

the offender. NAMISA should also have explored the possibility of sending a 

clear message to all parliamentarians by dragging Chisesele to court. Of course 

with the blessing of the reporter who was harassed. Unless steps are taken to 

demonstrate that media watchdogs in Malawi will not just watch as media freedom 

is eroded, no one will take them seriously. 

True, the Bill of Rights in the Malawian Constitution provides a strong legal 

framework in support of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and free 

dissemination of information. However, the real attainment of these freedoms 

will remain a pipe dream until media workers, media houses and media-friendly 

legislators take up the mantle to break the wall of resistance to the free practice 

of journalism. 

Incidents captured in this book tell the story of a media in dire need of liberation 

from the strong grip of state authorities desperate to control and manipulate the 

flow of information to their advantage. 

Apart from the above, economic sabotage of media houses and straight forward 

incidents of abductions, have been employed by those in authority to gag the 

free media. The siege of Daily Times premises in January 2002 and invasion of 

The Chronicle by UDF cadres and state security agents in February point to a 

state of lawlessness affecting operations of the media that Malawians can expect 

to unfold with greater velocity in the run up to the 2004 elections. 

When opposition figures demonstrate against bad governance, the police move 

in quickly to disperse them using teargas and physically manhandling those that 

refuse to be intimidated. News of such incidents and subsequent arrests is never 

included in the bulletins of MBC and TVM. The picture created is that Malawians 

are living in a haven of peace. But when the UDF organises counter demonstrations, 

the entire state media apparatus is let loose to cover the event and prove 

that the party has huge support! No mention of nasty incidents that might have 

occurred during such demonstrations are included in the broadcasts. 

It is common knowledge that media workers from MBC, TVM and the Information 

Department, who during the 1999 general elections served their masters 

in a loyal and befitting manner, have been rewarded with lucrative appointments 

to diplomatic missions abroad. Those that chose to remain in the country 

have been given high positions in state corporations and government. Today 

they drive air-conditioned 4x4 vehicles. It would seem that the battle for similar 

honours among electronic media workers is back and many are jostling for 

recognition. 

2002 

The truth about the state of the media in Malawi, in my opinion, is that media 

freedom in this country is ‘Waiting For Godot.’ 



Malawi 

Por Lance Ngulube 

Acomunicação social no Malawi, especialmente a emissora pública, 

está sitiada. E à medida que o país avança para as próximas eleições 

presidenciais e parlamentares que se devem realizar em 2004, pode 

prever-se que estão para acontecer coisas muito piores e que irão violar a 

liberdade de expressão e da comunicação social no Malawi. 

A liberdade de imprensa tem que existir sem interferência indevida por parte 

da maquinaria do estado e a situação piorou substancialmente durante 2002. 

A prova do que dizemos está à vista nos numerosos ataques dirigidos por 

pessoas eminentes a partir dos estrados políticos, incluindo o Presidente da 

República, Bakili Muluzi, contra os meios de comunicação social aliado a 

uma campanha de propaganda bem preparada e executada pelos meios de 

comunicação estatais com o objectivo de promover a causa do partido no 

poder, a Frente Democrática Unida. Com tal objectivo, a Corporação de 

Radiodifusão do Malawi, (MBC) e a Televisão do Malawi (TVM) – ambas 

financiadas com o dinheiro dos contribuintes - degeneraram-se a tal ponto 

que chegam a transmitir mentiras óbvias para os mais de 10 milhões de 

ouvintes e telespectadores, que não têm qualquer forma de poderem confirmar 

as informações que recebem das emissoras públicas. 

Por exemplo, mesmo antes do fim de 2002 e do início de 2003, o estado 

abusou da poderosa informação electrónica, anunciando na MBC que Brown 

Mpinganjira, o líder do grupo de pressão dissidente, a Aliança Nacional 

Democrática, (NDA), , tinha sido detido no posto de fronteira da Zâmbia 

pela Polícia daquele país. Tal notícia provou-se ser uma absoluta mentira e a 

emissora sabia disso antes de transmitir a notícia. Disse-se depois que o 

objectivo de transmitir notícias falsas era de criar confusão no seio do grupo 

de pressão por causa da sua convenção nacional que se iria realizar poucos 

dias depois. Mpinganjira era um aliado muito próximo do Presidente Muluzi 

antes de ter caído em desgraça entre os líderes políticos, sendo-lhe hoje, 

como às outras figuras da oposição política, recusado acesso à comunicação 

social electrónica, totalmente controlada pelo estado - e pelo partido no poder. 

Depois, em 13 de Janeiro de 2003, a polícia deteve Maganizo Mazeze, um 

locutor na estação de treino de rádio em Blantyre que é dirigida pelo Instituto 

de Jornalismo do Malawi (MIJ), e acusou-o de transmitir notícias falsas 

capazes de instigar o medo e causar alarme entre o público. A polícia afirmava 

num comunicado, que foi entregue à MBC e à TVM, que antes de o ter 

preso, tinham levado Mazeze ao distrito de Thyolo para identificar a fonte 

da sua notícia que alegava que vampiros estavam à solta no distrito e sugavam 



sangue dos aldeãos à noite, quando estes estava a dormir. Mazeze disse 

mais tarde que as afirmações da polícia eram totalmente falsas. A MBC e a 

TVM apressadamente transmitiram a informação sem sequer tentarem 

contactar com Mazeze para ouvirem o seu lado da história. Por outro lado, a 

forma como a notícia tinha sido transmitida, dava a impressão que os 

noticiaristas da comunicação social electrónica, regozijavam-se e celebravam 

a detenção de um colega da comunicação social. Claramente, tanto a MBC 

como a TVM tinham sido mais uma vez utilizadas pelo sistema com o 

objectivo de fazer avançar a campanha de desinformação do público. 

Apesar do governo e das autoridades do partido no poder desejarem 

ardentemente que o mundo acredite que existe a liberdade de informação no 

Malawi, o ambiente no qual os trabalhadores da comunicação social estão a 

operar hoje, deu vários passos à retaguarda. Ainda não é “Uhuru” para a 

liberdade da comunicação social no Malawi. 

Os que estão encarregados pelo leme do governo e que se afirmam ser 

democratas e como tal, abertos à crítica, deveriam ter vergonha de estarem a 

dirigir o país de volta à idade negra do monopólio da comunicação social 

pública e da manipulação da informação com o objectivo de defenderem os 

seus caprichos. 

A tendência de suprimir a liberdade de expressão e de fazer o país retroceder 

para uma era de medo, tem vindo a ser desenvolvida de duas formas: por um 

lado, a condenação dos profissionais mais corajosos e das empresas da 

comunicação social a partir de plataformas políticas e por outro, ataques 

físicos contra os profissionais da informação e suas empresas que são 

consideradas como estando a expor actos impróprios cometidos pelas figuras 

públicas. 

Em Setembro e Outubro, registaram-se uma série de incidentes que são 

indicativos da ameaça que paira sobre a liberdade de expressão no Malawi. 

Verificou-se o seguinte: 

2002 

• No dia 12 de Setembro, o Presidente Muluzi, num comício em Lilongwe, 

fez um extenso discurso de crítica contra o jornal “The Chronicle” acusandoo 

de incitar o povo a sublevar-se contra os Muçulmanos devido a um artigo 

que publicou, alegando que os Muçulmanos no Malawi, financiados por 

Osama Bin Laden, estavam a conspirar incendiar igrejas. Se Muluzi tem o 

direito de fazer afirmações inflamatórias nos comícios do partido, sem 

comprovar a sua veracidade a centenas dos membros do seu séquito que 

estão completamente cegos, deve pôr-se em dúvida o direito que a MBC e a 

TVM têm de fazerem um verdadeiro festival com estas alegações sem sequer 

se preocuparem em ouvir o ponto de vista do jornal que está a ser atacado. 

• Apenas algumas semanas depois, um funcionário da UDF, Alick Makina, 


MALAWI 


foi morto em Mulanje. A sua morte resultou dum recontro entre apoiantes 

excessivamente zelosos do partido no poder e pessoas que alegadamente 

eram membros do NDA. Muluzi acusou os funcionários do NDA de terem 

cometido o assassinato. A MBC e a TVM, mais uma vez se excederam! 

Quase com alegria e num estado de espírito festivo, transmitiram a notícia 

de tal forma que os ouvintes e telespectadores seriam desculpados por 

pensarem que as estações tinham provas da identidade dos assassinos. Numa 

tentativa de receberem o reconhecimento dos seus patrões políticos, as duas 

emissoras públicas ignoraram, pura e simplesmente, a ética profissional não 

dando qualquer oportunidade aos funcionários do NDA para que pudessem 

responder às acusações. 

• No dia 15 de Setembro, o Presidente da República suprimiu a liberdade de 

expressão atacando o Presidente da Comissão de Assuntos Públicos, o 

Reverendo Constantine Kaswaya, numa cerimónia da Igreja Adventista do 

Sétimo Dia em Malamulo. O Presidente criticou clérigos que, de acordo 

com ele, se estavam a envolver em política. Muluzi ameaçou oprimir qualquer 

tipo de dissidências e manifestações contra a sua candidatura ao terceiro 

mandato. Dez dias depois, Muluzi atacou o jornal “Daily Times” por comentar 

uma afirmação publicada pelo PAC, que contradizia a afirmação do Presidente 

de ter sido ele a fundar esta comissão. ‘Qual é o motivo do Daily Times?’ 

perguntou o Presidente numa forma que indicava que a UDF não iria tolerar 

ninguém nem nenhum meio de comunicação social que tentasse apresentar 

pontos de vista contrários à posição do seu partido. 

• No dia 23 de Setembro, a MBC começou a gravar e a transmitir o que se 

pensou serem as opiniões do público em relação à questão do terceiro mandato 

do Presidente. Nove das dez entrevistas transmitidas neste programa eram a 

favor da ideia de Muluzi ter a oportunidade de se candidatar à Presidência 

para um terceiro mandato. Contudo, tenho informações dignas de crédito de 

pesquisadores da MBC segundo as quais, que estas gravações foram 

manipuladas pelos patrões que escolheram só apresentar opiniões do grupo 

favorável ao partido no poder. 

• A verdade no terreno foi que, de todas as cinco pessoas entrevistadas, quatro 

opunham-se totalmente à candidatura de Muluzi para o terceiro mandato. 

Será que a liberdade de imprensa só é aquela que favorece um dos lados – o 

lado que está no poder –como a MBC e a TVM tentaram demonstrar através 

das suas emissões influenciadas e dúbias em assuntos políticos importantes? 

• No dia 29 de Setembro, o Instituto Nacional da Comunicação Social da 

África Austral (NAMISA), o capítulo do MISA no Malawi, teve 

conhecimento que o jornal “The Nation” propriedade do primeiro Vicepresidente 

da UDF e Ministro, Aleke Banda, proibiu simplesmente a 

cobertura dos assuntos relacionados com a terceira candidatura através de 

uma ordem de gestão interna. Os membros do seu pessoal, cumpriram as 

ordens com medo de perderem os seus empregos. Este acontecimento contra 

a liberdade de imprensa significa que os seus leitores perderam uma fonte 

de informação credível relacionada com este assunto tão importante. Mais 



tarde, em 23 de Outubro um jornalista que trabalhava para o “The Nation”, 

Gedion Munthali, foi mal tratado no parlamento por tentar verificar acusações 

segundo as quais um deputado de Blantyre, Fidson Chisesele, estava a ignorar 

a vontade dos seus eleitores ao apoiar um terceiro mandato para Muluzi. 

“The Nation” ignorou este incidente na sua cobertura dos trabalhos do 

parlamento. 

Esta lista pode prolongar-se indefinidamente. No meu ponto de vista, estes 

incidentes e muitos outros registados pelo MISA e reproduzidos neste 

documento, são um testemunho gritante da terrível situação em que se 

encontra a comunicação social no Malawi. Infelizmente, os esforços para 

sensibilizar os profissionais da informação no país bem como o público em 

geral, sobre a necessidade de proteger os direitos de acesso à informação por 

parte dos profissionais de informação e destes poderem disseminar 

livremente, sem obstruções nem obstáculos essa mesma informação não 

parece estarem a ter qualquer efeito na sociedade. O melhor que o NAMISA 

fez até agora foi publicar comunicados condenando este e aquele por violarem 

a liberdade de imprensa. Estes comunicados, apesar de serem necessários 

para alertar o público em geral sobre as graves violações da liberdade de 

imprensa no país, nada querem dizer para os políticos e responsáveis pelas 

decisões do governo que são absolutamente insensíveis a tais revelações. 

Pior ainda, os comunicados nem sequer são impressos ou transmitidos pelos 

meios de comunicação social em nome de quem a NAMISA continua a lutar. 

Trata-se de uma situação patética! 

Pensamos ser chegada a altura para o NAMISA começar a mostrar os seus 

músculos e começar a ser respeitado demonstrando que pode morder quando 

a situação assim o exigir, em vez de se limitar à mera força das palavras. Por 

exemplo, quando Munthali do jornal “The Nation” foi rudemente tratado 

por um parlamentar da UDF, o NAMISA deveria ter mobilizado os 

profissionais da informação a cobrirem os trabalhos do parlamento para 

fazerem uma manifestação pacífica contra tal comportamento bárbaro. 

Deveria ter também feito uma petição ao Presidente do Parlamento, Sam 

Mpasu, para que tomasse medidas disciplinares contra o transgressor. O 

NAMISA deveria ter também explorado a possibilidade de enviar uma 

mensagem muito esclarecedora a todos os parlamentares, levando Chisesele 

a responder em tribunal. Com certeza, isso só seria feito com o consentimento 

do jornalista que foi assaltado. Ninguém nos levará a sério, a não ser que 

sejam tomadas medidas para demonstrar que os cães de guarda da 

comunicação social no Malawi não se limitarão a testemunhar a situação à 

medida que a liberdade da informação vai sendo destruída. 

2002 

É verdade que as bases de Direitos na Constituição do Malawi proporcionam 

um enquadramento legal forte de apoio à liberdade da imprensa, liberdade 

de expressão e livre disseminação de informação. Contudo, a efectivação de 


MALAWI 


tais direitos continuará a não passar de um sonho se os profissionais da 

informação, as editoras e os legisladores que respeitam a comunicação social 

não fizerem nada para quebrar a parede da resistência à livre prática do 

jornalismo. 

Os incidentes registados neste livro, contarão a história duma comunicação 

social em absoluta necessidade de libertação das garras fortes das autoridades 

do estado, que estão desesperadas por controlar e manipular a circulação da 

informação para benefício próprio. 

Mas, para além do acima descrito, a sabotagem económica das empresas de 

comunicação social e incidentes claros de rapto, foram já empregues pelos 

que detêm o poder para amordaçarem a comunicação social livre. O cerco 

das instalações do “Daily Times” em Janeiro de 2002 e a invasão do “The 

Chronicle” por quadros da UDF e por agentes da segurança do estado em 

Fevereiro indica claramente uma situação de anarquia que afecta as operações 

da comunicação social e que os Malawianos esperam poder vir a desenvolverse 

a um ritmo cada vez maior à medida que se aproximem as eleições 2004. 

Quando figuras da oposição se manifestam contra a má governação, a polícia 

actua rapidamente com gás lacrimogéneo para dispersar os manifestantes, 

abusando fisicamente dos que se recusam a ser intimidados. Notícias de tais 

incidentes e prisões subsequentes não são incluídas nos noticiários da MBC 

e da TVM. O quadro criado é que os Malawianos vivem num paraíso de paz. 

Mas quando a UDF organiza contra manifestações, a totalidade da maquinaria 

de informação do estado abre as torneiras para inundar os ouvintes e 

telespectadores com os acontecimentos e provar que o partido tem um apoio 

enorme! Nas transmissões, nenhuma menção foi feita de incidentes obscenos 

que podem ter tido lugar durante as manifestações. 

É do conhecimento geral que os profissionais de informação da MBC, da 

TVM e do Departamento de Informação, que serviram os seus patrões de 

forma leal e conveniente durante as eleições gerais de 1999, foram premiados 

com nomeações muito lucrativas para missões diplomáticas no estrangeiro. 

Os que escolheram ficar no país, receberam elevados cargos nas corporações 

estatais e no governo. Hoje, guiam veículos de tracção às 4 rodas com ar 

condicionado. Parece então que a batalha para honras idênticas entre os 

profissionais da informação electrónica está de volta e que muitos estão a 

posicionar-se para poderem receber tal reconhecimento. 

A verdade sobre a situação da comunicação social no Malawi, em minha 

opinião, é que a liberdade da comunicação social neste país está “À Espera 

de Godot”. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-25 

PERSON(S): Mallick Mnela, Quinton 

Jamieson, Robert Jamieson 

VIOLATION(S): Threatened, 

beaten 

On 22 February 2002, members of the 

ruling United Democratic Front’s 

(UDF) Young Democrats and National 

Intelligence Bureau (NIB, an official 

intelligence body) agents broke into 

the privately-owned “The Chronicle” 

newspaper’s offices in Lilongwe, 

where they abducted reporter Mallick 

Mnela and fled with him in an unmarked 

Land Rover vehicle. 

Publisher and editor-in-chief Robert 

Jamieson told MISA that he and his 

son Quinton gave chase in his car. “We 

managed to contact the paramilitary 

police, the Police Mobile Force, who 

helped us to force the Land Rover into 

a police station,” he said. 

However, police officers looked on 

as the UDF party thugs assaulted 

Jamieson, his son (who also works at 

the newspaper) and Mnela. The youths 

accused the journalists of “writing ill” 

of President Muluzi and the UDF. 

Another journalist, Joseph Ganthu, 

was also beaten. “Apparently, the story 

we wrote about ‘warring factions’ 

within the UDF central region committee 

may be the cause of this,” he 

said. 

The story unearthed the deepening 

divisions between loyalists of the 

UDF’s central region governor, Uladi 

Mussa, and sacked former deputy minister 

Iqbal Omar. Young Democrats 

loyal to the two factions clashed a fortnight 

ago. 

“This is uncalled for,” said 

Jamieson. “Is the UDF a sacred cow? 


We all write on problems in the MCP 

[Malawi Congress Party, an opposition 

party].” 

Police spokesman George Chikowi 

said he had no information on the incident. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-14 

INSTITUTION(S): Blantyre 

Printing and Publishing (BP&P) – 

publishers of the Daily Times, 

Malawi News 


On 13 March 2002, the Malawi Revenue 

Authority (MRA) stormed the 

premises of the Blantyre Printing and 

Publishing (BP&P) group of companies, 

a parent body of Blantyre Newspapers 

Limited (BNL), publishers of 

the “Daily Times” and “Malawi 

News”, and impounded a number of 

vehicles belonging to various divisions 

of the conglomerate. 

The move occurred shortly after 

editorials critical of the government 

appeared in the “Daily Times”, a flagship 

of the BNL, over the past few 

days. The editorials have questioned 

the rationale behind President Bakili 

Muluzi’s decision to release funds to 

rehabilitate Television Malawi and 

build houses for poor people on the 

spur of the moment. This is all occurring 

as the country’s citizens are suffering 

from excruciating hunger created 

by an acute maize shortage. 

According to BNL’s managing editor, 

Jika Nkolokosa, the MRA went 

to BP&P without notice, despite the 

agreement between the tax collectors 

and the company allowing the BP&P 

to settle its tax arrears in installments. 

This action, said Nkolokosa, raised

MALAWI 


fears that the government was behind 

the move as a way of gagging the paper. 

However, Nkolokosa would neither 

say how much his company owed the 

MRA nor how many vehicles belonging 

to the newspaper division have 

been impounded. Nkolokosa said the 

newspaper would continue to appear 

on the street as his division’s vehicles, 

printing press and computers have not 

been impounded. 

MRA publicist Kitty Chinseu dismissed 

the allegation that the move 

was politically motivated. She said 

MRA was not obliged to issue a warning 

to BP&P on the action they have 

taken. The company might have defaulted 

on its repayments, Chinseu 

said, although she could not say with 

certainty whether this was the reason 

for the MRA action. 

However, Nkolokosa indicated to 

MISA that on previous occasions when 

BP&P had defaulted on payment, the 

MRA had declared its intent to act 

against the company. The company has 

since been making payments faithfully 

by certified cheque. “There is no good 

reason why this should have happened,” 

Nkolokosa told MISA, confirming 

his suspicion that this latest 

action against BP&P was politically 

motivated. 

During the past few days, the “Daily 

Times” has written three editorials 

questioning the rationale behind some 

directives issued by President Muluzi 

to the Finance Ministry to release funds 

for activities that were not included in 

the present budget. 

For instance, the newspaper questioned 

where the finance minister was 

going to get the money to fund a village 

housing scheme for the poor initiated 

by the president. The World 

Bank refused to include the scheme in 

its current funding programme. The 

scheme, according to the newspaper, 

lacks structures to ensure fairness in 

the houses’ ownership - especially considering 

the demise of present owners 

who are perceived to be poor and needing 

government support. 

Second, the newspaper questioned 

why the president ordered the Finance 

Ministry to allocate K10m (approx. 

US$137,580) towards repairing Television 

Malawi. The station was gutted 

by fire on Saturday 9 March. 

The newspaper wondered why the 

president acted fast in releasing funds 

for this rehabilitation when it is not a 

priority in the face of the hunger situation. 

The newspaper said the president 

had failed to attach similar urgency 

to the hunger problem, only declaring 

the country a disaster area after 

a number of lives had been lost. It 

suggested that the money could have 

better been used to buy maize for the 

poor masses. 

Third, the newspaper questioned 

why the director of public prosecutions 

(DPP) locked away three men accused 

of treason for over a year, only to drop 

the charges unceremoniously on 5 

March. 

The DPP reacted angrily to this criticism 

and branded the editorial “a child 

born out of ignorance.” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-04 

INSTITUTION(S): The Chronicle 


Dumbo Lemani, Malawi presidential 

affairs minister and director general 

of the ruling United Democratic 

Front (UDF) party, has sued “The 



2002 

Chronicle” weekly newspaper for aggravated 

damages. 

According to the writ of summons 

issued to the newspaper by the Malawi 

High Court, Lemani is taking issue 

with a story “The Chronicle” ran 

in its 4-10 March 2002 edition. 

The newspaper quoted remarks by 

Yusuf Wadi, an executive member of 

the opposition Malawi Congress Party 

(MCP), who alleged that the Anti- 

Corruption Bureau was failing to 

prosecute UDF leaders. 

The newspaper reported that “Wadi 

cited several financial scandals in 

which the big wigs were involved but 

have been left untouched, like the Petroleum 

Control Commission (PCC) 

where Dumbo Lemani is involved by 

virtue of being Minister of Energy at 

the time coupled with Davis Kapito 

who was chairman of PCC.” 

Lemani argues that the article insinuated, 

in part, that he was using his 

political clout to defeat the course of 

justice and that he was corrupt. 

He contends that “The Chronicle” 

ran the story out of malevolence and 

spite towards him, which he said put 

him “into public scandal, odium and 

contempt.” 

Lemani strengthens his case by contending 

that the newspaper did not 

interview either the Anti-Corruption 

Bureau or himself to verify the facts. 

The minister is seeking damages on 

the footing of aggravated or exemplary 

damages and costs. 

Since 2000, “The Chronicle” has 

been slapped with five lawsuits. In 

addition to the Lemani case, two cases 

were launched by Speaker of National 

Assembly Sam Mpasu, one was 

launched by President Bakili Muluzi, 

and another by UDF’s Aleke Banda. 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-23 

INSTITUTION(S): Blantyre Printing 

and Publishing (BP&P) – publishers 

of the Daily Times, Malawi 

News 

VIOLATION(S): Threatened, beaten 

At least 3 000 militant youths and 

women, members of the ruling United 

Democratic Front (UDF), besieged 

the premises of Blantyre Newspapers 

on Monday May 20 2002. They were 

angered by the newspaper group’s 

stand against President Bakili 

Muluzi’s bid to run for an unconstitutional 

third term when his current 

term expires in 2004. 

There was high drama as the UDF 

loyalists held a rowdy demonstration 

outside the newspaper offices. 

Blantyre Newspapers publishes the 

“Daily Times” and the weekly “Malawi 

News”. The demonstrators threatened 

to storm the premises and beat 

up journalists. 

The ruling party loyalists were angered 

by the newspapers’ persistent 

articles against the proposed third term 

bid for Muluzi. After a series of stinging 

commentaries against the bid, it 

appears the demonstration was 

prompted by a recent article in “Malawi 

News” which disputed claims by 

Henry Mussa, the ruling party’s member 

of parliament for the southern district 

of Chiradzulu, that up to 185 

chiefs had mandated him to support 

an amendment to the constitutional 

clause that limits presidential terms. 

However, Presidential Affairs Minister 

Dumbo Lemani brought two senior 

chiefs to the newspaper officers 

after the demonstrations, where the 

chiefs re-affirmed their support for the

MALAWI 


presidential third term. 

The militant youths started gathering 

outside the newspaper offices as 

of 7:00 a.m. (local time). By 8:00 a.m., 

the crowd had significantly grown, 

with hundreds of people arriving in 

truckloads and joining the youths. 

Newspaper staff barricaded themselves 

in their offices as the women 

demonstrators chanted their support 

for the president’s third term bid while 

the youths angrily demanded an apology 

from the newspaper. Blantyre 

Newspapers’ managing editor Jika 

Nkolokoa said he did not know why 

the youths decided to demonstrate outside 

their offices. In its Monday 20 

May editorial, the “Daily Times” challenged 

the ruling party, saying it would 

not be silenced by threats. 

The demonstration, which despite 

the inflamed emotions was largely 

peaceful, turned violent when the angry 

youths beat up a newspaper staffer 

who was seen attempting to record the 

registration numbers of the vehicles 

that brought in the demonstrators. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-25 

INSTITUTION(S): Malawi Institute 

of Journalism radio station 

(MIJ FM) VIOLATION(S): 

Threatened 

The Malawi Communications Regulatory 

Authority (MACRA) has 

warned the Malawi Institute of Journalism 

radio station (MIJ FM) that it 

risks losing its broadcasting license 

because of what MACRA describes as 

anomalies and bias in its reporting. MIJ 

FM is a community radio station run 

by the MIJ to train students. 

In a 13 June 2002 letter signed by 

MACRA Director General Evance 

Namanja, MACRA accused MIJ FM 

of running editorial comments, 

newscasts, licensed programme formats 

and general coverage inconsistent 

with the provisions of the Communications 

Act and MIJ’s broadcasting 

license. 

However, the MISA’s Malawi chapter 

(Namisa) has established that the 

license principles issued to MIJ state 

that the radio station should protect the 

best interest of the community, encourage 

new and innovative programmes 

and promote community access to information. 

MIJ Executive Director James 

Ng’ombe told Namisa in a 20 June interview 

that he was surprised by 

MACRA’s move. Ng’ombe said his 

station would not betray professional 

standards because of the threats. “I 

hope everyone gets the same type of 

refereeing. I hope they (MACRA) 

have a way of proving neutrality and 

balance,” said Ng’ombe. 

MACRA Director of Telecommunications 

Mike Kuntiya refused to clarify 

what the authority meant by “anomalies” 

in MIJ FM programmes. 

MACRA, hitherto dormant, is yet to 

prove to be a neutral referee. 

Political analysts suspect that 

MACRA’s move is aimed at turning the 

station into another front to advance the 

idea of an unlimited term in the presidential 

office. The Malawi Constitution, 

which the UDF is trying to amend, 

gives the president a maximum of two 

five-year terms in office. MIJ FM took 

to the airwaves a year ago and is fully 

dependent on donor funding, especially 

from Denmark, a country that 

controversially cut its diplomatic ties 

with Malawi a few months ago. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-25 

INSTITUTION(S): Lilongwe 

Press Club (public debate) 

VIOLATION(S): Other 

On 20 June 2002, police in Malawi’s 

largest city Blantyre stopped a series 

of public debates organised by the 

Lilongwe Press Club to discuss the 

proposed amendment to the Malawi 

Constitution regarding the limits on 

the president’s term in office. 

The debates were supposed to be 

held in the three regional centres of 

Blantyre (South – 20 June), Lilongwe 

(Central - 21 June) and Mzuzu (North 

– 23 June) under the theme: “The merits 

and demerits of changing Section 

83(3) of the Malawi Constitution”. 

Lilongwe Press Club publicist Don 

Kulapani said in an interview with 

MISA’s Malawi chapter (Namisa) that 

30 heavily armed paramilitary police 

accompanied by armoured vehicles 

sealed the Blantyre venue, barely an 

hour before the debate, and turned 

away anyone who went to the venue. 

Kulapani stated that Club Secretary 

General Peter Kumwenda was called 

to the Lilongwe Hotel Manager’s office, 

where he encountered two policewomen. 

Kulapani said the policewomen 

told Kumwenda that the 

Lilongwe debate had been cancelled 

because it was a “threat to security” 

and that the issue would be discussed 

in Parliament and not at public debates. 

Kulapani said that when the two 

sides failed to agree, the policewomen 

took Kumwenda to their regional office 

where he met police commissioner 

Lot Dzonzi and a Central Region 

commissioner. According to 


Kulapani, the two police officers recited 

the reasons given earlier by the 

policewomen. 

On 21 June, a contingent of ten 

heavily armed paramilitary police, 

stood sentry at the gates of the hotel 

to enforce the ban. Just one day before 

the Mzuzu debate, Northern Region 

Police Commissioner Milward 

Chikwamba called Kulapani to tell 

him about a ban on the debate. 

Kulapani said Chikwamba accused 

the club of being used by donors to 

destabilise Malawi. The debates were 

funded by the United States Agency 

for International Development 

(USAID). 

On 28 May, Malawi President 

Bakili Muluzi ordered the army and 

the police to deal with anyone involved 

in organising or participating 

in any demonstrations for or against 

the constitutional amendment. 

A week later, the High Court in 

Blantyre granted an injunction to religious 

groups, civil society and concerned 

citizens against the presidential 

ban. However, at a press conference, 

President Muluzi dismissed the 

injunction as “irresponsible and 

highly insensitive.” 

The court has since reversed its decision, 

following an application by the 

attorney general and minister of justice. 

The ban still stands. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-07-05 

INSTITUTION(S): Malawi Institute 

of Journalism radio station 

(MIJ FM) 


The Malawi Communications Regulatory 

Authority (MACRA) has back-

MALAWI 


pedalled on its recently issued threat 

that the Malawi Institute of Journalism 

radio station (MIJ FM) risked 

losing its broadcasting licence for 

what MACRA described as anomalies 

and bias in its reporting. 

MACRA general counsel David 

Kadwa told the press on Thursday 27 

June 2002 that the problem was not 

only the radio station’s content but 

was also “technical in nature.” 

Kadwa added that MIJ FM was 

broadcasting beyond its licensed 35- 

kilometre radius and moreover was 

airing “news bulletins instead of news 

updates” for which the station was licensed. 

“The violations are technical 

in nature. We are not against the content 

of news but we are concerned that 

instead of updates or briefs stipulated 

in the licence MIJ is giving listeners 

bulletins,” Kadwa stated. 

However, MIJ Executive Director 

James Ng’ombe described MACRA’s 

arguments on the radius as not being 

“scientifically practical.” “Scientifically 

you can not put a ruler and demarcate 

that radio waves should not 

go beyond this point because they go 

with the terrain. Where the terrain is 

even the coverage is wider, while 

where there are mountains there is 

poor or no coverage. So I can say on 

paper we are covering the 35 kilometre 

radius,” Ng’ombe argued. 

On the subject of airing news bulletins 

instead of “news updates”, 

Ng’ombe said his radio licence permitted 

the station to carry bulletins. 

He explained that an update or news 

brief suggested by MACRA comes 

from a bulletin. “What they 

(MACRA) are saying is a jargon that 

does not exist (in journalism),” 

Ng’ombe stated. 

MACRA wrote to the radio station 

on 13 June threatening to withdraw 

its licence if the station did not change 

its content, which MACRA described 

as inconsistent with the station’s 

broadcasting licence. 

MIJ FM took to the airwaves in 

2001 and is fully dependent on donor 

funding, especially from Denmark, a 

country that controversially cut its 

diplomatic ties with Malawi a few 

months ago. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-06 

PERSON(S): Bright Sonani 


On 21 August 2002, Bright Sonani, a 

senior reporter for the “Malawi 

News”, was assaulted by three unidentified 

men who accused him of 

writing stories that were critical of the 

government. 

Sonani told MISA’s Malawi Chapter 

(Namisa) that he was accosted by 

the trio at approximately 5:30 p.m. (local 

time) in Malawi’s commercial city 

Blantyre. 

He said the assailants called him 

aside by first name stating that they had 

something to discuss with him. “I 

thought they were my friends but I 

failed to recognise them. They tripped 

me to the ground and beat me up,” recalled 

Sonani. The reporter lost his cell 

phone during the incident. 

“I do not think they wanted to steal 

anything from me. They only wanted 

to assault me,” he told Namisa. 

Namisa has discovered a plot by 

some individuals, who they believe 

belong to the ruling United Democratic 

Front (UDF), to “deal” with investigative 

reporters. The UDF vehemently 



2002 

denies involvement in the plot. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-30 

INSTITUTION(S): The Chronicle, 

Daily Times 


President Bakili Muluzi has lashed 

out at the “Chronicle” and “Daily 

Times” newspapers for what he 

termed “irresponsible journalism.” 

Speaking at a rally in Balaka district 

(southern Malawi) on 25 September 

2002, Muluzi described the “Daily 

Times” as a “naughty paper” whose 

agenda was questionable. 

“What’s wrong with our ‘Daily 

Times’? What agenda do they have?” 

he charged. 

Muluzi’s remarks follow the publication 

of an article in which the newspaper 

quoted the Public Affairs Committee 

(PAC) as contradicting 

Muluzi’s assertions that he founded 

the group. PAC described the president’s 

outbursts as “untrue and misleading.” 

On 11 September, Muluzi accused 

the “Chronicle” newspaper of trying 

to incite civil unrest. The “Chronicle” 

had quoted a letter written by a sector 

of the Muslim community threatening 

a holy war (Jihad) against Christians 

and their institutions. 

Muluzi, a practicing Muslim, 

strongly condemned the newspaper, 

but fell short of rebuking the authors 

of the letter. 

PAC is a grouping of religious faiths 

that helped to catapult the Muluzi administration 

to power through its role 

as a human rights watchdog. 

President Muluzi and his ruling 

United Democratic Front (UDF) are 


on a countrywide tour, trying to rally 

people behind the constitutional 

change to allow him a third term in 

office. In July, the Malawi Parliament 

defeated a bill aiming to delimit the 

presidential tenure of office. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-22 

PERSON(S): Gabriel Kamlomo, 

Levison Mwase 


Two police officers from the Criminal 

Investigations Department (CID) 

stormed the newsroom of “The 

Chronicle” newspaper in Lilongwe, 

Malawi’s capital, on 22 October 2002. 

They demanded to see reporter 

Levison Mwase, who was not in the 

newsroom at the time. 

“The Chronicle”’s editor-in-chief, 

Rob Jamieson, told MISA’s Malawi 

chapter that the two officers refused 

to say why they wanted to see the reporter, 

but ordered the journalist to report 

to the central region CID office. 

Jamieson said he was not sure why 

the police wanted to see his reporter, 

but could not rule out a connection to 

an article Mwase wrote about a sensitive 

letter allegedly written by President 

Bakili Muluzi on 18 October. 

In another development, people believed 

to be supporters of the ruling 

United Democratic Front (UDF) have 

threatened to “deal with” reporter 

Gabriel Kamlomo, who also wrote 

about the letter. 

Police publicist George Chikowi 

refused to comment on the developments. 

In the letter, President Muluzi allegedly 

told his party’s southern regional 

governor and three cabinet

MALAWI 


ministers to intensify the campaign on 

his bid to run for another term in office. 

The letter allegedly strategised 

the buying of opposition members of 

parliament (MPs) using government 

resources, to fortify support for the bill 

during the current sitting of Parliament. 

On 20 October, the police arrested 

the president of the opposition Malawi 

Congress Party (MCP), his secretary 

and two MPs on suspicion that they 

authored the letter. The four were 

charged with forgery, altering false 

documents and criminal libel. 

Malawi’s Parliament will soon vote 

on a proposed constitutional amendment 

bill to allow President Muluzi 

to run for a third term. His current term 

expires in 2004. 

On 4 July, Parliament voted against 

an open-ended bill that sought to 

amend the constitution to remove limits 

on the number of terms an incumbent 

president can contest in elections. 

“The Chronicle” is an independent 

newspaper owned by the Jamieson 

family. It has been publishing for the 

past nine years. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-23 

INSTITUTION(S): The media in 

Malawi 


The Principal Magistrate Court in 

Malawi’s capital, Lilongwe, has ordered 

that parties to a case involving 

the president of the main opposition 

Malawi Congress Party (MCP), 

Gwanda Chakuamba, not grant interviews 

to the press. 

Principal Magistrate Chifundo 

Kachale issued the order on 22 October 

2002, when he granted bail to 

Chakuamba, his secretary and two 

members of parliament (MPs) in a 

case in which the four are accused of 

authoring a sensitive letter purportedly 

written by President Bakili 

Muluzi. 

In the letter, Muluzi allegedly directed 

his party officials to intensify 

the campaign on his bid to run for a 

third term in office by paying off opposition 

MPs. 

Chakuamba’s lawyer, Rodrick 

Makono, confirmed in an interview 

that the court made the order as a condition 

of bail. However, Makono said 

the order had no constitutional basis 

and was made for the sake of convenience. 

“It was a general order for both 

sides. I think it was put conveniently 

because there were many supporters 

of Chakuamba and BBC correspondents 

who wanted to talk to him. Maybe 

the court wanted to avoid some fracas,” 

said Makono. 

While admitting that the order infringed 

on freedom of expression and 

press freedom, Makono pleaded that 

the press not interview his clients. 

However, another lawyer, who 

opted for anonymity, said the order 

was unconstitutional and that the court 

was avoiding prejudice from press reports. 

“If [Chakuamba] is released [on 

bail, it means] he is free until proved 

guilty by a court of law. He has to 

enjoy his constitutional right to expression. 

In a way, the order also gags 

the press,” said the lawyer. 

On 4 July, Parliament voted against 

an open-ended bill which sought to 

amend the constitution to remove limits 

on the number of terms an incumbent 

president can contest in elections. 

However, the Muluzi administra- 



2002 

tion has expressed its determination 

to table a second constitutional 

amendment bill in mid-October, despite 

widespread criticism from political 

parties, non-governmental organisations, 

civic and religious leaders and 

the diplomatic community, including 

Britain, the United States and the European 

Community. 

Section 36 of Malawi’s constitution 

states, “The press shall have the right 

to report and publish freely, within 

Malawi and abroad, and to be accorded 

the fullest possible facilities for 

access to public information.” 

On freedom of expression, Section 

35 stipulates, “Every person shall 

have the right to freedom of expression.” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-24 

PERSON(S): Gedion Munthali, 

unidentified freelance photographer 


On 23 October 2002, Fidson 

Chisesele, a member of parliament 

(MP) from the ruling United Democratic 

Front (UDF) party, assaulted 

Gedion Munthali, a senior reporter 

from “The Nation” newspaper, and an 

unidentified freelance photographer. 

The incident took place at the Parliament 

buildings. Chisesele reportedly 

also dragged Munthali to House 

Leader Harry Thomson’s office. 

Soon after the beating, Munthali 

told MISA’s Malawi chapter that he 

had been trying to discuss concerns 

raised by the MP’s constituents. The 

constituents had addressed a letter of 

appeal to the MP and his colleagues 

in which they urged them to vote 


against an amendment to Malawi’s 

constitution that would allow President 

Bakili Muluzi to seek a third term 

in office. The letter, which bore the 

signatures of 1,300 constituents, was 

also delivered to the offices of “The 

Nation”. 

Munthali said he was asked by his 

colleagues at “The Nation” to seek 

comments on the letter from Chisesele, 

another MP and Speaker Sam Mpasu. 

Munthali said the speaker and the other 

MP responded, but Chisesele advised 

him to meet with him later, during a 

break. 

“He asked if I was Gedion and told 

me to follow him inside. Instead of 

addressing the issue, he grabbed me 

by the neck and beat me up,” Munthali 

said, adding that a photographer who 

tried to capture the incident was also 

assaulted. 

Munthali said the MP stopped beating 

him when another MP and a cabinet 

minister intervened, advising 

Chisesele to give his side of the story 

instead of assaulting the journalist. 

Munthali said Chisesele then 

dragged him to House Leader 

Thomson’s office. He said the MP told 

Thomson and the UDF’s first vicepresident, 

who was also in the office, 

that Munthali was “slinging mud at 

[him] and the party.” 

“All this time, I was being dragged 

by the collar. The leader of the House 

and the UDF first vice-president advised 

him not to beat me up, but to respond 

to my questions,” Munthali explained. 

MISA’s Malawi chapter has issued 

a statement condemning Chisesele’s 

assault on the media workers and asking 

House Leader Thomson and the 

UDF to discipline their MP. Police are

MALAWI 


also investigating the matter. 

Malawi’s Parliament has become 

dangerous ground for people deemed 

to be anti-third term campaigners. On 

16 October, unknown assailants ambushed 

an opposition MP and pulled 

him from his car before brutally beating 

him, within the precincts of Parliament. 

No arrests have been made. 

Malawi’s Parliament may soon vote 

on a proposed constitutional amendment 

bill to allow President Muluzi to 

run for a third term. His current term 

expires in 2004. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-12-09 

PERSON(S): McDonald 

Chapalapata 


On 28 November 2002, a senior public 

servant assaulted journalist 

McDonald Chapalapata, of “The Nation” 

newspaper. 

Chapalapata told the National Media 

Institute of Malawi (NAMISA), 

MISA’s Malawi chapter, that the National 

Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) 

finance controller, Paul Chimenya, attacked 

him in the office of the latter’s 

lawyer, after the journalist asked him 

about allegations that he fraudulently 

awarded a contract to his personal 

transport company. 

“He pounced on me as I took notes 

and I fell to the floor. He smashed my 

cell phone and my company 

dictaphone against a wall,” 

Chapalapata, who sustained injuries to 

his face and arm, told NAMISA. 

Chimenya denied having beaten the 

reporter, saying he only tried to push 

him out of the office. “I pushed him 

and he fell down. I even regret having 

granted him the interview. He is childish,” 

he said. 

The police has opened a criminal 

case against Chimenya. 

NAMISA condemned the incident, 

calling upon those who come into contact 

with the media to desist from attacking 

journalists. 

In a similar incident, on 23 October, 

a member of parliament (MP) belonging 

to the ruling United Democratic 

Front (UDF), assaulted “The Nation” 

journalist Gedion Munthali. The 

MP became incensed when Munthali 

confronted him about calls from his 

constituents to vote against changing 

the Malawi Constitution to allow incumbent 

President Bakili Muluzi another 

term in office. 



SPECIAL REPORT 

DATE: 2002-03-14 

PERSON(S): Burundian national coach, Nsazurwimo Ramadhan 

TOPIC: Unethical behaviour of The Sun reporters 

On Sunday 24 March 2002, Malawi police arrested three reporters 

belonging to “The Sun” newspaper for assaulting and harming 

a football coach at a shopping mall in the country’s commercial 

capital, Blantyre. 

Police spokesman George Chikowi said in an interview that the 

three reporters, Chikumbutso Mtumodzi, Thom Chiumia and Ken 

Ndanga, pounced on the Burundian national coach, Nsazurwimo 

Ramadhan, in the mall as he was shopping with his wife on the 

evening of Friday 22 March. 

Chikowi said Ramadhan, who has coached Malawian clubs for 

over two years, was rescued by a Criminal Investigation Department 

(CID) policeman. 

The three reporters, said Chikowi, attacked Ramadhan again as 

he was leaving the mall after the CID policeman had left. “They 

beat him up in front of his wife and threatened to kill him with a 

panga knife,” he said. 

He said the police arrested the trio and their aide, Davie 

Chipembere, following a complaint by Ramadhan. 

Chikowi said the reporters were out on bail and would appear 

before a court of law very soon. 

The incident occurs at the same time as media institutions in Malawi 

such as Namisa (National Media Institute of Malawi) and the 

Media Council are engaging government in dialogue to check violations 

of media freedom mostly by political operatives. 

2002 

Background Information 

“The Sun” runs a vicious propaganda campaign for the ruling 

United Democratic Front (UDF) party. The newspaper attacks 

everyone deemed critical of the UDF and its stalwarts. 

Ramadhan came to Malawi to coach Total Big Bullets Football 

Club but was fired under mysterious circumstances. State President 

Bakili Muluzi is a strong supporter of the club. 

Ramadhan later picked up a job with MTL Wanderers Football 

Club but was sacked in similar circumstances. MTL’s supporters 

include the presidential affairs minister and UDF director general, 

Dumbo Lemani (patron) and presidential adviser Humphreys 

Mvula (chairman). 



Mozambique 

By Augusto de Carvalho 

Journalist and university lecturer 

The year 2002 was marked by the emergence of two weeklies and a new 

television station. The appearance of the weeklies – Zambeze and País 

came abut as a result of differences within existing weeklies. 

Zambeze was established by a group of journalists of the ‘Savana’ newspaper, 

headed by editor Salomão Moyana, who has taken charge of the paper. 

The editorial line does not differ substantially from that of Savana. País came 

about following problems between Sociedade Notícias, which owns the newspaper 

Domingo, and its administrator, Correia Paulo, appointed to manage 

the paper. At issue were problems relating to financial reporting. Correia Paulo 

established País with Ramos Miguel – a former journalist at Domingo – as 

editor. The paper’s editorial line favours government positions, but given its 

brief existence, it is too soon to evaluate its consistency. As for Zambeze, it 

generally challenges government positions in theoretical terms and appears 

to have already found a comfortable space among the weekly publications. 

The new television station, STV, began broadcasting in October. It is owned 

by private individuals, namely Daniel David and Graciette Silva, and for the 

time being reaches only the Maputo area. The idea is to expand to the whole 

country, but, according to Daniel Silva, it is encountering bureaucratic hurdles. 

Could it be because of fear of the competition it might present to the 

state TVM channel? In 2002 STV did not produce its own programmes, using 

mostly programmes bought from TV Africa with money from the World Bank. 

The STV team hopes to gradually introduce own programming, including 

news. The station is distinctively commercial. 

The year 2002 was profoundly marked – as far as media is concerned – by the 

murder trial of journalist Carlos Cardoso. The trial was foreshadowed by concerns 

over its impartiality in legal terms as well as over media coverage of it. 

It is perhaps right to state that after this trial, the media has taken a great leap 

forward in terms of freedom of information. It was without a doubt the most 

covered event it the history of Mozambican journalism. The judge, Justice 

Augusto Raúl Paulino, after a brief hesitation, allowed the trial to be broadcast 

live by Mozambican television, which experienced audience figures 

matched only by those during the soccer World Cup. This was a sensitive 

trial, given the individuals involved, who included high-level personalities 

from attorneys’ offices, politicians, policemen and business people. 

The media was able to expose a mafia-style group within the Mozambican 



society, with organised crime figures being protected by individuals linked to 

political circles, attorneys’ offices, judges and state departments. One must 

highlight the judge’s position on freedom of information, a position that should 

now be part of textbooks. The judge stated before a full house that he was not 

opposed to the trial being broadcast live, but that being broadcast live or not 

was the sole responsibility of the media. In this way, the judge acknowledged 

their complete responsibility. 

Freedom of information means, first and foremost, to be able to inform without 

interference from political of economic power. But to enjoy freedom of 

information it is important that the journalist be informed, which is not easy 

in our situation because of a lack of material resources. In Mozambique – as 

in other places – freedom of information has to face phenomenal restrictions, 

precisely because media managers do not invest in the nuts and bolts of journalism. 

Our media are poor, they live from hand to mouth, apart from the state media, 

such as Rádio Moçambique and Televisão de Moçambique. 

As far as the printed media is concerned, although the Press Law does not 

pose major restrictions (anybody, legally speaking, can set up a newspaper) 

there are no public sustainability mechanisms made available by the state. I 

am referring specifically to subsidies on newsprint and other cost components 

of lesser importance. Paper is one of the costliest items in the budget. 

The press is seen by the law as if it were any other industry, which, from the 

outset hampers quantity and quality. Perhaps this is the reason why in a country 

of 17 million people – taking into account the substantial number of illiterate 

people – daily readers do not exceed an average of two hundred thousand. 

In a way, this situation is mitigated by radio stations and TVM, which 

can be picked up in practically the entire country. However, it should be pointed 

out that TVM broadcasts only in Portuguese, while the vast majority of the 

people do not speak it. To its credit, one must mention the effort by TVM to 

broadcast live – with abundant commentary – the Carlos Cardoso murder 

trial, without any concern for the fact that one of the individuals mentioned 

was the son of the president. 

2002 

The issue of access to information is one of the critical points of our system. 

Although the Press Law makes provision for the compulsory release of information 

by state organs, public officials have so far not internalised this culture. 

Nonetheless, we do have a number of public officials who have begun to 

understand the importance of keeping the public informed and maintaining 

contact with those journalists that seek them out, even if they wish to remain 

anonymous. This behaviour depends also on the journalists, who, in our country, 

have been raised in a paternalistic culture. Access to information, to sources, 

fails in journalism of an investigative nature, because of the lack of resources 


MOZAMBIQUE 


and with the poor salaries earned by media professionals thrown into the equation. 

In Mozambique, public consensus is that the media that are not owned by the 

state are independent. The word “independent” is ambiguous as far as journalists 

are concerned, as through the act of producing or publishing a story, 

the journalist is vulnerable to bribery or dependence on powerful influences 

be they political or financial. 

As far as the current journalism is concerned - especially where large audiences 

are involved - it is important to note that it is still highly influenced by 

state powers on a daily basis. These same ‘state powers’ are also the biggest 

producers of events that capture the interest of the average journalist, who 

shuns investigative journalism primarily because of a lack of resources. 

However, this year saw a number of instances in which journalists – even 

those working for the state media – were able to freely inform their readerships 

or audiences. 

Concerning official bodies established to look after and promote freedom of 

information, their actions were not felt in the year 2002 - neither from a negative 

nor positive point of view - as was the case with the High Media Council. 

The Journalists’ Union was also conspicuous by its absence. Journalists were 

not summoned to stand trial for alleged acts of defamation that they were 

accused of, even though they frequently practiced confrontational journalism. 

The defamation case against journalist Marcelo Mosse – already started in 

2001 – and instituted by Nyimpine Chissano, son of the state president, remained 

dormant in the courts, because of procedural incidents raised by the 

plaintiff’s lawyer. 

In conclusion, this overview in general terms should be accompanied by details, 

but the space does not allow. We should, however, draw a few conclusions 

for the future. 

1. At an official level, there is no censorship from a legal point of view. The 

legal environment is one of the most liberal that we know. The law that governs 

media is truly open, without restrictions, which is not the case in countries 

with democracies older than ours. For example, a journalist may not 

even be questioned about the source of news. 

2. The state treats the media as if it were any other industry. There are no 

subsidies for the consumables that the media have to import, as is the case 

with newsprint, prohibitively expensive, a cost that strangles a number of 



media houses. 

3. There are no exemptions from taxes for the media. 

4. The dominant mode of media management is not appropriate for the objectives 

of journalists’ work. I would dare say that the biggest problem with 

freedom of information is an inadequate understanding of media management. 

Attention is not given to the real objective, which is to produce news, 

commentary, stories, reports, analyses and opinion pieces, which would benefit 

most from investment. 

5. Journalists earn paltry salaries and do not enjoy any social security benefits 

commensurate with the negatives consequences of their profession. 

2002 



Moçambique 

Augusto de Carvalho 

Jornalista e professor universitário 

Oano de 2002 foi marcado em Moçambique pelo aparecimento de 

dois semanários e de uma nova estação de televisão. Os semanários 

resultaram de divergências no interior de outros semanários já 

existentes. São eles o “Zambeze” e o “País”. 

O Zambeze foi fundado por um grupo de jornalistas que integravam o “Savana”, 

tendo à cabeça o seu editor, Salomão Moiana, que assumiu a direcção do 

Zambeze. A sua linha editorial não difere substancialmente do Savana. 

O “País” resultou de problemas havidos entre a Sociedade Notícias, proprietária 

do jornal “domingo” e o administrador, Correia Paulo, em contrato de gestão 

deste semanário, sobretudo devido a problemas de prestação de contas. Correia 

Paulo fundou o “País”, sendo seu editor um ex - jornalista do “domingo”, 

Ramos Miguel. 

A sua linha editorial privilegia as posições do Governo, embora o seu tempo 

de vida ainda seja relativamente curto para se poder avaliar a respectiva 

consistência.O “Zambeze”, por sua vez, contestatário, em geral, das posições 

governamentais em termos teóricos, parece já ter adquirido um espaço 

confortável entre as publicações semanais. 

A nova estação televisiva, a STV, começou a emitir em Outubro. É propriedade 

de particulares, nomeadamente, Daniel David e Graciette Silva, cobrindo, por 

enquanto, apenas, a zona de Maputo. Pretende expandir - se para todo o território 

moçambicano, mas está a encontrar dificuldades burocráticas na sua expansão, 

segundo nos informou Daniel David. Receio da concorrência que possa fazer 

à TVM estatal? 

Em 2002 a STV não teve produção própria. Viveu, sobretudo , dos programas 

comprados à TV África, com apoio do Banco Mundial. 

Esperam os seus promotores introduzir gradualmente produção própria, 

inclusivamente no sector da informação. 

Trata - se de uma estação marcadamente de índole comercial. 

Ambiente jornalístico 

O ano 2002 foi marcado profundamente , a nível dos media, pelo julgamento 

relativo ao assassinato do jornalista Carlos Cardoso.Havia receios, quer quanto 

a um julgamento imparcial em termos legais, quer quanto à sua 

mediatização.Talvez seja lícito afirmar que, depois deste julgamento, a Imprensa 

deu um salto em frente no capítulo da liberdade de informação. 

Foi, sem dúvida, o episódio mais mediatizado em toda a vida do jornalismo 

moçambicano.O juiz da causa, dr. Augusto Raúl Paulino, depois de breve 

hesitação, permitiu que o julgamento fosse transmitido em directo pela 

Televisão de Moçambique, a qual registou índices de audiência só comparáveis 



com a transmissão do campeonato do Mundo de futebol. Tratava - se para 

mais de um julgamento melindroso, dadas as personalidades envolvidas, quer 

no acto do assassinato em si mesmo considerado, quer na periferia envolvente, 

com destacadas individualidades em relevo, desde as pertencentes às 

magistraturas, à política ,às polícias, passando pelo mundo dos negócios. 

Os media conseguiram apresentar, em liberdade plena, uma certa sociedade 

moçambicana de índole mafiosa, com o crime organizado a ser protegido por 

personalidades ligadas aos ambientes políticos e às magistraturas, Judicial e 

do Ministério Público.. 

Deve ser salientada a posição do juiz em termos de liberdade de informação, 

posição que pode começar a fazer escola. O juiz afirmou, em plenário, que ele 

não se opunha à transmissão em directo do julgamento, mas que o facto de ser 

ou não transmitido era da inteira responsabilidade dos media.Passou, assim, 

aos media, um atestado de maioridade, reconhecendo - lhes inteira 

responsabilidade. 

Nunca a Imprensa foi tão longe entre nós, vencendo a barreira da aparente 

intocabilidade de algumas figuras de proa. 

2002 

O problema da liberdade de informação 

Liberdade de informação significa, antes de mais, poder informar sem coacções 

vindas quer dos poderes políticos, quer económicos. Refiro - me a coacções e 

não a pressões, pois estas só atingem a liberdade de informação quando o 

jornalista se lhe não pode esquivar.Mas para que haja liberdade de informação 

é necessário, antes de mais, que o jornalista esteja informado, o que, entre nós, 

não é fácil, por carência de meios materiais.Quer - me parecer que, em 

Moçambique, como, aliás, noutras paragens, o problema da liberdade de 

informação sofre restrições enormes, precisamente porque os gestores dos media 

não investem na produção jornalística propriamente dita. 

Os nossos meios de informação são pobres, vivem com a corda na garganta, se 

exceptuarmos, os órgãos do Estado, como a Rádio Moçambique e a Televisão 

de Moçambique, mas nestes a sua qualidade e actualidade pode ser mais 

eficazmente controlada a partir dos gestores ou administradores, usando 

processos indirectos, mas extremamente eficazes. 

No capítulo da Imprensa escrita, embora a Lei de Imprensa não ponha restrições 

de maior, quem quer que seja pode, em termos jurídicos, fundar jornais, não 

existem condições públicas de viabilidade prodigalizadas pelo Estado. Refiro 

- me , concretamente, aos subsídios ao papel e outros componentes de menor 

peso, papel este que é um dos factores que mais pesa no orçamento. 

A Imprensa é vista pela lei como se de uma outra qualquer indústria se tratasse, 

o que à partida, inviabiliza a quantidade e respectiva qualidade. Talvez, por 

isso, é que num país com cerca de 17 milhões de habitantes, embora descontada 

a parte substancial de analfabetos, leitores diários dos jornais não ultrapassarão 

a média dos duzentos mil. 

Este facto é , de certa maneira, compensado, entretanto,pelas rádios e pela 

TVM que já pode ser captada praticamente em todo o território.De sublinhar a 


MOZAMBIQUE 


circunstância da Televisão emitir apenas em língua portuguesa, quando a grossa 

maioria da população a não fala. 

É de salientar, entretanto, o esforço feito pela TVM estatal no sentido de 

transmitir em directo, com abundância de comentários, o julgamento relativo 

ao assassinato de Carlos Cardoso, sem se preocupar com o facto de uma das 

personalidades postas em causa ser um filho do Presidente da República. 

Acesso à informação 

É este, o do acesso à informação, um dos pontos críticos do nosso sistema. 

Embora a Lei da Imprensa obrigue os poderes públicos a soltarem a informação, 

com algumas poucas e compreensíveis excepções ( caso de segredo de Estado 

e de Justiça, etc ), os funcionários públicos ainda não interiorizaram este tipo 

de cultura. Há, no entanto, alguns destes funcionários que começam a perceber 

a importância de manter o público informado e mantêm contactos com os 

jornalistas que os procuram, embora, sob o signo do anonimato. Esta conduta 

depende também dos jornalistas, entre nós marcados por alguma cultura de 

índole paternalista. 

O acesso à informação, às fontes, padece, como acima ficou dito, sobretudo 

num jornalismo de índole investigativa, de falta de meios materiais, entrando 

em linha de conta, também, com os magros salários que auferem os homens 

da Imprensa.. 

O problema da Imprensa “Independente” 

Em Moçambique vigora o mote público segundo o qual são independentes os 

media cuja propriedade não pertence ao Estado. A palavra “independente” 

reveste - se de “ambiguidade”, já que , no que se refere ao jornalista, no acto 

de produzir ou publicar a sua história, deve perguntar - se: “ independente de 

quem”. Aconte, por vezes, o jornalista deixar -se subornar, tornar - se dependente 

de grandes e pequenos poderes, desde os políticos aos monetários. Tivemos 

alguns casos clamorosos, mas poucos. 

Quanto ao jornalismo produzido, quer escrito, televisivo ou radiofónico, 

sobretudo o de maior expressão, importa sublinhar que ainda é fortemente 

influenciado pelos poderes públicos no seu dia a dia.São estes também os 

maiores produtores de eventos que conseguem captar a atenção do jornalista, 

pouco dado a uma investigação aturada, sobretudo por falta de meios. 

Aconteceram, porém, este ano, diversos episódios em que os jornalistas, mesmo 

nas estações públicas, puderam informar com liberdade. Em 2002, os 

“intocáveis” em Moçambique tiveram a vida menos fácil já que alguns deles 

apareceram, com certa frequência, nos meios de comunicação social.Mesmo 

na Comunicação Social , propriedade do Estado. 

Organismos oficiais 

Quanto aos organismos oficiais criados, para velarem e promoverem, ex oficio, 

a liberdade de informação, caso do Conselho Superior de Comunicação Social, 

a sua actuação não se fez sentir no ano de 2002, nem do ponto de vista 



positivo, nem negativo. 

Também o Sindicato dos Jornalista, organismos de classe, tem - se pautado 

pela ausência. 

Os jornalistas também não foram chamados a responder em tribunal por 

eventuais actos de difamação de que hajam sido acusados, embora, com 

frequência, tenham praticado um jornalismo viril e acusatório. 

O processo, já inciado em 2001 contra o jornalista Marcelo Mosse, movido 

por Nyimpine Chissano, filho do Presidente da República, que acusou Marcelo 

Mosse de difamação, continua a dormir nos gabinetes do tribunal, em virtude, 

ao que sabemos, de incidentes processuais levantados pelo seu advogado. 

Marcelo Mosse tem, no entanto, possibilidade de, juridicamente, se defender. 

CONCLUSÂO 

Esta nossa apreciação concretizada em termos genéricos, à laia de radiografia, 

deveria ser pormenorizada, mas o espaço de que dispomos não o consente. 

Devemos tirar, entretanto, algumas conclusões a pensar no futuro: 

1 - A nível oficial não existem censuras do ponto de vista legal. O ambiente 

legal é dos mais liberais que conhecemos.A Lei que rege os media é francamente 

aberta, sem restrições que até acontecem em países de democracia mais velha 

que a nossa. Por exemplo, o jornalista nem sequer pode ser interrogado em 

juizo sobre a proveniência das respectivas notícias. 

2 - O Estado trata a imprensa como se de uma outra indústria qualquer se 

tratasse. Não existem subsídios para os consumíveis que os media são obrigados 

a importar, como é o caso do papel, excessivamente caro, custo que estrangula 

muitos órgãos de comunicação.Não seria difícil estabelecer percentagens em 

regime de igualdade. 

3 - Não existe qualquer isenção de impostos. 

4 - Predomina uma gestão não adequada aos objectivos da produção 

jornalística.Direi um tanto atrevidamente que o principal problema da liberdade 

de informação reside numa compreensão inadequada da gestão dos média.Não 

se atende ao verdadeiro objectivo que é o de produzir notícias, comentários, 

histórias, reportagens, análises e opiniões, onde deveria ser feito o principal 

investimento. 

5 - Os jornalistas auferem salários exíguos e não gozam de assistência social 

conveniente com os consequentes reflexos negativos na respectiva profissão. 

2002 


MOZAMBIQUE 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-17 

PERSON(S): Marcello Mosse 

INSTITUTION(S): Metical 


President Joaquim Alberto 

Chissano’s son, Nympine Chissano, 

filed charges of criminal defamation 

against Marcello Mosse and 

“Metical” over a February 21, 2001 

“Metical” article reporting that 

Nympine Chissano was briefly detained 

in South Africa, around 15 

February, on unspecified charges. 

In a written denial sent to 

“Metical” in March, Nympine 

Chissano’s lawyer threatened legal 

action against the newspaper, declaring 

that his client was not detained 

and had “never transported cocaine 

or other substances forbidden by law 

inside or outside the country,” according 

to AIM, the Mozambican 

state news service. 

However, sources concur that the 

“Metical” story did not mention cocaine 

or any other illegal substance. 

That allegation first appeared in the 

Johannesburg “Mail and Guardian” 

under the byline of a South African 

journalist. Mosse later repeated the 

allegation in the Portuguese weekly 

“Expresso”, for which he is the correspondent 

in Mozambique. 

The next hearing is scheduled for 

January 21. Nympine Chissano is 

seeking damages of US$80 000 from 

Mosse and “Metical”. A guilty verdict 

could also result in a jail sentence 

for the journalist. 

“Metical” cannot be liable for allegations 

that it did not publish. For 

this reason alone, Nympine 

Chissano’s case has no merit. 

“Metical”, which closed its doors 

in late December 2001, was the property 

of its founder and first editor, 

Carlos Cardoso, who was murdered 

on November 22, 2000. After 

Cardoso’s death, ownership of the 

paper passed to Cardoso’s two underage 

children, Ibo and Milena, under 

the legal supervision of their mother, 

Nina Berg. In the worst-case scenario, 

the court could jail Mosse and 

bankrupt the Cardoso family. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-03-11 

PERSON(S): Marcello Mosse 

INSTITUTION(S): Metical 


On Monday March 11, 2002, the libel 

case pursued by businessman 

Nyimpinhe Chissano, son of 

Mozambican President Joaquim 

Chissano, against journalist Marcelo 

Mosse and the now defunct newssheet 

“Metical”, was postponed. This 

is the fifth time that the case has been 

postponed. 

The case was to have been heard in 

the Maputo First Urban District Court 

on Monday March 11. However, the 

judge announced that a protest lodged 

by the defence with a higher court, the 

Maputo City Court, has been successful. 

This means that before the libel 

case can be heard in the lower court, 

the higher court must decide on a series 

of irregularities alleged by the defence, 

which could render the whole 

case null and void. 

The urban district judge, Wilson 

Djambo, previously admitted the appeal 

by “Metical” lawyer Lucinda 

Cruz, but ruled that the appeal could 

only be heard after the trial. Since her 



2002 

appeal was on grounds of law, Cruz 

argued that it must be dealt with first. 

She therefore lodged a protest with the 

Maputo City Court, which gave its ruling 

on the afternoon of Friday 8 March. 

Cruz and Mosse’s lawyer, Helder 

Matlaba, have pointed to a number of 

procedural irregularities in the case. 

First, they say that the charge sheet 

drawn up by Balate was delivered a 

day late - and, since Mozambican law 

is strict about time limits, this alone 

should have been enough for the case 

to be thrown out. 

Second, since Mosse is facing a 

criminal charge, a private prosecution 

is not sufficient. The public prosecutor’s 

office must also be involved - the 

public prosecutor may support the private 

charge sheet, may press different 

charges, or may give the opinion that 

no crime has been committed. 

In fact, the public prosecutor has not 

said anything. This course of action is 

not permitted. The most serious irregularity 

is the attempt to hold “Metical” 

responsible for articles published in 

South Africa and Portugal. The defence 

argues that “Metical” has no editorial 

control over what appears in 

other newspapers and can only be sued 

for what appeared within its own 

pages. 

As for “Expresso”, a Portuguese 

lawyer sent a denial to the newspaper 

which was published in full under the 

Portuguese right of reply legislation. 

“Expresso” has not been dragged 

before any Portuguese court, though 

that possibility does remain open. No 

date has yet been fixed for the Maputo 

City Court to hear the appeal against 

the procedural irregularities in the 

prosecution case. 

Under Mozambican law, there are 


two forms of libel. One is “difamacao” 

(defamation), which deals with specific 

accusations said to be untrue. 

However, Chissano Jr and his lawyer 

have not opted to use this. 

Instead, Mosse and “Metical” have 

been charged with the much vaguer 

crime of “injuria” (affront). According 

to the definition of this crime, libel 

takes the form of indeterminate accusations, 

such as claims that the offended 

person is a criminal, a bandit, 

a scoundrel, and so forth. The key difference 

is that in defamation cases the 

accused can opt for the defence that 

what he wrote is true. But in cases of 

affront, there is no possibility of such 

a defence. 

Active legal proceedings are only 

underway against “Metical”, the smallest 

of the three newspapers that contained 

the offending articles. 

In 2001, Chissano Jr announced his 

intention to sue the “Mail and Guardian”. 

However, foreign citizens who 

have no assets in South Africa must 

make a deposit to cover legal costs in 

cases such as this. In July, the “Mail 

and Guardian” demanded a deposit of 

ZAR100 000 (approx. US$9 800) from 

Chissano Jr. Since then, the newspaper 

has not heard from him. However, 

it is still possible for the case to be 

pursued in the South African courts. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-09-03 

PERSON(S): Carlos Cardoso 

VIOLATION(S): Killed 

One of the six men accused of murdering 

Mozambique’s best known 

journalist, Carlos Cardoso, has escaped 

from Maputo’s top security jail. 

On September 2, 2002, a police

MOZAMBIQUE 


spokesman told Cardoso’s widow, 

Nina Berg, that the suspect, Anibal 

Antonio dos Santos Junior (better 

known by his underworld nickname 

of Anibalzinho), had escaped from 

the prison at about 11:00 p.m. (local 

time) on the night of 1 September. 

No further details on the escape are 

available at present. 

The trial of Anibalzinho and the 

five other accused is expected to start 

in the next few weeks, following unsuccessful 

appeals by the defence 

lawyers of the case going to trial. 

Judge Augusto Paulino must still set 

a trial date. 

Cardoso, editor of the independent 

newssheet “Metical” and a former 

director of Mozambique’s state news 

agency AIM, was assassinated on 

November 22, 2000. After a vigorous 

public campaign by Cardoso’s 

family, friends and colleagues, the 

police arrested suspects in February 

and March 2001. 

With the help of the Swazi police, 

Anibalzinho and a second suspect, 

Manuel Fernandes, were arrested in 

Swaziland and brought back to 

Maputo. It was discovered that 

Anibalzinho is a Portuguese citizen, 

but was also using a forged 

Mozambican passport under the 

name Carlos Pinto da Cruz. 

A story published at the time by 

the weekly newspaper “Savana” 

noted that Anibalzinho had good police 

connections arising from his 

business as a trafficker of luxury vehicles, 

which he would bring in from 

South Africa and resell in Maputo. 

In March 2001, four other people 

were picked up. Carlos Rachid 

Cassamo was alleged, along with 

Anibalzinho and Fernandes, to be a 

member of the hit squad that carried 

out the killing. Former bank manager 

Vicente Ramaya and wealthy businessmen 

Ayob Abdul Satar and 

Momade Assife Abdul Satar were arrested 

as the “moral authors” of the 

crime. They allegedly paid the assassins 

to murder Cardoso. 

Ramaya and members of the 

Abdul Satar family were the main 

suspects in a huge bank fraud case in 

1996, which saw the equivalent of 

US$14 million siphoned out of the 

Commercial Bank of Mozambique 

(BCM) on the eve of its privatisation. 

Cardoso had followed the case tenaciously, 

repeatedly demanding that 

those who swindled the BCM be 

brought to justice. He also investigated 

other shady business affairs of 

the Abdul Satar family, including 

loan sharking and illegal wire-tapping. 

Since March 2001, all six suspects 

in Cardoso’s murder have been detained 

in a top security jail, while investigations 

continue. Their lawyers 

have used every device available to 

delay a trial, but eventually ran out 

of room for manoeuvre. Before 

Anibalzinho’s escape, it was generally 

expected that the trial would begin 

in September or October. 

Anibalzinho’s escape has demonstrated 

the truth of the accusations 

levied against the country’s prisons 

by Attorney General Joaquim Madeira 

earlier in 2002. Reporting to 

Parliament on 6 March, Madeira declared, 

“Inmates escape from almost 

all the country’s prisons, sometimes 

in a spectacular fashion. Preliminary 

investigations indicate that these escapes 

enjoyed the connivance of 

prison guards, or were at least facili- 



2002 

tated by their inexcusable negligence.” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-08 

PERSON(S): Fernando Lima, Kok 

Nam, Marcello Moss 


According to “MediaFax”, as well as 

the Maputo weekly “Domingo”, a 

man identified as “Opa,” or “Uapa,” 

testified on September 23 before the 

magistrate investigating the Cardoso 

murder. 

Opa claimed he met Momade 

Abdul Satar, the accused mastermind 

of the Cardoso murder, while in jail 

and alleged that Satar had told him 

that he had carried out Cardoso’s 

murder at the behest of someone he 

described as “o filho do galo” (the 

son of the rooster). In a September 

27 column signed by journalist 

Fernando Lima, MediaFax reported 

that Opa had told the magistrate that 

the “son of the rooster” referred to 

Nymphine Chissano. 

The next night, at about 1 a.m., a 

truck arrived at the home of Kok 

Nam, the publisher of “Savana”, 

which is owned by the same media 

cooperative-MediaCoop-that publishes 

“MediaFax”. The driver of the 

truck said he had about 100 chickens 

to deliver to Kok Nam and 

Fernando Lima, who had written the 

article in “MediaFax”. The driver 

claimed that the chickens were a gift 

from the first lady, Marcelina 

Chissano. Later that day, similar 

trucks carrying chickens attempted to 

make deliveries to the home of 

MediaFax editor Marcelo Mosse and 

to the offices of “MediaCoop”. 


UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-11-04 

PERSON(S): Fernando Lima, Kok 

Nam, Marcello Moss 


First Lady Marcelina Chissano has 

denied intimidating any of the country’s 

journalists, and has demanded 

that her “good name and right to privacy 

be respected.” 

A letter sent by her lawyer, 

Augusto Macedo Pinto, to the independent 

weekly “Mediafax”, and 

published on November 1 2002, also 

stressed that the first lady wanted to 

see the case of the murder of Carlos 

Cardoso, the newspaper’s founding 

editor, “resolved as rapidly as possible, 

and the guilty parties tried and 

sentenced.” 

The letter, which made no explicit 

threat of legal action, was clearly in 

response to claims made a month ago 

that the first lady had sent mysterious 

gifts of live chickens to 

“Mediafax” editor Marcelo Mosse, 

Fernando Lima, chairman of the 

board of Mediacoop (the company 

that owns the newspaper), and Kok 

Nam, director of the Mediacoop 

weekly “Savana”. 

The delivery of the chickens followed 

“Mediafax”’s publication of 

articles concerning “o filho do galo” 

(“the son of the cockerel”). The 

newspaper had revealed that a new 

witness, named only as “Opa”, had 

been heard by the magistrate investigating 

the Cardoso murder. Opa had 

just been released from Maputo’s top 

security prison after serving half of 

a 10-year sentence for illegal possession 

of firearms. While in jail, he had 

come to know Momade Assife Abdul

MOZAMBIQUE 


Satar (alias “Nini”), one of the businessmen 

accused of ordering 

Cardoso’s assassination. According 

to “Mediafax”, Opa testified that 

Nini had told him he was merely a 

go-between, acting on behalf of “o 

filho do galo.” The following day, an 

article by Lima, entitled “A chicken 

called Nyimpine”, identified “o filho 

do galo” as Nyimpine Chissano, 

President Joaquim Chissano’s son. 

Lima said that when asked the identity 

of “o filho do galo”, Opa had 

given Nyimpine Chissano’s name, 

and the president son’s name had 

been entered in the minutes of the 

hearing. 

The men who delivered the live 

chickens to the three journalists 

claimed they were a gift from the first 

lady, and journalists believe they 

came from a poultry farm owned by 

Marcelina Chissano in the city of 

Matola. However, a spokesperson for 

the first lady’s office denied any 

knowledge of the chickens. 

“Mediafax” interpreted the delivery 

of the chickens as a peculiar type of 

veiled threat. 

Pinto’s letter neither confirmed nor 

denied that Marcelina Chissano had 

sent the chickens. The letter insisted 

that “no journalist was, or ever will 

be, intimidated or threatened.” Pinto 

claimed that the first lady’s “most elementary 

individual rights [had] been 

violated,” notably through “lack of 

rigour and objectivity” in the press. 

“Facts are invented, rumours are 

used, the privacy and intimate sphere 

of her family relations are invaded, 

with the intent to create tension 

within her family, and seriously damage 

the good image and reputation 

of all her relatives,” Pinto claimed. 

The honour and consideration due to 

the first lady “have been deeply and 

seriously affected, with grave social 

repercussions,” the letter continued, 

while calling for an end to “public 

trials” in the pages of the press, and 

stressing that “it is universally recognised 

that all citizens have the right 

to honour, good name, reputation, the 

defence of their public image, and to 

their privacy.” 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-12-12 

PERSON(S): Carlos Cardoso 

VIOLATION(S): Killed 

On December 10, 2002, two colleagues 

of murdered journalist Carlos 

Cardoso told the Maputo City Court 

that two of the six men charged with 

the assassination had regularly visited 

Cardoso’s offices. 

Victor Matsinhe and Zacarias 

Couto were reporters at “Metical”, 

the daily newsletter owned and edited 

by Cardoso. Couto was also the 

“Metical” office manager. They both 

said that Carlitos Rashid Cassamo, 

the man who has confessed to firing 

the shots that killed Cardoso, visited 

the “Metical” office regularly in October 

and November 2000. The two 

journalists also confirmed that Anibal 

dos Santos Junior (alias 

“Anibalzinho”), the man accused of 

organising a death squad to assassinate 

Cardoso, visited the “Metical” 

office twice. 

In a related incident, on December 

10, Eduardo Jorge, a Portuguese 

lawyer who is representing Maputo 

loan shark Momade Assife Abdul 

Satar (alias “Nini”), one of the men 

charged with ordering Cardoso’s 



murder, sought to take legal action 

against a newspaper. The lawyer objected 

to a front-page article in the 

latest issue of the weekly “O Pais”, 

entitled “Nini may be involved in the 

death of Siba-Siba”. The article suggested 

that those responsible for 

Cardoso’s murder may have also ordered 

the killing of Austral Bank 

Chairman Antonio Siba-Siba 

Macuacua on August 11, 2001. 

Jorge requested that presiding 

Judge Augusto Paulino summon “O 

Pais” editor Ramos Miguel to appear 

before the court and testify on what 

he knows about the Siba-Siba case. 

Jorge insisted that journalists must be 

held responsible for what they write. 

He claimed it would be “complicated” 

to use the press law, “and it 

won’t have any effect.” The judge 

suggested, however, that if anyone 

was upset by media coverage, they 

should opt for the remedies available 

under the press law, in other words, 

either demand a right of reply or start 

libel proceedings. 

The trial of the six men accused of 

murdering Cardoso opened on November 

18 under tight security in the 

Mozambican capital, Maputo. The 

defendants are businessmen Ayob 

and Abdul Satar, former bank manager 

Vicente Ramaya, and two members 

of the hit squad that they allegedly 

recruited to murder Cardoso, 

Manuel Fernandes and Rashid 

Cassamo. The third member of the 

hit squad, Anibalzinho, escaped from 

prison on 1 September and is being 

tried in absentia. The accused face 

charges for Cardoso’s murder on 

November 22, 2000, the attempted 

murder of Cardoso’s driver, Carlos 

Manjate, the formation of a criminal 

association and the illegal possession 

and use of firearms. Anibalzinho also 

faces charges for using a fake passport 

and making false statements to 

the authorities. 

2002 



Namibia 

By Pauliina Shilongo 

Lecturer, Department of Media Technology, Polytechnic of Namibia 

During 2002 the Government of Namibia increased its animosity towards 

the free and independent media. President Sam Nujoma also 

targeted the public broadcaster, the NBC, throughout the year. The 

campaign culminated in President Nujoma giving himself the ministerial portfolio 

of Information and Broadcasting in an unexpected Cabinet reshuffle at 

the end of August. Events that took place following Nujoma’s self-appointment 

signalled that the environment for the media in Namibia is changing for 

the worse. 

On 27 August 2002 President Sam Nujoma announced that he would take 

over as the Minister of Information and Broadcasting. In a Cabinet reshuffle, 

the president split the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Information and Broadcasting, 

which had been joined together in another Cabinet reshuffle in 2000. 

He decided to personally take over the reins of the Information and Broadcasting 

division. Nujoma claimed that the move was necessary to clean up the 

management crisis at the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), which 

had long been plagued by financial instability and infighting between the board 

and management of the corporation. Two days after President Nujoma assumed 

his new position it was reported that the Cabinet had approved a N$100 

million bail out for the NBC. 

At the press briefing where the President announced the take-over, he also 

made thinly veiled threats against journalists. Pointing to an NBC journalist 

at the briefing Nujoma asked if the reporter was one of NBC’s undisciplined 

employees. “Are you one of them? If you are, you will be dealt with, rest 

assured,” the President said. 

He added: “Now what kind of NBC is that? Is NBC working for the interest 

of this country? As journalists we all have to defend Namibia. The NBC acts 

as agents of some enemies.” 

Soon after taking upon himself the portfolio of Information and Broadcasting, 

the President initiated some changes in the NBC TV programme schedule. 

The television news slot in indigenous languages was moved from 22h00 

to directly follow the English bulletin at 20h00 at night and the English news 

was rebroadcast at 22h00. 

Soon after that, during a visit to the public broadcaster, President Nujoma 

lashed out at some of the foreign programmes broadcast on TV. He called 



these programmes “a bad influence on the Namibian youth.” The effects of 

his influence on the NBC’s management and staff were visible to the TV 

audience the same night when an extremely popular soap opera, “The Bold 

and Beautiful”, and a mini-series scheduled for the late night slot were replaced 

by rebroadcasts of old programmes and a broadcast of the proceedings 

of the recent SWAPO Congress. 

Due to popular demand “The Bold and the Beautiful” returned to its slot the 

following day, but many other foreign programmes were removed permanently. 

The schedule was filled with rebroadcasts of old local productions and 

news and current affairs programmes. 

This prompted one opposition member of the parliament to charge that President 

Nujoma’s aim was to boost the subscriptions of the satellite service, 

Multichoice Namibia, which is 51% owned by a SWAPO holding company. 

The NBC management and board denied vehemently that the programme 

changes were done at the instruction of the president. The chairperson of the 

NBC board Uazuva Kaumbi said that the president merely expressed his views 

about the foreign programmes, and the staff responsible for the programming 

effected the changes on their own. It is however clear that President Nujoma’s 

influence at the NBC is considerable. Another indicator of this is that the 

main TV news bulletin has started to resemble President Nujoma’s personal 

news bulletin. The Media Monitoring Project of Namibia (MMPN) counted 

that in September Nujoma featured in the TV news 31 times, i.e. at least once 

in every bulletin. 

The staff of the troubled NBC continued to live under the threat of retrenchments 

for most of the year. The restructuring process, which the board had 

planned since the beginning of the year, as well as continuous hostility between 

the NBC board chairperson Uazuva Kaumbi and the Director General 

Ben Mulongeni, gained momentum on September 17 when Mulongeni resigned 

after having been asked to do so by the board. 

In May the Government released a draft of a new Communications Bill for 

comment from the public. MISA and the National Community Radio Network 

(NCRN) have criticised a number of issues in the draft bill and lobbied 

MPs before the bill is tabled in the parliament. 

2002 

The new bill is geared towards the commercialisation of the telecommunications 

sector. While this is not a bad thing as it allows the public more choice in 

choosing a cellular network provider, the bill overlooks the importance of the 

broadcasting sector in a country such as Namibia. The new bill gives priority 

to commercial broadcasters. This is contrary to many international treaties 

that Namibia has signed, for example the SADC protocol on Culture, Information 

and Sport, which was adopted by the National Assembly in Novem- 


NAMIBIA 


ber. The bill also does not deal with the public broadcaster. The bill will establish 

a new regulatory body, the Communications Authority of Namibia (CAN), 

which will only regulate commercial and community broadcasters. It is also 

necessary for the bill to establish clearly the independence of the CAN as the 

telecommunications regulator. 

The Namibian media industry saw a few newcomers during the year 2002, 

including the emergence of new community publications. The Southern Sun, 

a monthly newsletter for the Karas region, started publishing in January in 

Keetmanshoop. During the yearThe Southern Sun gained popularity and trust 

among its readers in the south of Namibia as a watchdog over local and 

regional governing bodies, which had grown accustomed to operating with 

no checks and balances. The Caprivi Vision, which provides news from the 

Caprivi region, was launched in May. 

Two new commercial radio stations were licensed to broadcast from February. 

One is the Omulunga Radio station based in Oshakati in the north of the 

country, which is also the most populated area of Namibia. The station broadcasts 

in the Oshiwambo language and planned to expand to other parts of the 

country during the year. The other station, Live FM, started broadcasting in 

Rehoboth, a town about 80 kilometres to the south of the capital, Windhoek. 

The country’s first community radio station Katutura Community Radio 

(KCR), which went off air in February 2001 and lost its licence in November 

of the same year, changed its board and applied for a new licence which was 

granted to them in November. 

A Christian television network, Trinity Broadcasting, was awarded a community 

broadcasting licence to operate in the coastal towns of Swakopmund 

and Walvis Bay. Of the two private television stations, which went on air in 

2001, Desert TV experienced difficulties with its partners and was off air for 

long periods in 2002. TV Africa Namibia continued to broadcast foreign 

programming. 

The Government of Namibia continued to enforce its advertising ban against 

The Namibian. A cartoon published in The Namibian newspaper on September 

6, in which Namibian President Sam Nujoma was depicted as an attack 

dog of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe stirred up a strong reaction in 

sections of the ruling party. 

The cartoon was a comment on Nujoma’s speech at the World Summit in 

Johannesburg where he condemned Britain and other Western nations for interfering 

in the African countries. In response to the cartoon the SWAPO Youth 

League demanded insult laws to protect the President and called on SWAPOdominated 

local authorities and parastatals not to advertise in The Namibian. 



The media’s right to protect its sources was challenged in November when 

the Namibia Food and Allied Workers’ Union (Nafau) threatened to sue The 

Namibian if the newspaper refused to divulge the names of its sources for a 

report that that said Nafau President Dawid Namalenga was under pressure to 

resign. 

In another case the media enjoyed a victory when the Prosecutor General 

decided not to prosecute The Namibian, Die Republikein and the Society of 

Advocates on charges of contempt of court over statements made in connection 

with a controversial High Court case. Judge President Pio Teek laid the 

contempt complaint in early 2001. 

In May the Namibian chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) 

launched a media monitoring report, summarising the findings of a four-month 

study of the Namibian media conducted by the Media Monitoring Project of 

Namibia (MMPN). 

The pilot phase of the project, funded by the Open Society Institute of Southern 

Africa (OSISA), involved monitoring the main news in both print and 

broadcasting in the country from July to October 2001. The second phase of 

the MMPN runs from April 2002 to March 2003. 

The aim of the monitoring project is to establish if state-funded media are 

meeting their obligation to reflect a variety of political and social opinion and 

perspectives; whether all media - be it public or private - adhere to commonly 

accepted professional and ethical standards; and to estimate how far the media 

meet the information needs of all Namibians. 

The findings of the MMPN showed that all media, and mostly NBC radio and 

television, rely much too heavily on single sources for their stories, creating 

“constant imbalance”; that roughly 75% of the voices accessed in the media 

are male; that about 61% of all stories are from the Khomas region creating 

an imbalance in the regional reporting; and that all media, and mostly the 

NBC, rely too heavily on reporting on conferences, workshops, speeches and 

other events. 

2002 



Namíbia 

Por: Paulina Shilongo 

Catedrática, no Departamento de tecnologia da imprensa, Politécnica da 

Namíbia. 

Durante o ano de 2002, o governo Namibiano aumentou a sua 

animosidade contra a imprensa livre e independente. O Presidente 

Sam Nujoma também alvejou o difusor público, a Televisão Publica 

Namíbia (NBC), durante o ano inteiro. A campanha com a auto-proclamaçao 

do Presidente como Ministro da Informação e Radiodifusão numa inesperada 

remodelação realizada em Agosto do ano passado. 

Os eventos que se seguiram da auto-proclamação do presidente indicaram de 

que o meio ambiente para a imprensa na Namíbia estava a mudar para o pior. 

No dia 27 de Agosto de 2002, o presidente Sam Nujoma anunciou que tomaria 

sobre o ministério da Informação e Radiodifusão. O presidente dividiu o 

Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Informação e Radiodifusão que tinha 

sido difundido num outro ministério no ano de 2000. Nujoma decidiu tomar 

pessoalmente o reinado da divisão da Informação e Radiodifusão. Nujoma 

reclamava de que era necessário esta moção a fim de realizar uma operação 

de limpeza com vista a por fim a crise da gestão na NBC, que por muito 

tempo esteve mergulhada em instabilidade financeira e contendas entre o 

conselho e corpo directivo da NBC. Dois dias depois do presidente ter 

assumido o reinado da divisão de Informação e Radiodifusão, o governo 

aprovou uma verba no valor de N$ 100 milhões para caucionar a NBC. 

Na conferência de imprensa onde o presidente anunciou a tomada de poder 

da pasta de Informação e Radiodifusão, Nujoma também lançou algumas 

ameaças contra os jornalistas. Apontando a um jornalista durante a 

conferencia de imprensa Nujoma questionou se o jornalista era um dos 

empregados indisciplinados da NBC. “Tu és um deles?” Se tu és, posso te 

assegurar que as coisas estarão agora sob controlo,” disse Nujoma. 

Mas adiante Nujoma acrescentou: “Que tipo de NBC é esta? Será que a 

NBC está a trabalhar para os interesses deste país? Como jornalistas devemos 

todos defender o país. A NBC age como se fosse agente de alguns inimigos.” 

Pouco depois de tomar as pastas da divisão de Informação e Radiodifusão o 

presidente começou a realizar algumas mudanças na programação da 

televisão. O noticiário em línguas nacionais que era apresentado as 22h00 

passou a ser apresentado logo depois do noticiário em inglês das 20h00. O 

noticiário passou a ser difundido pela segunda vez as 22h00. Durante uma 



visita a NBC, Sam Nujoma lançou ataques contra alguns programas 

estrangeiros apresentados na NBC. Nujoma chamou tais programa “de má 

influencia para a juventude Namibiana”. A influencia do presidente junto do 

corpo directivo e membros do staff da NBC se fez sentir junto da audiência 

na mesma noite quando a série popular “A Bela e o Monstro” e uma outra 

série que devia ser apresentado mais tarde foram substituídos com a 

apresentação de programas antigos e a difusão do recente congresso da 

SWAPO. 

Por causa da exigência do público a série “a Bela e Monstro” voltou a aparecer 

na televisão pública no dia seguinte, mas o mesmo não se pode dizer dos 

outros programas estrangeiros que até o dia de hoje continuam desaparecidos 

da televisão pública. As séries estrangeiras foram substituídos com programas 

locais antigos, noticiários e programas da actualidade. 

Estes eventos incitaram um membro parlamentar da oposição a acusar o 

presidente Sam Nujoma de que o seu objectivo era realçar as subscrições do 

público aos serviços da televisão satélite “Multichoice Namíbia” na qual 

uma empresa da SWAPO possui 51% em acções. O corpo directivo da NBC, 

na companhia dos membros do staff negou categoricamente de que as 

mudanças registadas na NBC não eram resultado das instruções do presidente. 

O Presidente do Conselho da NBC, Uazuva Kaumbi disse que o presidente 

simplesmente expressou as suas convicções sobre os programas estrangeiros 

e que os membros do staff responsáveis pela programação aplicaram as 

mudanças necessárias de sua escolha. É portanto claro de que a influência 

do presidente na NBC é considerada. Um outro indicador deste factor, cingiuse 

no noticiário que começou a assemelhar-se com os [princípios] do próprio 

presidente. O Projecto monitor da imprensa na Namíbia (MMPN), registou 

a aparência do presidente na NBC só em Setembro 31 vezes, pelos menos 

uma vez em todos boletim de noticias todos os dias. 

O staff da NBC continuou a viver ameaças de demissão na maior parte do 

ano. O processo de reestruturação, planeado pelo conselho desde o indicio 

do ano, assim como a continuidade das hostilidades entre o presidente do 

Conselho da NBC Uazuva Kaumbi e do Director Geral Ben Mulongeni, 

ganhou espaço no dia 17 de Setembro quando Mulongeni demitiu-se depois 

de ter sido instruído pelo conselho. 

Em Maio o governo publicou o esboço do projecto-lei para a Comunicação 

para comentários públicos. MISA e o Network da Rádio Nacional 

Comunitária (NCRN) criticaram um numero de questões contidos no esboço 

do projecto-lei e apadrinhou-se a alguns membros do parlamente antes da 

apresentação do projecto-lei no Parlamento. 

2002 

O novo projecto-lei prevê a comercialização do sector de comunicação. 

Embora isto não seja mau, porque permite uma variedade de escolha ao 

público em escolher o provedor de serviços, o projecto-lei ignora a 


NAMIBIA 


importância do sector da radiodifusão num país como a Namibnia. O novo 

projecto-lei dá prioridade às radiodifusões comerciais. Isto é contrário aos 

vários tratados internacionais assinados pela Namíbia, como por exemplo o 

protocolo da SADC sobre a Cultura, Informação e Desporto que foi adoptado 

pela Assembleia Nacional em Novembro. O projecto-lei também nem sequer 

lida com o difusor público. O projecto-lei estabelecerá um novo órgão 

regulador as Autoridades para a Comunicação Namibiana (CAN) que terá 

somente a responsabilidade de regular a os difusores comunitários e 

independentes. É também necessário que o projecto-lei estabeleça claramente 

a independência do CAN como regulador das Comunicações. 

A indústria de informação Namibiana registou novas aparições durante o 

ano de 2002, incluindo a aparição de novas publicações comunitárias. O 

“Southern Sun” um boletim mensal para a região de Karas parte sul do país, 

começou a publicar as suas edições em Janeiro a partir do centro sul 

Keetmanshoep. Durante o ano “The Southern Sun” ganhou popularidade e 

confiança dentre os seus leitores como sendo a vigília no sul do país sobre 

os órgãos governantes que estava acostumado a funcionar sem qualquer 

prestação de contas. O “The Caprivi Vision” que providencia noticias na 

região do Caprivi também marcou a sua presença em Maio. 

Emitiram-se licenças para duas rádios comercias que deram inicio as suas 

operações em Fevereiro. Uma delas é a rádio Omulunga baseada no Oshakati, 

parte norte do país, que é a área com maior população no país. Esta estação 

difundi em Oshiwambo [língua indígena] e tem como objectivo expandir os 

seus programas para outras partes do país. A outra estação a “Live FM” 

começou a difundir na cidade do Rehoboth uma cidade que se dista a 87 km 

sul da capital Windhoek. 

A primeira estação de rádio comunitária do país, “Katutura Community 

Rádio” (KCR) que começou com as suas operações Fevereiro de 2001 e 

perdeu a sua licença em Novembro do mesmo ano, mudou o seu conselho de 

governadores e fez a aplicação para uma nova licença que foi concedida em 

Novembro. 

Uma Network da Televisão Cristã, “Trinity television” foi atribuída uma 

licença para a difusão comunitária a fim de operar nas áreas costeiras do 

país nomeadamente Walvis Bay e Swakopmund. Das duas estações de 

televisão privada, que estiveram no ar no ano de 2001, a “Desert TV” 

enfrentou uma série de dificuldades com os seus parceiros e paralisou as 

suas difusões durante muito tempo em 2002. A “TV Africa Namíbia” 

continuou a difundir programas internacionais. 

O governo da Namíbia continuou a impor o seu banimento nas publicidades 

contra o diário “The Namibian”. Uma caricatura publicada na edição do dia 

06 de Setembro, no qual o presidente Sam Nujoma foi retratado com um cão 



de ataque do presidente Zimbabueano Robert Mugabe provocou uma reacção 

forte dentro de algumas secções do partido no poder SWAPO. A caricatura 

retratava o discurso do presidente Sam Nujoma na Cimeira Mundial para o 

Desenvolvimento Sustentável realizado em Durban na Africa do Sul, onde 

Nujoma condenou o primeiro-ministro Britânico Tony Blair e outras nações 

que se interferem nos assuntos dos países Africanos. Em resposta a caricatura 

a Liga da Juventude da SWAPO exigiu [leis de insultos] que protejam o 

presidente e apelou as autoridades locais dominada por membros da SWAPO 

a no fazer qualquer publicidade através do “The Namibian”. 

O direito da imprensa que visa proteger a sua fonte foi desafiado em 

Novembro, quando a União dos Trabalhadores Aliados (NAFAU), ameaçou 

intimar judicialmente o diário “The Namibian” caso recusasse divulgar os 

nomes das fontes que disseram que o presidente da NAFAU, Dawid 

Namalenga estava sob forte pressão para demitir-se. 

Num outro incidente a imprensa teve uma vitoria quando o procurador geral 

decidiu não levar a mesa de justiça o “The Namibian”, “The Republikein” e 

a sociedade dos advogados sob acusações de desdém ao tribunal pelos 

comentários feitos em conexão com o controverso caso no tribunal supremo. 

O juiz Pio Teek fez a aplicação do caso de desdém ao tribunal no início de 

2001. 

Em Maio a delegação do Instituto dos Média da Africa Austral, Misa-Namibia, 

lançou um relatório sobre o monitoramento da imprensa sumariando 

as descobertas feita durante os estudos nos quatro meses sobre a imprensa 

Namibiana conduzido pelo projecto de Monitoramento da Namíbia (MMPN). 

A fase piloto do projecto, financiado pela Open Society Institute of Southern 

Africa (OSISA), envolveu o monitoramento das principais noticiais no 

país tanto na imprensa escrita como radiodifusão no país a partir de Julho à 

Outubro de 2001. A segunda fase cobriu de Abril de 2002 a Março de 2003. 

2002 

O projecto de monitoramento tem como objectivo estabelecer se a imprensa 

estatal estão a cumprir com as suas obrigações que implica a reflexão da 

variedade da opinião e perspectiva politica e social; caso toda a imprensa – 

quer seja pública ou privada – adere aos padrões éticos profissionais 

amplamente aceites; e a estimar ate que ponto a imprensa cobre as 

necessidades de informação de todos os Namibianos. 

As descobertas do projecto MMPN indicaram que toda a imprensa, e 

principalmente a rádio e televisão da NBC, confiavam as suas histórias 

grandemente em fontes singulares (única) criando desta feita um “constante 

desequilíbrio” ; que quase 75% das vozes com acesso na imprensa eram 

vozes masculinas; 61% de todas as histórias eram da região de Khomas 

criando mas uma vez um desequilíbrio na reportagem regional; e que toda a 

imprensa e principalmente a NBC, confiava grandemente as suas reportagens 

a partir de conferencias, workshops, discursos e outros eventos. 


NAMIBIA 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-04 

INSTITUTION(S): Katutura 

Community Radio (KCR) 


The Namibian Communications 

Commission (NCC) has indicated 

that the Katutura Community Radio 

(KCR) station will have to reapply 

for its broadcast licence if it wants it 

back. The station’s licence was revoked 

in November 2001 after the 

station had been off the air since 

March and had failed to pay its annual 

licencing fees. “They must follow 

all legal procedures as they did 

in the beginning. The commission 

will consider them only if they apply,” 

said NCC’s Jan Kruger. 

MISA has learnt that the NCC is 

considering the option of auctioning 

the frequency to the highest bidder. 

MISA is currently in negotiation with 

the NCC and other interested parties 

to lobby for the retention of the frequency 

for community broadcasting 

initiatives. 

KCR, off the air since February, 

lost its broadcasting licence on 

Wednesday 28 November. The NCC 

revoked KCR’s licence on the basis 

that the station was not broadcasting 

and was in arrears. 

The NCC decision was announced 

in the December 15 edition of the 

“Government Gazette”. Ann Strauss, 

one of KCR’s trustees, was quoted 

at the time as saying that KCR 

wanted to continue broadcasting and 

that negotiations over sponsorship to 

get the radio station back on air were 

at an advanced stage. 

KCR previously attracted a large 

audience in Katutura, Khomasdal 

and other parts of the Namibian capital. 

KCR stopped broadcasting when 

about ten volunteers went on a wildcat 

strike, accusing management and 

the directors of ignoring their appeals 

for improved working conditions. 

Some of the striking volunteers also 

objected to changes made to the 

broadcast schedule, which would 

have reduced the time the station 

used to play music. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-08-28 

INSTITUTION(S): Namibian 

Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) 


PRESIDENT Sam Nujoma on August 

27, 2002, took over the Information 

and Broadcasting Ministry, 

saying it is a bid to tackle problems 

at the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation 

(NBC). 

He immediately called a meeting 

with the broadcaster’s Board that day. 

During a press conference at State 

House, Nujoma announced that he 

had decided to split the Ministry of 

Foreign Affairs, Information and 

Broadcasting into two, giving Foreign 

Affairs to Hidipo Hamutenya 

and taking Information and Broadcasting 

for himself. 

Some sectors of the media immediately 

expressed concern about the 

implications of Nujoma taking over 

at Information and Broadcasting. 

Some observers said they fear a 

more authoritarian approach to the 

media and problems for journalists 

obtaining accreditation, as has happened 

in Zimbabwe. 

Others feel Nujoma’s decision to 



2002 

place himself at the head of the Information 

Ministry may only be a temporary 

move so that he can oversee 

changes at the NBC. 

The President on August 27 said he 

planned to clean up the “mess” at the 

NBC. He had his first meeting with the 

NBC Board yesterday afternoon but 

the outcome was not known at the time 

of going to press. 

Nujoma said the NBC was corrupt 

and was being used by “enemies” of 

the State to sabotage Government initiatives 

and the national economy. 

“NBC is the mirror of the nation. But 

in NBC there is corruption,” he said, 

before adding that one of its managers 

had destroyed seven to eight NBC vehicles 

but had got off the hook. 

This appeared to be a reference to 

the NBC’s Controller for Human Resources 

and Administration, Vitura 

Kavari, who was charged with 20 

counts of misconduct which ranged 

from misuse of NBC cars to the assault 

of a junior employee. He was 

convicted on only two counts. 

Further, said the President: 

“Cheques or money are being stolen 

at NBC. There is no discipline [at 

NBC].” 

Nujoma also cited the case in which 

the NBC broadcast a news item about 

“enemies of Namibia” at Walvis Bay 

who took fish cans to South Africa and 

declared that they were “rotten and 

dangerous for consumption”. 

Nujoma said the NBC followed up 

the story and “showed even the tins” 

before the situation was “rectified”. 

“Now what kind of NBC is that? Is 

NBC working for the interest of this 

country? As journalists we all have to 

defend Namibia. The NBC act as 

agents of some enemies,” Nujoma 


said. 

Looking at the NBC reporter covering 

the media briefing, Nujoma said 

he would discipline NBC employees. 

“You can go and tell your friends,” 

he said to NBC’s Lahja Kandongo. 

Earlier, when she introduced herself 

as “Lahja Kandongo from the NBC 

TV”, Nujoma bluntly asked “What?” 

as if it was the first time he had seen 

the reporter who regularly reports on 

presidential matters. When she restated 

her name, Nujoma asked whether she 

was one of the indisciplined NBC 

employees. 

“Are you one of them? If you are, 

you will be dealt with. Rest assured,” 

he said without even waiting for her 

reply. 

Nujoma also called a Windhoek Observer 

reporter a “comrade”. 

“Yes comrade,” he said to Brigitte 

Weidlich, as he gave her a chance to 

pose a question, but while she was still 

getting up, he asked: “Can I call you a 

comrade? Are you a comrade?”. 

When Weidlich stated that she was 

a journalist and not a Swapo member 

he nodded that she could continue. 

When The Namibian’s Christof 

Maletsky introduced himself, Nujoma 

questioned his nationality. 

“Maletsky? Are you a Namibian?” 

he asked. When the reporter stated that 

his great grandfather was a German 

soldier who came to Namibia in the 

1800s he abruptly said “continue”. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-03 

INSTITUTION(S): Namibian 

Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) 


Namibian President Sam Nujoma has

NAMIBIA 


told the state broadcaster, the 

Namibian Broadcasting Corporation 

(NBC), to stop broadcasting foreign 

films and series that have a bad influence 

on Namibian youth. 

While addressing staff members at 

a meeting at the NBC offices on the 

afternoon of 30 September 2002, 

Nujoma instructed the broadcaster to 

show films that portray Namibia in a 

positive light. The “bad” foreign movies, 

the president stated, should be replaced 

with locally made programmes 

and documentaries on Namibia’s 

wildlife and environment. 

Immediately after the president’s 

directive, the NBC changed its schedule 

and started showing local productions 

made several years ago. 

On August 27, President Nujoma 

took over the Information and Broadcasting 

Ministry, claiming it was a bid 

to tackle problems at the NBC, and 

promising to discipline NBC employees. 

At the time, MISA noted that the 

NBC, the Namibian Communications 

Commission (NCC) and the “New 

Era” newspaper (all government institutions) 

should be operating independently 

and in the public interest 

without government interference and 

control. 

The NBC is immersed in a financial 

crisis - reportedly triggered by a 

number of factors ranging from extensive 

foreign travel by some staff 

members, abuse of overtime claims, 

fuel card fraud and financial mismanagement. 

On March 11, the NBC 

board appointed a consulting firm, 

Executive Management Services, to 

design and implement performance 

and management contracts for the 

state broadcaster. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-101-0319 

INSTITUTION(S): The Namibian 


On November 17, 2002, the Namibia 

Food and Allied Workers’ Union 

(NAFAU) threatened to take “The 

Namibian” newspaper to court if the 

newspaper refused to divulge the 

names of its sources for a report which 

stated that NAFAU President Dawid 

Namalenga was under pressure to resign. 

On October 16, “The Namibian” 

reported that Namalenga was facing 

calls to resign as NAFAU leader after 

he joined the Roads Contractor 

Company (RCC) as human resources 

manager. Last month, workers at 

NAFAU branches in a number of 

Namibian towns presented submissions 

to NAFAU Secretary General 

Cuana Angula opposing Namalenga’s 

continued presidency, arguing 

that it contradicted the union’s 

constitution. 

“The Namibian’s” journalist Max 

Hamata told MISA that Namibian 

politicians and union leaders have a 

poor understanding of freedom of 

speech and journalists’ need to protect 

their sources - one of the basic 

tenets of press freedom. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-101-0327 

INSTITUTION(S): The Namibian, 

Die Republikein, Society of Advocates 


Prosecutor General Hans Heyman has 

decided not to prosecute “The 

Namibian”, “Die Republikein” and 



2002 

the Society of Advocates on charges 

of contempt of court over statements 

made in connection with a controversial 

High Court case. The contempt 

charge was laid by Judge President 

Pio Teek in early 2001. 

On November 26, 2002, Prosecutor 

General Heyman announced that 

he had decided against prosecuting 

the two daily newspapers and the Society 

of Advocates. He has also decided 

not to prosecute Democratic 

Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) Youth 

League Secretary General Joseph 

Kauandenge on a similar charge. 

Heyman’s only explanation for his 

decision was that in his opinion there 

was no prima facie case against the 

newspapers, the Society of Advocates 

and Kauandenge. 

Judge Teek laid the complaint after 

the Society of Advocates issued a 

media statement on behalf of the Bar 

Council on 29 November 2000, while 

a hard-fought and divisive case about 

the planned deportation of the former 

representative of the National Union 

for the Total Independence of Angola 

(UNITA) in Namibia, Jose Domingos 

Sikunda, was still pending in the 

High Court. 

In the statement, issued under the 

name of the Society of Adovates’ 

then vice-president Susan Vivier, the 

judge was sharply criticised for not 

directing the mMinister of hHome 

aAffairs to comply with a month-old 

High Court order for Sikunda’s immediate 

release. 

Both newspapers reported on the 

Society of Advocates’ media statement, 

and shortly afterwards published 

editorials commenting critically 

on the case and the judge’s refusal 

to ensure that the previous court 


order for Sikunda’s release was carried 

out. 

Sikunda was eventually released 

after spending more than three 

months in detention despite the order 

for his release, and Home Affairs 

Minister Jerry Ekandjo was convicted 

of contempt of court for not 

carrying out the initial order. 

Judge Teek had by then recused 

himself from the case, criticising the 

two newspapers and the Society of 

Advocates for what he termed “the 

highest order of gross interference 

and intimidation in Namibian legal 

history” and “a blighted and scurrilous 

attack on my integrity as a 

judge.” 

He accused them of “a deliberate 

assault on and threat to” not only his 

independence, dignity and effectiveness 

as a judge, but that of the entire 

judiciary of Namibia. 

Deputy Prosecutor General 

Herman January added that a decision 

on whether to prosecute a similar 

charge laid after the South West 

Africa People’s Organization 

(SWAPO) Youth League demonstrated 

on the steps of the High Court 

in February 2001 - shortly before 

Ekandjo was found guilty of contempt 

of court - has not been taken 

yet. 

The completed police docket on 

that complaint still has to be forwarded 

to the Prosecutor General’s 

Office, January indicated. He and 

Heyman further indicated that they 

have received information that a 

similar complaint is being investigated 

against the Law Society of 

Namibia, but no docket has been received 

by the Prosecutor General’s 

Office on that case either.



By William Gumede and Goodman Chauke 

Gumede is Chairperson of MISA-SA. Chauke is the MISA-SA’s Media Officer. 

The South African media had a rough time in 2002. The media often 

came under severe fire from politicians and government officials ac 

cusing it of being “unpatriotic”. Former South African President Nelson 

Mandela encapsulated this sentiment when he spoke on the popular Tim 

Modise radio talk show in April. He accused the media of being unpatriotic 

by focussing too much on crime in their reporting and not appreciating what 

South Africa had achieved. He also argued that the kind of reporting coming 

out of South Africa had caused investment flight. 

The independence of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) 

was a big issue. The public broadcaster was plunged into controversy when 

Barney Mthombothi, its chief executive for news resigned on July 3. 

Mthombothi, one of the South Africa’s most respected journalists, had a reputation 

for independence. 

The SABC’s board and its chief executive were quick to quash speculation 

that Mthombothi fell out with senior ruling African National Congress government 

leaders and the management of the broadcaster who were allegedly 

“unhappy” about his editorial decisions. Although Mthombothi declined to 

discuss the reasons for his departure, sources within the broadcaster said the 

“last straw” was Mthombothi’s sanctioning of the showing of an unedited 

video exposing corruption at Bloemfontein’s Grootvlei prison. 

The controversy around Mthombothi’s departure had hardly died down when 

the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), the largest trade union 

federation in the country, marched on the SABC on September 24 urging the 

“speeding up of transformation” at the public broadcaster. Cosatu was aggrieved 

at the SABC’s alleged bias against “blacks, the poor and the working 

class”. The trade union federation also complained that the SABC has “done 

nothing” to promote minority languages in the country. Cosatu spokesperson 

Vukani Mde said the SABC was under the control of business interests. 

However, probably the fiercest debate around the independence of the SABC 

was sparked by the introduction of the controversial Broadcasting Amendment 

Bill by Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri in July. The 

bill stipulated that the SABC board should fall under the direct control of the 

Minister of Communications, sparking fears among media organisations that 

the SABC would lose its independence. The Media Institute of Southern Africa 

[MISA-SA] strongly argued for the need and importance of an independ- 



ent SABC in democratic South Africa. 

A last-minute amendment to the controversial Broadcasting Amendment Bill 

appeared to have lessened fears of government control of the SA Broadcasting 

Corporation and prevented a threatened Constitutional Court challenged 

by opposition parties and media freedom organisations. In terms of the amendment, 

which was introduced on October 16, the SABC board will fall under 

the control of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa 

(ICASA), and not the Minister of Communications as originally proposed. 

The SABC Board will have to submit its policies on broadcasting, which 

include news editorial policy to Icasa. The SABC’s policies would have to 

comply with Icasa’s code of conduct, and the licensing provisions imposed 

by the regulator. In addition, before the SABC’s Board finalised these policies, 

it would ensure public participation in the policy-making process. 

Parliament’s Communications Committee chair, and ANC MP, Nat Kekana 

remarked on the amended bill: “They (the legislators) have created a clause 

that expands on the charter of the corporation that will guarantee independence 

of the SABC, freedom of speech and journalistic integrity”. 

Moving away, from the SABC, there was number of other cases involving 

government interference in the work of journalists. The department of Social 

Services and Population Development requested Thuli Nhlapo, a journalist 

to from The Star newspaper to testify at their disciplinary hearing on 

September 3. Nhlapo had reported that a receptionist in the department neglected 

his duties by closing his office earlier than usual. The newspaper 

refused to have its journalist testify, as it would set a bad precedent. 

The country saw a heated debate over “tokenism” in the South African media. 

The debate was sparked by the firing of former Pace magazine editor Kuli 

Roberts in January 2003. Roberts told the Sowetan newspaper she was not 

prepared to be “just a beautiful black face”, as she claimed her employer, 

Caxton publishers, wanted her to be. She said that although she was editor she 

was forced to report to a junior white manager, who was still on probation. 

2002 

Caxton, which owns a number of publications in South Africa, including, 

Pace and The Citizen newspaper, denied Roberts’ allegations. However, the 

matter stayed in the public domain for quite a while. South African National 

Editors Forum (Sanef) chairperson, Mathatha Tsedu, said Caxton, as a company, 

was not used to editors who have overall authority. He cited the example 

of how Tim du Plessis, then editor of The Citizen (now editor of Rapport), 

was fired after he refused to be a “token” editor, dutifully carrying out 

the instructions of the publishers without editorial control. Their (Caxton’s) 

approach of having a black face and a white male running the show smacks 

of the old SABC where you had a lot of blacks working there under the 


SOUTH AFRICA 


supervision of whites, Tsedu said. 

Violence against journalists remained all too common. The year saw a number 

of rural journalists being intimidated or physically assaulted for their reporting. 

Four journalists with African Eye News Services (AENS), a rural news 

agency, were assaulted or intimated in separate incidents in Nelspruit, the 

provincial capital of Mpumalanga, over a nine-month period. 

The incidents prompted MISA to call for police protection for the journalists. 

“Rural journalists already work under far more difficult conditions then their 

metropolitan counterparts. They also enjoy significantly less institutional support, 

which makes it all the more important that effective societal safeguards, 

such as police protection, are in place,” MISA said in a statement. 

The Johannesburg offices of the South African Press Association (Sapa), the 

country’s news agency, was robbed bringing its editorial operations to a complete 

halt. Five men, one of them armed with a pistol, forced their way into 

the offices of the news agency, tied up one of the reporters and then stole vital 

equipment in the newsroom. 

On a more positive note, the Mail&Guardian scored an important victory in a 

R3m defamation suit Housing Minister Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele filed 

against the newspaper. The court ruled on September 27 that a cabinet minister 

should not have the standing to sue for defamation, where she was being 

criticised in relation to the execution of her function as a minister. The newspaper 

had published an evaluation of the minister’s performance in December 

1998, which said she “cannot deliver in a key Ministry”. 

However, more negatively, a simmering battle between Parliament and the 

parliamentary correspondents burst into the open when the Speaker of Parliament 

Frene Ginwala told the Press Gallery in early January 2003 that they 

will be moved to new premises, outside the confines of parliament. Ginwala 

said the legislature wanted the media out to make way for parliamentary staff 

that will translate proceedings into all the official languages. 

MISA-SA then called on all editors, publishers and owners of the media to 

oppose this arbitrary action. “The original decision to house journalists in 

parliament was to give them the freedom and facilities to carry out their duties. 

By removing them to another site, it must be equally obvious that their 

effectiveness will be seriously reduced,” MISA said in a statement. 

The organisation reminded parliament of the Minister in the Presidency, Essop 

Pahad’s speech on June 12. He said “those who take the trouble to elect parties 

and their representatives to parliament are entitled to know what these 

representatives are doing and saying, how they behave, and how they approach 

the many issues that confront the nation. Parliament is not an exclu- 



sive social club, but an open forum for the whole nation.” He added: “It is up 

to parliament to ensure maximum access and proper facilities to journalists so 

that they can do their job.” The issue has not been resolved. 

A huge step was taken towards promoting greater diversity in the South African 

media when the Media Diversity and Development Agency (MDDA) was 

finally constituted late last year. South Africa’s struggling community media 

first mooted such an agency in 1995 at a conference of the National Community 

Media Forum. Cabinet adopted a recommendation in 1996, that government 

should “facilitate the process of setting up a statutory recognised media 

development agency that will operate a statutory recognised subsidy system 

for community and independent media in SA”. 

The MDDA board consisted of six members nominated publicly and appointed 

through a parliamentary process. Their other members were directly appointed 

by the President taking into account the funding of the Agency, and include 

one from the commercial print and one from the commercial broadcast media 

sector. The board is chaired by Khanyi Mkonza, the former National Community 

Radio Forum chairperson. The MDDA, funded by the government and 

the private sector, will encourage media diversity by providing support and 

subsidies to community and independent media. It is a partnership between 

the government, the media industry and donors to work together to redress 

the legacy of imbalances in access to the media. 

Funding commitments as of last year June, from government and industry, 

amounted to just over R40m per annum. There will be further material support 

such as training, access to print and distribution facilities or subsidies 

and discounts that the MDDA will be seeking for developing small media. 

The Agency is required to be demonstrably independent, its board be impartial 

and to act “without fear, favour or prejudice and without any political or 

commercial interference.” 

However, there has been great concern at the fact that the public process in 

appointing MDDA board members was done in a hurry and shrouded in such 

secrecy. The result was that many independent and community organisations 

did not have enough time to nominate potential board members. 

Moreover, the board has very few members who came from the independent 

or community media (except for the chairperson, members). 

2002 

The South African print media underwent dramatic changes. Zimbabwean 

publisher, Trevor Ncube bought the majority stake of the independent 

Mail&Guardian newspaper, from the Guardian in London. Ncube’s decision 

shook the SA media industry, used to European or Northern American foreign 

media ownership in SA media. 


SOUTH AFRICA 


The SA media industry had just recovered from the shock when Nigerianbased 

ThisDay newspaper announced that they will be launching a daily newspaper 

in 2003 in SA. The big question now is whether ThisDay will be sustainable 

in a country with fierce newspaper competition and where the major 

distribution and printing networks are in the hands of a few monopolies. Advertisers 

are also notoriously fickle, with many black-owned local industry 

players still complaining that the predominantly white advertising industry 

shuns black titles. 

Public hearings into the marketing and advertising industry conducted by 

Parliament’s communications committee and held in November 2002, heard 

that the marketing and advertising industry is still predominantly white-orientated 

and focused. 

The media industry acted with alarm when it was discovered that a littlenoticed 

feature of the Promotion of Access to Information Act could threaten 

press freedom - specifically the identity of sources who request to be unnamed 

- by opening the door for people to demand reporters’ notes and other 

written information. The Act came into force at the end of 2001, but questions 

have been raised in November 2002, whether through the Act a victim of 

crime would be entitled to demand information held by the media. At issue is 

the public’s right to know versus the journalists’ need to protect their sources 

as a basic tenet of press freedom and to protect the physical safety of sources. 

The relevant section of the Act has yet to be tested in court. 

Hate speech versus artistic freedom was another issue that raised tempers. In 

mid-2002, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa 

(BCCSA) received a complaint from the Human Rights Commission (HRC) 

about a song called Amandiya by Mbongeni Ngema, suggesting that the song 

promoted hate speech. Ngema said the song was composed with the intention 

of highlighting alleged deep-seated problems between Zulu people and Indians 

in KwaZulu Natal. However, many people believed the song only sowed 

hatred in a country still struggling to recover from its racist past. The song 

was eventually banned from the airwaves. Ngema was persuaded, by prominent 

South Africans, including former President Nelson Mandela to withdraw 

the song from the airwaves. However, MISA believed the Ngema was within 

his constitutional rights to use his artistic expression to highlight a serious 

deficiency in society. 



África do Sul 

Por William Gumede e Goodman Chauke 

Gumede é o presidente do MISA-AS. Chauke é o Encarregado da Comunicação 

Social do MISA-AS. 

Acomunicação social passou por um período muito difícil em 2002. A 

comunicação social enfrentou muitas vezes fogo cerrado por parte 

dos políticos e funcionários governamentais que a acusavam de ser 

antipatriota. O anterior Presidente Sul Africano, Nelson Mandela, sumariou 

este sentimento quando foi convidado pelo popular programa de rádio de 

Tim Modise em Abril. Mandela acusou a comunicação social de ser antipatriota 

por focar muito do seu espaço e da sua atenção no crime, não reconhecendo o 

que a África do Sul tinha já alcançado. Defendeu ainda a posição de que o 

tipo de informação que saía da África do Sul era responsável pela saída do 

investimento do país. 

A independência da Corporação de Radiodifusão da África do Sul (SABC) foi 

também um assunto muito importante. A estação pública foi envolvida em 

controvérsia quando Barney Mthombothi, o seu Chefe Executivo para as Notícias 

pediu a demissão no dia 3 de Julho. Mthombothi, um dos mais respeitados 

jornalistas da África do Sul, tinha uma reputação de ser independente. 

O Conselho de Administração da SABC e o seu Chefe Executivo, foram muito 

rápidos em sufocar especulações de que Mthombothi tinha caído em desgraça 

com os líderes mais importantes do Congresso Nacional Africano no governo 

e com a direcção da estação que, de acordo com os rumores, estavam “infelizes” 

com as decisões editoriais de Mthombothi . Apesar de Mthombothi ter recusado 

a discutir as razões para a sua saída da SABC, contactos dentro da estação 

disseram que a última “gota” tinha sido a autorização concedida por 

Mthombothi, da transmissão de um vídeo sem ser editado, que expunha a 

corrupção na prisão de Grootvlei, em Bloemfontein. 

Ainda a controvérsia em redor da saída de Mthombothi da SABC não tinha 

morrido completamente, quando em 24 de Setembro, o Congresso dos Sindicatos 

da África do Sul (Cosatu), a maior federação sindical no país, organizou uma 

marcha contra a estação reivindicando uma “ transformação mais acelerada” na 

estação pública. 

2002 

A Cosatu estava indignada pela alegada predisposição da SABC contra os 

“negros, os pobres e a classe trabalhadora”. A federação sindical também se 

queixou pelo facto da SABC “nada ter feito” para promover as línguas das 

minorias no país. Um porta voz da Cosatu, Vukani Mde, disse que a SABC 

estava sob o controlo dos interesses das grandes companhias. 


SOUTH AFRICA 


Contudo, o mais intenso debate em redor da independência da SABC foi criado 

pelo controverso projecto de alteração da lei da Radiodifusão apresentado em 

Julho, pela Ministra das Comunicações Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri. O projecto 

estipulava que o Conselho de Administração da SABC devia estar sob o 

controlo directo do Ministro das Comunicações, o que fez levantar sérios 

receios, entre os meios de comunicação social, de que a SABC iria perder a 

sua independência. O Instituto da Comunicação Social da África Austral 

(MISA-SA) defendeu veementemente a necessidade e a importância de uma 

SABC independente numa África do Sul democrática. 

Uma alteração de última hora ao controverso Projecto de Alteração da Lei 

Radiodifusão parece ter feito diminuir os receios de que o governo iria controlar 

a SABC e evitou com que uma ameaça de uma acção no Tribunal 

Constitucional contra o governo, feita pelos partidos da oposição e por 

organizações para a liberdade da comunicação social, fosse levada por diante. 

Nos termos do projecto de alteração, que foi apresentado ao Parlamento, em 

16 de Outubro, o Conselho de Administração da SABC estará debaixo do 

controlo da Autoridade Independente das Comunicações da África do Sul 

(ICASA) e não da Ministra das Comunicações como proposto originalmente. 

O Conselho de Administração da SABC terá que submeter as suas políticas 

sobre a radiodifusão, o que inclui a política editorial de notícias à ICASA. As 

políticas da SABC têm que estar em conformidade com o código de conduta 

da ICASA bem como com as cláusulas de licença impostas pelo regulador. 

Para além disso, antes do Conselho de Administração da SABC finalizar estas 

políticas, teria que garantir a participação pública no processo de preparação 

de tais políticas. 

O Presidente da Comissão de Comunicações do Parlamento e Deputado pelo 

ANC, Nat Kekana, referiu-se ao projecto de alteração de lei nos seguintes 

termos: “Eles (os legisladores) criaram uma cláusula que alarga a carta da 

corporação de radiodifusão garantindo a independência, a liberdade de 

expressão e a integridade jornalística da SABC.” 

Para além da SABC houve ainda vários outros casos envolvendo a interferência 

governamental no trabalho dos jornalistas. Em 3 de Setembro, o Ministério 

dos Serviços Sociais e Desenvolvimento Populacional, pediu a Thuli Nhlapo, 

um jornalista do The Star para prestar declarações numa sessão de 

interrogatório de testemunhas organizada pelo Ministério. Nhlapo tinha escrito 

um artigo onde dizia que uma recepcionista do Ministério tinha demonstrado 

negligência por ter encerrado os seus escritórios mais cedo do que o habitual. 

O jornal recusou-se a autorizar que o seu jornalista fosse prestar declarações, 

uma vez que tal situação criaria um péssimo precedente. 

O país assistiu também a um acalorado debate sobre “aparências” na 



comunicação social Sul Africana . O debate foi causado pelo despedimento 

da antiga Editora da revista Pace, Kuli Roberts, em Janeiro de 2003. Kuli 

Roberts disse ao jornal Sowetan que não estava preparada para ser apenas 

“uma cara negra bonita”, como ela afirmou que a sua entidade patronal , a 

editora Caxton, pretendia que ela fosse. Disse também que apesar de ser ela a 

chefe da redacção, via-se forçada a responder perante um gestor júnior, de 

raça branca, que estava ainda a estagiar. 

A Caxton, que é proprietária de várias publicações na África do Sul, incluindo 

a revista Pace e o jornal The Citizen, desmentiu as alegações de Kuli Roberts. 

Contudo, o assunto manteve-se no domínio público durante bastante tempo. 

O Presidente do Fórum Nacional dos Editores Sul Africanos, (Sanef), Mathatha 

Tsedu, disse que a Caxton, como companhia, não estava habituada a ter editores 

ou chefes de redacção com a autoridade geral. Citou o exemplo de como Tim 

du Plessis, então Editor do The Citizen (e presentemente editor do jornal em 

Afrikaans Rapport), foi despedido depois de se ter recusado a ser um editor 

de “fachada”, cumprindo escrupulosamente as instruções da editora e sem 

qualquer controlo editorial sobre o jornal. A sua (da Caxton) abordagem de 

ter uma cara negra e um homem branco a controlar o trabalho faz lembrar a 

velha SABC onde havia muitos negros a trabalhar sob a supervisão de brancos, 

disse Tsedu. 

A violência contra jornalistas foi também muito comum. O ano testemunhou 

vários jornalistas rurais a serem intimidados ou fisicamente agredidos devido 

às suas reportagens. Quatro jornalistas que trabalham para a agência de notícias 

rural African Eye News Services (AENS), durante um período de nove meses, 

foram agredidos ou intimidados em incidentes separados em Nelspruit, a capital 

provincial de Mpumalanga, no Nordeste da África do Sul. 

Os incidentes levaram o MISA a pedir a protecção policial para os jornalistas. 

“Os jornalistas rurais, já de si, trabalham sob condições muito mais difíceis 

que os seus colegas nas cidades. Por outro lado têm um apoio institucional 

significativamente muito mais pequeno o que faz com que se torne muito 

mais importante que sejam dadas garantias efectivas da sociedade, como a 

protecção policial,” disse o MISA num comunicado. 

Os escritórios de Joanesburgo da Associação de Imprensa da África do Sul, 

(Sapa), a agência de notícias do país, foi assaltada o que fez com que toda a 

sua operação editorial fosse totalmente interrompida. Cinco homens, um deles 

armado com uma pistola, forçaram a entrada nos escritórios da agência 

noticiosa, amarraram um dos repórteres e roubaram equipamento vital à 

redacção da agência. 

2002 

Numa nota mais positiva, o semanário Mail & Guardian conseguiu uma 

importante vitória numa acção judicial com uma compensação de três milhões 


SOUTH AFRICA 


de Randes por difamação intentado contra o jornal pela Ministra da Habitação 

Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele. Em 27 de Setembro, o tribunal decidiu que 

nenhum ministro no Governo tinha o direito de intentar uma acção por 

difamação, quando estava a ser criticado em relação à execução da sua função 

como ministro. O semanário tinha publicado uma avaliação do trabalho da 

ministra em Dezembro de 1998, onde afirmou que “não conseguia fazer o seu 

trabalho num ministério considerado como chave”. 

Contudo, numa nota mais negativa, uma batalha que se vinha desenvolvendo 

com baixa intensidade entre o Parlamento e os correspondentes parlamentares, 

veio a público quando a Presidente do Parlamento, Frene Ginwala, informou 

o grupo de jornalistas parlamentares no princípio de Janeiro de 2003, que iam 

mudar para novas instalações, fora das instalações do Parlamento. Frene 

Ginwala disse que a legislatura queria que a comunicação social saísse para 

ter mais espaço para os intérpretes que iriam traduzir os trabalhos em todas as 

línguas oficiais. 

O MISA-AS apelou então a todos os editores, editoras e proprietários dos 

meios de comunicação social para se oporem a esta acção arbitrária. “A decisão 

original de dar aos jornalistas instalações no Parlamento teve como base darlhes 

a liberdade e as instalações para que pudessem desempenhar as suas 

funções. Ao mudá-los para outro local, torna-se óbvio que a sua efectividade 

será gravemente reduzida”, disse o MISA num comunicado. 

A organização recordou ao Parlamento o discurso que o Ministro na 

Presidência, Essop Pahad, fez em 12 de Junho. Ele disse “aqueles que se 

preocupam em eleger partidos e os seus representantes para o Parlamento têm 

o direito de saber o que estes representantes estão a fazer e a dizer, como se 

comportam, e como abordam os vários assuntos que a nação enfrenta. O 

Parlamento não é um clube social exclusivo, mas antes um fórum aberto a 

toda a nação.” Disse ainda: “É da responsabilidade do parlamento assegurar o 

máximo acesso e instalações condignas aos jornalistas para que eles possam 

desempenhar as suas funções.” O assunto ainda não está resolvido. 

Um enorme passo em frente foi dado no sentido de promover uma maior 

diversidade na comunicação social sul africana quando a Agência para a 

Diversidade e Desenvolvimento da Comunicação Social (MDDA) foi 

finalmente constituída o ano passado. A comunicação social comunitária da 

África do Sul que enfrenta dificuldades, falou pela primeira vez nessa agência 

em 1995, numa conferência do Fórum Nacional da Comunicação Social 

Comunitária. Em 1996, o Gabinete adoptou uma recomendação para o governo 

“facilitar o processo de criação de uma agência estatutária de desenvolvimento 

da comunicação social reconhecida, que operasse um sistema de subsídio 

estatutário que fosse reconhecido para a comunicação social comunitária e 

independente na África do Sul”. 



O Conselho de Administração da MDDA consiste de seis membros nomeados 

publicamente e designados por um processo parlamentar. Os seus outros 

membros são directamente nomeados pelo Presidente, tendo em consideração 

o financiamento da Agência e incluindo um representante para o sector da 

imprensa comercial e outro para o sector da radiodifusão comercial. O 

Conselho é presidido por Khanyi Mkonza, o anterior Presidente do Fórum 

Nacional da Rádio Comunitária. A MDDA, financiada pelo governo e pelo 

sector privado, encoraja a diversidade dos meios de comunicação social, 

proporcionando apoio e subsídios à comunicação social comunitária e 

independente. Trata-se de uma parceria entre o governo, a indústria da 

comunicação social e doadores que trabalham conjuntamente para reparar a 

herança de desigualdades no acesso à comunicação social. 

Promessas de financiamento tanto do governo como da indústria até Junho de 

2002, atinge pouco mais de 40 milhões de Randes por ano. Haverá ainda mais 

apoio material como formação, acesso a instalações impressoras e de 

distribuição ou subsídios e descontos que a MDDA procurará para desenvolver 

os pequenos meios de comunicação social. A Agência tem por obrigação ser 

claramente independente, o seu conselho de administração ser imparcial e 

actuar “sem receios, sem favores, sem ideias preconcebidas e sem qualquer 

interferência política ou comercial.” 

Contudo, tem havido uma grande preocupação em relação ao facto do processo 

público de nomeação os membros do Conselho de Administração da MDDA 

ter sido feito rapidamente e envolvido em segredo. O resultado foi que muitas 

organizações comunitárias e independentes não tiveram o tempo suficiente 

para sugerirem os potenciais membros do Conselho de Administração.. 

Mais do que isso, o Conselho de Administração tem muito poucos membros 

que vieram da comunicação social comunitária ou independente (com excepção 

dos membros nomeados pelo presidente). 

A comunicação social escrita Sul Africana foi sujeita a alterações dramáticas. 

O dono duma editora do Zimbabwe, Trevor Ncube, comprou a parte majoritária 

do semanário independente Mail & Guardian que pertencia ao Guardian de 

Londres. A decisão de Ncube estremeceu a indústria da comunicação social 

escrita da África do Sul, habituada ao facto da propriedade da imprensa Sul 

Africana nas mãos de estrangeiros, pertencer a empresários europeus e norte 

americanos. 

2002 

Mas a imprensa sul africana estava a acabar de se recuperar do choque quando 

o jornal baseado na Nigéria ThisDay, anunciou que iria lançar um jornal diário 

na África do Sul ainda durante o ano de 2003. A grande incógnita, 

presentemente, é se ThisDay será ou não sustentável, num país com uma 

competição muito intensa entre jornais e onde a principal distribuição e redes 


SOUTH AFRICA 


de impressão estão nas mãos de alguns monopólios apenas. Os patrocinadores 

são também notoriamente inconstantes, com muitos empresários negros 

proprietários na indústria local da comunicação social a queixarem-se de que 

a indústria de publicidade predominantemente nas mãos de brancos, evita a 

colocação de publicidade em jornais predominantemente para negros. 

Em Novembro de 2002, foi dito nas audições públicas sobre a indústria de 

marketing e de publicidade, conduzidas pela Comissão de Comunicações do 

Parlamento, que a indústria de marketing e de publicidade ainda era orientada 

e focada, predominantemente, para a população branca. 

A indústria da comunicação social actuou com grande preocupação quando 

foi descoberto que um aspecto pouco notado da Lei de Promoção de Acesso à 

Informação podia ameaçar a liberdade de imprensa – especialmente a 

identidade das fontes de informação que pedem para não serem identificadas 

– abrindo a porta a pessoas que quisessem exigir as notas escritas dos repórteres 

e outra informação escrita. A lei entrou em vigor no final de 2001 mas, questões 

foram levantadas em Novembro de 2002, sobre se, de acordo com a lei, uma 

vítima de crime tinha o direito de exigir informação guardada pela comunicação 

social. Em causa está o direito do público saber, frente à necessidade do 

jornalista proteger as suas fontes como um princípio básico da liberdade de 

imprensa e de proteger também a segurança física das fontes. A secção relevante 

da Lei ainda vai ser testada no tribunal. 

O discurso do ódio frente à liberdade artística, foi outra questão que aqueceu 

os ânimos. Em meados de 2002, a Comissão de Queixas contra a Radiodifusão 

da África do Sul, (BCCSA), recebeu uma queixa da Comissão dos Direitos 

Humanos (HRC) sobre uma canção chamada Amandiya por Mbongeni Ngema, 

sugerindo que a canção promovia o discurso do ódio. Ngema disse que a 

canção tinha sido composta com a intenção de sublinhar alegados problemas 

profundos no KwaZulu Natal, entre os Zulus e os Indianos. Contudo, muitas 

pessoas acreditavam que a canção criava o ódio num país que estava ainda a 

desenvolver esforços para se recuperar do seu passado racista. Eventualmente 

a transmissão canção foi proibida. Ngema foi persuadido por proeminentes 

Sul Africanos, incluindo o ex Presidente Nelson Mandela, a retirar a canção 

das estações. Contudo, o MISA acredita que Ngema está no seu direito 

constitucional de utilizar a sua expressão artística para sublinhar uma 

deficiência séria na sociedade. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-29 

INSTITUTION(S): Mail and 

Guardian 

VIOLATION(S): Threatened, 

legislation 

The new vice chancellor of the University 

of South Africa (Unisa) and 

former chairperson of the South African 

Human Rights Commission, 

Barney Pityana, who oversaw the 

hearings into racism in the media, 

has accused the “Mail and Guardian” 

newspaper of racism and is 

threatening to take it to court for 

defamation. 

In the May 24, 2002, issue of the 

“Mail and Guardian”, it was reported 

that extravagant spending has wiped 

out hard-won financial gains at Unisa. 

According to the newspaper, Unisa 

is spending millions of rands on 

Pityana’s accommodation in a stately 

historic mansion in Pretoria, which is 

to be renovated at the cost of about 

R2-million (approx. US$204 600). 

The university had just sold the property 

at the time Pityana arrived and 

had to pay R1.7-million (approx. 

US$173,900) to extricate itself from 

the sale. The newspaper also reported 

that refurbishment of Pityana’s offices 

on campus will cost the university 

another R1.5-million (approx. 

US$153,400). 

The newspaper made further allegations 

that the university management 

and council team organised a trip 

to Mauritius, where Pityana and council 

chairperson McCaps Motimele 

travelled first-class. It also alleges that 

the university spent more than R200 

000 (approx. US$20 500) on Pityana’s 

inauguration ceremony in early 2002. 


On Tuesday May 28, Pityana denied 

the “Mail and Guardian”’s claims 

that he was squandering university 

funds, saying the report was part of a 

racist campaign to discredit him and 

other black university leaders. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-19 

PERSON(S): Sabelo Ndlangisa 


On 19 September 19, 2002, Sina 

Sebetha, an Edenvale traffic officer 

in Gauteng province, threatened 

“Sunday Times” journalist Sabelo 

Ndlangisa. She told the journalist she 

would make him “vanish if he did not 

leave her alone.” 

Sebetha called the offices of the 

“Sunday Times” and left a recorded 

message: “You! You will vanish. 

They’ll look all over for and won’t 

find you. If you want to do the right 

thing, stay out of other people’s business. 

We will finish you off.” 

The threat followed a report in the 

Metro section of the “Sunday 

Times”’s September 15 edition, entitled: 

“Traffic cop who asked for a 

bribe is still in job”. Sebetha admitted 

to making the threatening call but 

said she did it out of anger. 

The newspaper also reported that 

Ekurhuleni Mayor Duma Nkonsi 

quickly distanced the council from 

Sebetha’s threats, stating they were 

not acceptable and unfortunate. 

MISA’s South African chapter regards 

this as a direct violation of a 

journalist’s right to report freely. Such 

threats should not be encouraged 

within a democratic country such as 

South Africa, which guarantees media 

freedom.

SOUTH AFRICA 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-02 

PERSON(S): Mail & Guardian 


The “Mail & Guardian” newspaper 

has scored an important victory in a 

R3 million (approx. US$288 000) 

defamation suit filed by South Africa 

Housing Minister Sankie Mthembi- 

Mahanyele against the newspaper. On 

September 27, 2002, the court ruled 

that a cabinet minister should not have 

the standing to sue for defamation 

when criticised in relation to the execution 

of her function as a minister. 

The minister launched the suit following 

the newspaper’s publication of 

a report in December 1998 evaluating 

ministers’ performances. The report 

was critical of Mthembi-Mahanyele’s 

actions at the time. It said she had 

“shown she cannot deliver in a key 

ministry”, and criticised her for allegedly 

awarding a massive housing contract 

to a close friend. 

The court held that government ministers 

could not sue for defamation. It 

said parliamentarians had a platform 

in the National Assembly, where they 

had a privilege and were protected 

from legal action for whatever they 

said. 

The court also suggested the president 

could establish a commission of 

inquiry to investigate the factual correctness 

of the newspaper’s statements 

if he so wished. However, the court 

also said that the ruling did not signify 

that media could tarnish the reputation 

of cabinet ministers, specifying that 

there were other remedies that could 

preclude the media from attacking 

ministers’ reputations. 

A daily newspaper quoted Mthembi- 

Mahanyele’s lawyer as commenting, 

in response to the ruling, “The effect 

of that ruling is that no cabinet minister 

can ever dream of instituting a defamation 

suit against anyone. And it 

doesn’t matter how libelous the statement 

is that has been published.” 

Howard Barrel, the outgoing “Mail 

& Guardian” editor, told MISA-South 

Africa that the case has an interesting 

effect. “Basically, the judge recalled 

that readers of the ‘M&G’ tended to 

read many other newspapers; this 

means by the time they read the alleged 

defamatory statement, they had already 

read numerous other highly unfavourable 

reports about the Minister. 

This in turn means that the ‘M&G’ article 

did not reduce any further the 

reputation of the Minister.” 

Housing Minister Mthembi- 

Mahanyele launched a defamation action 

against the “Mail & Guardian” in 

the Johannesburg High Court on October 

11, 2001, in response to how she 

fared in the newspaper’s 1998 cabinet 

“report card”. 

The report card, which gave 

Mthembi-Mahanyele an “F”, claimed 

that a controversial housing affair and 

her sacking of former director general 

Billy Cobbett haunted her, the “Mail 

& Guardian” reported on October 12, 

2001. 

With little recent case law in South 

Africa on this issue, the trial has set an 

important precedent. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-25 

PERSON(S): South African Broadcasting 

Corporation’s (SABC) 


A proposed amendment to South Af- 



2002 

rica’s broadcasting law jeopardises 

the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s 

(SABC) fundamental rights 

to freedom of expression and editorial 

independence, warns Article 19. 

Article 19, the independent and nonpartisan 

NGO that works to promote 

and protect freedom of expression, says 

the new Broadcasting Amendment Bill 

raises a number of concerns. A formal 

requirement that SABC’s output be accurate, 

accountable and fairly reported 

and that staff should act in the best interests 

of the corporation, “give room 

to undue interference with their editorial 

independence and journalistic 

standards,” the group warns. 

The SABC board could be required 

to submit their plans to meet these objectives 

to the government and discuss 

programming issues with ministers. 

The bill also proposes to give the minister 

the right to pick management 

boards from the board. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-18 

PERSON(S): South African Broadcasting 

Corporation’s (SABC) 


A last-minute amendment to the controversial 

Broadcasting Amendment 

Bill appears to have lessened fears of 

government control of the South African 

Broadcasting Corporation 

(SABC) and prevented a threatened 

Constitutional Court challenge by 

opposition parties and media freedom 

organisations. 

Under the amendment, which was 

introduced on October 16, 2002, the 

SABC Board will fall under the control 

of the Independent Communications 

Authority of South Africa 


(ICASA), and not the minister of 

Communications, as originally proposed. 

The SABC Board will have to submit 

its policies on broadcasting, 

which include news editorial policy, 

to ICASA. The African National 

Congress’ committee chairman told 

the South African Press Agency 

(SAPA), “They have created a clause 

that expands on the charter of the corporation, 

that will guarantee [the] independence 

of the SABC, freedom 

of speech and journalistic integrity.” 

The committee chairman also noted 

that programmes will have to advance 

national and public interest. The 

SABC’s policies will have to comply 

with ICASA’s code of conduct and the 

licencing provisions imposed by the 

regulator. In addition, before the 

SABC’s Board finalises the policies, 

it will ensure public participation in 

the policy-making process. 

In a August 25 statement, MISA 

expressed its concern over the South 

African government’s attempt to 

compromise the independence of 

SABC News and curtail the broadcaster’s 

freedom of expression. 

MISA noted that it is important that 

public broadcasters, without undue 

interference, dedicate themselves to 

serving the functions of informing 

citizens about matters of public interest, 

including acting as a watchdog 

of government. 

Among the bill’s controversial provisions 

was one providing for Communications 

Minister Ivy Matsepe- 

Casaburri’s approval of SABC policies 

on news editorials, programming, 

local content, education, universal 

service and access and language.

SOUTH AFRICA 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-21 

PERSON(S): South African Press 

Association (SAPA) 

VIOLATION(S): Bombed 

The South African Press Association 

(SAPA) offices were robbed in the 

early hours of October 20, 2002, 

bringing editorial operations to a complete 

halt. 

Reports say that at least five men, 

one of them armed with a pistol, overpowered 

a gate guard and forced their 

way into the Greenside-Johannesburg 

editorial offices of the news agency at 

about 2:00 a.m. (local time) on October 

20. SAPA editor Mark van der 

Velden said Nombuso Dlamini, who 

was working the late shift, was tied up 

with computer cables. Her younger 

brother, who was keeping her company 

with two of his friends while they 

studied for school exams, was also tied 

up. 

The robbers then went through the 

newsroom and computer room and 

stole vital equipment, damaging the 

agency’s communications system, interrupting 

the reception and distribution 

of information. Nobody was injured 

in the incident. 

At least 16 computer workstations 

were either removed or damaged. “All 

electronic equipment of any value was 

taken, right down to the coffee machine 

and one of our technician’s spectacles,” 

the editor said. 

It was not immediately possible to 

put an accurate value on the stolen 

goods, and SAPA staff were still assessing 

the damage. However, Van der 

Velden estimated that the value of the 

goods taken could be in the region of 

ZAR200 000 (about US$19 299). 

SAPA’s technical staff managed to 

cobble together enough of a system to 

set up a skeleton service by noon on 

October 20. 

MISA-South Africa expressed its 

shock at the disturbing incident and the 

effect it had on the distribution of news 

to South African citizens and international 

subscribers. 

SAPA is South Africa’s independent 

national news agency, owned as a 

co-operative by most of South Africa’s 

major newspapers. It gathers, edits and 

distributes news and information 

around the clock to supply newspapers, 

radio, television and foreign news operations. 

The robbery took place as South African 

media practitioners commemorated 

Media Freedom Day and the 25th 

anniversary of the banning of “The 

World” and “Weekend World” newspapers 

by the nationalist government. 



Swaziland 

By Vusi Sibisi 

Human rights activist and media lawyer 

The Kingdom of Swaziland’s human rights record plummeted to an alltime 

low as the curtain fell on 2002 – possibly the worst year ever for 

the one million people of Africa’s last bastion of absolute monarchy. 

Precisely because of its tiny size and its insignificance in terms of global 

politics, Swaziland has always avoided and evaded international focus and 

scrutiny. 

But thanks to a bungling government all that is changing. Swaziland today 

ranks alongside Zimbabwe as a place where fundamental human rights and 

freedoms have been trampled on and where nepotism and corruption are the 

backbone of the governing political system known as Tinkhundla. 

The year 2002 came to a tumultuous end with Swaziland firmly in the eye of 

the international political storm - attracting the attention of the world’s remaining 

superpower, the United States of America, even in the midst of that 

country’s sabre-rattling over Iraq. Courtesy of Prime Minister Sibusiso 

Dlamini, Swaziland is today on the US State Department agenda as one of the 

few remaining countries in the global village where there is no respect for the 

rule of law, the judiciary and fundamental human rights. 

The international community’s new-found interest in the affairs of this landlocked 

country stemmed from the government’s public vow (made through 

Premier Sibusiso) not to recognise and respect judgments handed down by 

the Court of Appeal - an act that led to the en-masse resignation of all the 

judges of this court who were loaned from neighbouring South Africa. 

The Appeal Court had questioned and quashed the constitutional right of King 

Mswati III to rule by decree when there was a parliament that is the legislative 

arm of government. In the event the court set aside royal Decree No 3 of 

2001, which repealed another decree, Decree No. 2, that the international 

community had condemned as dictatorial. Decree No 3, among other things, 

made certain crimes, such as high treason, murder, rape, armed robbery, poaching 

of endangered species and other serious offences non-bailable while the 

draconian Decree No 2 essentially sought to curb the power of trade unions 

and gave government an open licence to shut down newspapers and other 

publications. 

2002 

Earlier controversial Attorney General Phesheya Dlamini had shocked the 


SWAZILAND 


nation and the international community when he led the heads of the armed 

forces in delivering an ultimatum to the judges of the High Court. The ultimatum 

demanded the judges either drop a case in which a mother was suing 

palace courtiers or resign or be fired. She was demanding the return of her 

teenage daughter who had been abducted and has since gone through the first 

phase of becoming Mswati’s tenth wife. 

The Director of Public Prosecutions Lincoln Ng’arua found himself between 

a rock and a hard place when he laid contempt and sedition charges against 

the Attorney General for this act. Ng’arua was threatened with the sack should 

he proceed with the case against the Attorney General, who received backing 

from the Prime Minister and the palace 

Government’s blunders did not just trigger off a constitutional crisis but also 

united workers and employers into one front while awakening the sleeping 

giant that is civil society. They were all alarmed by the gradual and systematic 

erosion of the rule of law and respect for the judiciary. The result was the 

formation of a broad-based coalition body, the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned 

Civic Organisations, that included churches, business and employers’ 

organisations, workers’ federations and non-governmental organisations. The 

coalition sought to put pressure on government to embrace democracy and 

respect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. 

And suddenly, the world’s spotlight had switched onto little Swaziland. 

These events and the controversial government decision to purchase an E720 

million (US$84,7 million) jet for Mswati’s private use led to US Secretary of 

State Colin Powell saying in a dispatch to Foreign Minister Abednego 

Ntshangase: 

“The United States is deeply concerned that Prime Minister Dlamini, Attorney-General 

Phesheya Dlamini and Swazi National Council member Moi Moi 

Masilela, reportedly acting on behalf of King Mswati III, visited Director of 

Public Prosecutions Lincoln Ng’arua late at night to coerce him into dismissing 

the charges of sedition and obstruction of justice against the Attorney 

General. 

“We are similarly troubled by reports of the Prime Minister’s demands that 

parliamentarians approve the King’s request for purchase of a new jet or submit 

their resignations. These further undercut the rule of law in Swaziland, 

and call into question the government’s respect for international accepted principles 

of good governance.” 

Even to the perennial optimist the events that unfolded in 2002 put paid to all 

dreams of a fair and equitable constitution built on a Bill of Rights embracing 



fundamental human rights and freedoms. For how can anyone reconcile government’s 

disregard for the rule of law and the unprecedented assault on the 

judiciary with a truly democratic constitutional dispensation? 

The marathon constitution-drafting exercise is now on its last lap following 

the appointment of the second royal Constitutional Drafting Committee early 

in 2002, which was given until October 2002 to have completed its task. This 

followed the conclusion of the so-called gathering of public views on a new 

constitution by another royal body, the Constitutional Review Commission 

that began its work in 1996. 

It is now expected that a draft constitution will be presented to the nation 

sometime during the first quarter of 2003. 

The Internal Security Bill, tabled by the premier in the middle of 2002, further 

attested to this lack of political will to embrace democratic political 

changes. The proposed law tightens previous legislation outlawing political 

party activities, washes away any remnant of civil liberties and criminalises 

freedom of expression in Swaziland while reinforcing the police state that has 

existed since the abrogation of the independence constitution in 1973. 

In fact there are fears that the ruling elite might take a cue from the Court of 

Appeal judges’ ruling: “That a king’s decree can only be made once a new 

constitution is in place remains an essential requirement.” In the event, the 

likelihood is that the leadership will strengthen their stranglehold on power 

by giving Mswati the constitutional leverage to rule by decree. 

Given the lack of political will to democratise Swaziland, another alternative 

open to the leadership to retain and reinforce their hold on power is to pilot a 

law through the largely ceremonial and loyal parliament that would give the 

king the right to rule by decree whenever he so wishes. 

Thus the constitutional and legal framework in 2002 remained just as hostile, 

if not more so, to freedom of expression and, therefore, to a free, diverse and 

pluralistic media in Swaziland. For if the government of the day can openly 

and publicly mount an assault on the judiciary and threaten judges of the 

highest court in the land, what protection and defence do the Swazi media in 

general and journalists in particular have? 

2002 

Significantly, the public’s reaction to events of 2002 contrasted sharply to 

those of previous years, in particular 2001, when the troubled Swazi media 

found itself isolated in a crisis brought about by Decree No. 2 and the government’s 

shutting down of two independent publications. The New Nation, a 

monthly magazine, and The Guardian of Swaziland weekly newspaper were 

both closed down. Ironically indigenous Swazi entrepreneurs own the two 


SWAZILAND 


publications. There was little domestic public sympathy for the two publications’ 

causes, perhaps due to a lack of appreciation of how such arbitrary 

closures impact negatively on the rights and freedoms of the people. 

While The Nation is back in business after settling out of court with the government, 

The Guardian remains closed even though that it won its High Court 

case. This is because government filed a notice of appeal at the end of the case 

and over a year later had still not filed the actual appeal. 

On October 12, 2002, security forces barred five journalists from covering 

the proceedings of a prayer meeting called by various political and civic groups 

in the country. The five included journalists from the privately owned Times 

of Swaziland and the state-controlled Swazi Observer. They were Ackel Zwane 

(Times of Swaziland), Phinda Sihlongonyane and Thabile Mdluli (both The 

Observer), Bhekie Matsebula (foreign press correspondent), photographer 

Simon Shabangu and driver Jethro Jele (both The Observer). 

Termed ‘Justice for Peace’, the prayer meeting was held in memory of families 

that were evicted by force from Macetjeni and KaMkhweli areas in southeastern 

Swaziland in October 2000 for their refusal to recognise Prince Maguga, 

elder brother to Mswati, as their new chief. 

Phinda Sihlongonyane of The Observer said the security forces had mounted 

roadblocks on all roads leading to Macetjeni and KaMkhweli areas. He said 

the Regional Commander of the Lubombo Region, Agrippa Khumalo, instructed 

junior officers to search the journalists and turn them away. The security 

officer then escorted the journalists to a certain point at which they 

took some photographs. This led to a confrontation during which one security 

officer forcefully took a digital camera from one journalist and removed its 

memory card. The camera was later returned after a lot of begging. 

In a similar incident police viciously assaulted Ackel Zwane, then a journalist 

with the Times of Swaziland, and confiscated his camera and notebook. He 

was forced into a security vehicle and driven to the outskirts of Manzini City 

where his belongings were handed back to him. 

Perhaps the two most interesting if not ironic cases in 2002 were the near 

closure of the parastatal Swazi TV by an Industrial Court order and the police’s 

confiscation of a video tape from the largely propagandist Channel Swazi 

television station. 

The Industrial Court in September issued a writ of execution for the attachment 

of equipment valued at a million Emalangeni (about US$117 000). This 

followed an earlier judgement in which the court reinstated and compensated 

32 former workers of the Swaziland Television Authority who it ruled had 



been unfairly dismissed in 1999. But police officers thwarted the Deputy Sheriff’s 

attempts to remove the broadcasting equipment from the television station 

in defiance of the Industrial Court order. 

On October 3, 2002, the police armed with a court order invaded the privately-owned 

Channel Swazi television station and confiscated a video tape 

containing a sermon in which prominent Pastor Justice Dlamini condemned 

some of the nation’s cultural practices, specifically the annual sacred Incwala 

ceremony, as “ungodly”. This alarmed the Swazi government that said the 

pastor’s preaching was “threatening the foundation of the Kingdom”. Ironically 

police officers had attended the open-air prayer service but only acted 

once the local newspapers published a story on some of the proceedings. 

Mswati’s praise singer and director of the royal Outside Broadcast Unit, Qhawe 

Mamba, owns Channel Swazi. The television channel is largely perceived to 

be a propaganda machine for the state. 

Media practitioners continued the onerous task of formulating a media policy 

to regulate the media as well as normalise relations between practitioners and 

the government, albeit at a snail’s pace. For the first time such a process involved 

all the stakeholders. 

Running parallel to this process is the formulation of self-regulatory mechanisms. 

Both processes, in which MISA Swaziland, the Swaziland National 

Association of Journalists and the Swaziland Editors Forum are playing 

leadings roles, are at advanced stages and it is hoped that they could be operational 

in the second quarter of 2003. 

2002 



Suazilândia 

Por Vusi Sibisi 

Os registos dos direitos humanos no Reino da Suazilândia degredaram 

quando as cortinas se desfecharam em 2002 - possivelmente o pior 

dos anos o um milhão de pessoas do último baluarte da monarquia 

absoluta na Africa. 

Precisamente por causa do seu pequeno tamanho e da insignificância em termos 

políticos globais. A Suazilândia sempre evitou e evadiu o foco e escrutínio 

minicioso internacional. 

Mas graças ao governo confuso tudo isto está a mudar. A Suazilândia hoje se 

posiciona ao lado do Zimbabué como sendo um lugar onde os direitos humanos 

fundamentais e a liberdade são menosprezados e onde o nepotismo e a 

corrupção são a espinha dorsal do sistema político governante do governo 

conhecido por Tinkhundla. 

O ano de 2002 teve um fim tumultuoso com a Suazilândia firmemente nos 

olhos da tempestade politica internacional – atraindo a atenção da única super 

potência mundial, os Estados Unidos da América mesmo ainda com a 

fanfarronada sobre o Iraque. Pela cortesia do Primeiro-ministro Sibusiso 

Dlamini, a Suazilândia hoje está na agenda do Departamento do Estado Norte 

Americano, como um dos poucos países que permanece na aldeia global onde 

não existe respeito pela lei, pela judiciária e pelos direitos humanos 

fundamentais. 

O interesse recém-adquirido da comunidade internacional pelos assuntos deste 

país rodeado de terra, derivou da promessa pública do governo (feito através 

do Primeiro-ministro Sibusiso) ao não ter reconhecido e respeitado os 

julgamentos feitos pelo Tribunal de Apelo – um acto que causou a resignação 

massiva de todos os juízes deste tribunal que foram recrutados a partir do 

Africa da Sul. 

A Tribunal de Apelo questionou e revogou o direito constitucional do Rei 

Mswati III a reinar por decreto quando existe um parlamento que e o braço 

legislativo do governo. 

No evento do tribunal ter por de lado o decreto real número 3 de 2001 que 

repele um outro decreto, o decreto 2 de que a comunidade internacional 

condenou como sendo ditatorial. O decreto 3 dentre outros aspectos tornou 

certos crimes, tais como alta traição, assassinato, violação, assaltos a mão 

armada, a caça de animais raros e outros crimes de natureza grave, não 



caucionais, enquanto o decreto draconiano numero 2 essencialmente procura 

dirimir o poder dos sindicatos de trabalhos e outorga ao governo uma licença 

aberta que lhes permite encerrar e jornais e outras publicações. 

Antes o controverso procurador-geral Phesheya Dlamini chocou a nação e a 

comunidade internacional quando liderou a direcção das Forças Armadas ao 

passar o ultimato aos juízes do tribunal supremo. O ultimato exigia os juízes 

a abandonar o caso no qual uma mãe tinha que demitir-se ou seria demitida. 

Ela exigia a devolução da sua filha que tivera sido raptada e desde então 

cumprido a primeira fase para se tornar a décimo esposa 

Do rei Mswati. 

O Director do Processamento Publico, Lincoln Ngarua, viu-se dentre a espada 

e a parede quando menosprezou e acusou insubordinação contra o Procuradorgeral 

para este acto. 

O Sr. Ng’rua foi ameaçado com despedimento caso prosseguisse com o caso 

contra o Procurador-geral, que recebeu apoio do Primeiro-ministro e do palácio. 

Os erros do governo não só derivaram a crise constitucional mas também 

uniu os trabalhadores e empregadores numa frente enquanto despertou o 

gigante adormecido que é a sociedade civil. Foram todos alarmados pela erosão 

sistemática gradual sobre decurso da lei e respeito pela judiciária. O resultado 

foi a formação de um corpo de ligação de base ampla a Coligação das 

Organizações Cívicas Preocupadas, que inclui igrejas organizações de 

trabalhadores, federação dos trabalhadores e organizações não governamentais. 

A Coligação procurou pressionar o governo de formas a acatar a democracia 

e a respeitar a lei e independência da judiciária. 

De repente os faróis do mundo viraram-se para pequena Suazilândia. 

Estes eventos e a decisão controversa do governo na compra de um avião no 

valor de E720 milhões (84,7 milhões) para o uso privado de rei Mswati, obrigou 

o Secretario de Estado, Colin Powell a comentar através de despacho ao 

Ministro das Relações Exterior, Abenego Ntshangase: 

Os Estados Unidos está profundamente preocupados que o Primeiro Ministro 

Dlamini, o Procurador Geral e o Membro do Conselho Nacional da Suazilândia 

Moi Moi Masilela, que segundo relatórios agem a favor do rei Mswati III, 

visitou o Director do Processamento Publico, Lincoln Ng’arua no fim da noite 

para força-lo a abandonar as acusações de insubordinação e obstrução da justiça 

contra o Procurador Geral. 

2002 

“De igual modo estamos preocupados com os relatórios sobre as exigências 

do Primeiro-ministro para a aprovação do parlamento para a compra de um 


SWAZILAND 


novo avião ou então que submetesse as suas cartas de demissão. Isto impede 

ainda mais o respeito ao curso da lei na Suazilândia, e questiona o respeito 

dos governos pelos princípios internacionais aceites da boa governação”. 

Até mesmo para o optimista perene, os eventos que se desenrolaram em 2002, 

pagos por todos os sonhos e uma constituição equitativa construída sobre uma 

Conta sobre Direitos abraçando os direitos humanos fundamentais básicos e 

liberdades. Como é que alguém pode reconciliar os desrespeitos dos governos 

pelo decurso da lei e o assalto não precedente a judiciaria com uma dispensaçao 

total democrata? 

O exercício da maratona do esboço da constituição está agora na sua fase 

derradeira seguindo-se da nomeação do Segundo Esboço do Comité 

Constitucional real no princípio de 2002, que foi dado até Outubro de 2002 para 

completar a sua tarefa. Isto seguiu-se da conclusão do que se chamou reunião 

das visões públicas sobre uma nova constituído por un outrro corpo real, a 

Comissão de Revisão Constitucional que começou com o seu trabalho em 1996. 

Espera-se agora que o esboço da constituição seja apresentado à nação durante 

o primeiro trimestre de 2003. 

A Lei de Segurança Interna, apresentada pelo Primeiro-ministro no meio de 

2002, atestou ademais a esta falta de vontade politica de abraçar as novas 

mudanças politicas democráticas. As leis propostas tornam cada vez mais 

rigoroso as prévias legislações que banem as actividades do partido politico, 

elimina qualquer restos de liberdades civis e criminaliza a liberdade de expressão 

na Suazilândia enquanto reforça a politica do Estado que existiu desde a 

revogação da constituição da independência em 1973. 

Existem de facto receios de que a elite que governa pode tirar uma fila do Tribunal 

de Apelos de juízes: Permanece um requisito essencial que o decreto de um 

rei só pode ser feito uma vez que uma nova constituição estiver no lugar. No 

evento, a probabilidade é que a liderança há de fortificar o seu domínio no 

poder dando ao Mswati a influência constitucional para governar através de 

decretos. 

Dada a falta de vontade politica para democratizar a Suazilândia, a outra 

alternativa aberta para a liderança reter e reforçar o seu afinco no poder é pilotar 

a lei através do parlamento largamente cerimonial e leal que daria ao rei o direito 

de governar por decreto quando assim desejar. 

Portanto, o padrão constitucional e legal em 2002, permanece hostil, se não 

tanto mais, a liberdade de expressão, e por isso, para uma média pluralista e 

diversa na Suazilândia. Porque se o governo de hoje pode desencadear ataques 

abertamente contra a judiciária e ameaça o principal tribunal do país, que 

protecção e defesa têm a imprensa da Suazilândia e em particular os jornalistas? 



Significativamente a reacção pública aos eventos de 2002 esteve em contraste 

agudo aos anos anterior e particularmente o ano de 2001, quando a imprensa e 

tumulto se viu isolada numa crise criada pelo decreto 2 e o encerramento das 

publicações independentes ordenada pelo governo. O “The New Nation” uma 

revista mensal e o “The Guardian of Suaziland” um semanário foram ambos 

encerrados. Ironicamente indígenas empresários Swazis são os proprietários 

das duas publicações. Registou-se pouca simpatia pública pelas duas publicações 

talvez por causa da falta de apreciação de como tais oclusões arbitrárias 

influenciam negativamente os direitos e liberdade dos povos. 

Embora o “The Nation” voltou a operar depois de resolver os problemas com o 

governo fora do tribunal, o “The Guardian” continua encerrado mesmo depois 

de ter ganho o caso no tribunal. Isto é porque o governo compilou uma nota de 

apelo no final do caso. 

No dia 12 de Outubro de 2002, as forças de segurança impediram cinco jornalistas 

a fazer cobertura de uma oração convocada por vários grupos políticos e cívicos 

no país. Nos cincos jornalistas estavam inclusos jornalistas do jornal privado 

“Times of Swaziland” e o jornal controlado pelo estado “Swazi Observar”. Eram 

Ackel Zwane (Times of Swaziland), Phinda Sihlongonyane e Thabile Mdluli 

(ambos correspondente da imprensa estrangeira), o fotografo Simon Shabangu 

e o motorista Jethro Jele ambos do (The Observer). 

O encontro para a oração foi realizado em memoria das famílias que foram 

destituídas a força nas áreas de Macetjeni e KaMkhweli no sudoeste da 

Suazilândia em Outubro de 2000 por terem recusados reconhecer o prince 

Maguga, irmão mas velho do rei Mswati como seu chefe. 

Phinda Sihlongonyane do “The Observer” disse que as forças de segurança 

criaram controis nas estradas em direcção as áreas de Macetjene e KaMkhweli. 

Segundo ele, o comandante regional de Lubombo, Agrippa Khumalo instruiu 

os seus oficiais a revistar os jornalistas e manda-los de volta. O agente de 

segurança acompanhou o jornalista até um certo ponto onde tiraram algumas 

fotografias. Isto originou confrontação durante a qual um agente de segurança 

retirou a força a câmara fotográfica digital de um jornalista e retirou o seu cartão 

de memória. A câmara foi devolvida mais tarde depois de muitas súplicas para 

a sua devolução. 

Num incidente a policia viciosamente assaltou Ackel Zwane na altura jornalista 

do “Times of Swaziland” e confiscaram a sua câmara fotográfica e caderno de 

apontamento. Foi forçado numa das viaturas dos agentes de segurança para as 

periferias da cidade de Manzini onde lhe foi entregue de volta os seus artigos. 

2002 

Talvez os dois casos mais interessantes se não irónicos em 2002, foram a 

derrapante oclusão da TV Swazi por uma ordem do tribunal industrial e o confisco 


SWAZILAND 


de uma cassete de vídeo do grande propagandista da estação de televisão Swazi. 

A ordem do tribunal industrial emitiu a execução do equipamento no valor de 

milhões de Emalangeni (quase USD117,000). Esta ordem seguiu-se do 

julgamento anterior no qual o tribunal reinstalou e compensou 32 extrabalhadores 

das autoridades da televisão de Suazilândia que tinham sido 

demitidos injustificadamente em 1999. mas os oficiais da polícia impediram o 

vice-sherif de remover os equipamentos da radiodifusão em desafio a ordem do 

tribunal industrial. 

No dia 03 de Outubro de 2002, investidos com a ordem do tribunal invadiram a 

estação televisiva privada Swazi e confiscou uma cassete de vídeo que continha 

um sermão no qual o proeminente pastor Justice Dlamini condenou algumas 

praticas culturais da nação especialmente a cerimonia sagrada Incwala como 

“anti-deus”. Isto alarmou o governo Swazi que por sua vez disse que a 

aproximação do pastor ameaça a fundação do reino. 

Ironicamente os oficiais da polícia participaram na oração que foi realizada no 

ar livre mas só agiram depois de um jornal local ter publicado a história. O 

director da unidade da Radiodifusão Qhawe Mamab é proprietário do Canal 

Swazi. O canal de televisão é largamente tido como a máquina de propaganda 

do governo. 

Os jornalistas continuaram a formular a politica da média para regular a imprensa 

assim como para normalizar as relações entre os jornalistas e o governo. Pela 

primeira vez tal processo envolveu vários participantes. 

Em paralelo a este processo está a formulação do mecanismo auto-regulador. 

Ambos os processos no qual o MISA Suazilândia, a Associação Nacional dos 

Jornalistas e o Fórum dos Editores estão o jogar papeis liderativos num palco 

avançado e espera que possa entrar em operação no segundo trimestre de 2003. 



2002 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-09-17 

INSTITUTION(S): Swaziland Television 

Authority (STVA). 



On August 30 2002, a court ruled that 

former employees of the Swaziland 

Television Authority (STVA), fired 

after walking off the job, be reinstated 

and compensated for unfair dismissal. 

Following this ruling, the Industrial 

Court issued a writ of execution (court 

order) that Hhohho Deputy Sheriff 

Maswazi Nsibandze attach equipment 

valued at one million Emalangeni 

(approx. US$93 896), which is equal 

to the money owed to the former 

workers. The STVA management has 

appealed the ruling but has been unsuccessful 

at the Appeal Court. However, 

the money will be placed in a 

Trust Account while the appeal is still 

being reviewed. 

On September 5, 2002, Nsibandze 

and Lwazi Hlophe, a former STVA 

technician and representative of the 

Swaziland Media and Publishers 

Workers Allied Union (SMEPAWU), 

went to the station to attach the 

equipment. Hlophe claimed to have 

assisted by pointing out crucial 

equipment to be attached. 

STVA Managing Director Celani 

Ndzimande and the television station’s 

legal advisor, Thulani 

Makhubu, called the police to prevent 

the deputy sheriff from removing 

the broadcasting equipment. The 

police stopped Nsibandze from attaching 

the equipment. Mandla 

Mkhwanazi, the employees’ lawyer, 

feels the police were wrong to prevent 

the deputy sheriff from carrying 

out his duties. However, attaching 

the equipment would have resulted 

in a complete blackout at the 

television station. 

The police’s representative, Vusi 

Masuku, claims that the police were 

only protecting vital government 

equipment and not undermining the 

court order. 

On March 23, 2000, STVA Board 

of Directors abruptly fired 32 employees 

who had gone on strike in 

October 1999. The Board’s decision 

to sack the employees went against 

the findings of a one-man commission 

of inquiry into the workers’ conduct. 

On October 28, several STVA 

workers took control of the television 

studios in an apparent illegal strike. 

The workers were demanding a 7% 

back-pay that management had 

promised them in April 1999. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-1009 

INSTITUTION(S): Channel S 


On October 3, 2002, the Swaziland 

Royal Police, acting on a court order, 

raided Channel S, the only privatelyowned 

television station in the country, 

and confiscated a video tape containing 

a sermon that has been termed 

by the Swazi government as “threatening 

the foundations of the kingdom.” 

According to local sources, the 

footage was of a sermon broadcast 

nationally and regionally (throughout 

the Southern African Development 

Community, SADC) on September 

6. During the sermon, Pastor 

Justice Dlamini, of the Swaziland As-

SWAZILAND 


sociation of Christian Ministries 

(SACM), suggested that some of the 

cultural practices in the country are 

“ungodly.” Dlamini was referring to 

the “Incwala”, an annual cultural celebration. 

MISWA, MISA’s Swaziland chapter, 

condemned the raid on the television 

station, saying that it was unwarranted 

and impinged on Swazi 

citizens’ freedom of expression. 

Moreover, MISWA reported that 

Dlamini has suffered harassment by 

policymakers in the country, ostensibly 

in the name of protecting culture 

and the monarchy. 

MISWA further objected to the police 

action and noted that some of the 

officers who took part in the raid 

were themselves present at the said 

church service and had uttered no 

concern over the content of the sermon, 

until they received instructions 

to ransack the television station. 

The September 6 national prayer 

meeting was hosted by interdenominational 

ministries to celebrate 

Swaziland’s Independence Day. According 

to the October 5 edition of 

the “Times of Swaziland”, a national 

independent daily newspaper, the 

prayer was “organized to beseech 

God to forgive the Swazi nation of 

its sins.” 

In Swaziland, the state is embodied 

in the person of the sovereign 

himself, King Mswati III, the 16th 

king from the House of Dlamini, 

which has ruled the Swazis since the 

1500s. Swazis do not distinguish between 

the nation and the man, and 

while the king is not considered divine, 

he is the central figure of the 

month-long sacred “Incwala” (kingship/harvest) 

ceremonies, held when 

the first fruits ripen in summer. 

During the “Incwala”, tens of thousands 

of Swazis in traditional attire 

converge on the Queen Mother’s village 

and petition the national ancestral 

spirits to endow the king with 

wisdom, and the nation with good 

rains and fortune. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-31 

PERSON(S): Ackel Zwane, Phinda 

Sihlongonyane, Thabile Mdluli, 

Simon Jele, Bheki Matsebula, 

Jethro Jele 

VIOLATION(S): Beaten, Censored 

On October 12, 2002, security forces 

barred five journalists from the 

“Times of Swaziland” and the “Swazi 

Observer” and a foreign freelance reporter 

from covering the proceedings 

of a prayer meeting organised by different 

political and social groups in 

Swaziland. 

The prayer meeting, termed Justice 

for Peace, was organised in memory 

of families that were evicted from the 

Macetjeni (south-eastern Swaziland) 

and KaMkhweli areas in October 

2000. 

One of the barred journalists, 

Phinda Sihlongonyane of “The Observer”, 

told MISA-Swaziland that 

the law enforcement unit was comprised 

of the Royal Swaziland Police 

(RSP), the Umbutfo Swaziland Defence 

Force (USDF) and the Correctional 

Service Operational Support 

Service Unit (OSSU), and was led by 

Station Commander Agrippa 

Khumalo, of the Lubombo region. 

Sihlongonyane reported that the 

security officers had mounted roadblocks 

on all roads leading to 



Macetjeni and KaMkhweli. Upon 

recognising her and her colleagues as 

journalists, the commander instructed 

junior officers to search the 

journalists and turn them away. The 

journalists were searched and escorted 

by the security officer to a 

certain point, after which they took 

some photographs. Upon seeing this, 

one of the security officers turned 

back and forcefully took a digital 

camera from one of the journalists, 

removing the memory card in the 

process. The camera was finally returned 

after a long exchange. 

The five journalists and driver involved 

in the incident were 

Sihlongonyane, Ackel Zwane, formerly 

a “Times of Swaziland” reporter, 

now working for “The Observer”, 

“Observer” reporter Thabile 

Mdluli, “Observer” photographer 

Simon Jele, foreign press reporter 

Bheki Matsebula and “Observer” 

driver Jethro Jele. 

In a related incident, Zwane was 

severely beaten by police. According 

to the newspaper, his camera and 

notebook were also taken from him. 

He was forced into a security vehicle 

and driven to a junction towards 

the Swazi capital, Manzini, where he 

was dropped off and his belongings 

were returned to him. 

MISA-Swaziland condemns the 

harassment and intimidation 

practiced by the security forces 

against journalists who were merely 

carrying out their duties. MISA- 

Swaziland holds the opinion that this 

action is a clear indication that journalists 

in the country do not have the 

liberty to freely gather and disseminate 

information in the public interest. 

In October 2000, some 200 villagers 

in Macetjeni and KaMkhweli 

were evicted from their homes at 

gunpoint by soldiers, apparently because 

they refused to accept King 

Mswati III’s brother, Prince Maguga, 

as chief. They were left in the countryside 

without shelter or other basic 

necessities. The families are now 

staying in a refugee camp in Amsterdam, 

in the Mpumalanga province. 

The families have since taken their 

matter to the High Court, where they 

won their case, but the government 

continues to harass them. The mere 

fact that the security forces continue 

to ignore the court order makes it 

clear that respect for the rule of law 

does not exist in Swaziland. 

2002 



Tanzania 

By Tuma Abdallah 

Journalist 

Democracy is a complex tissue of mandated power and legal power, 

control of competition, regulations, and a consensus on basic demo 

cratic values. It entails a respect for different opinions and the absolute 

freedom of expression, movement and association. 

It is a plain truth that democracy and the media constitute a chicken and egg 

relationship. This is mainly because the extent to which a society is democratised 

defines the mode of media control and the role they perform. Whatever 

forms democratic struggles may take, the configuration of media is always shaping 

and being shaped by the level of democratisation. 

Tanzania has not been spared by the wind of social and economic changes blowing 

all over the world. It was the same wind that found the country shifting from 

a mono-party system with a state monopolised economy to a multi-party system 

with a privatised economy. 

Since the media operates within the socio-economic system of a country, the 

social and economic changes that took place in Tanzania in the late 1980s opened 

doors for a pluralistic mass media. 

But despite the stated evolution, the government has remained the overseer of 

the functions of the media in the country. It guides and regulates both their 

establishment and operations through various regulations and pieces of legislation. 

That has been the case since the country gained its independence from 

British rule in 1961, and the last 12 months have been no exception. 

The fact that some of the laws that govern the industry are too restrictive and 

seriously impinge upon freedom of expression including media freedom has 

been the basis for constant demands by the media community for changes in the 

country’s legal and regulatory framework to facilitate the free flow of information. 

While the year 2002 witnessed no attempt by the government to review the 

pieces of legislation, the media was not silent. One of the steps towards that end 

was the media law reform project, which worked with vigour throughout the 

year. 

Three lawyers from the University of Dar es Salaam were commissioned during 

the year to work on over 10 pieces of legislation that affect directly or indi- 



rectly the operations of the media. The objective is to come up with a comprehensive 

but media-friendly law to be known as the Freedom of Information 

Act. 

The laws that are being examined under the project, coordinated jointly by the 

Media Council of Tanzania (MCT), MISA-TAN, Tanzania Journalists Union 

(TUJ) and the Tanzania Media Women Association (TAMWA), include the infamous 

Newspapers Act of 1976, which retains much of the oppressive aspects 

of the Newspapers Ordinance from colonial times which sought to subjugate, 

exploit and tame the colonised. 

The proposed law, which would ultimately be handed over to the government 

for endorsement, is due to be ready by the end of 2003. Once in place, the 

legislation is expected to facilitate the implementation of the Media Policy, 

which the government is still sitting on. 

The policy document, which is expected to move towards further liberalisation 

of the media, was initially supposed to be ready during the year under review. It 

is now expected to be out during the first half of 2003. 

One of the issues that has been holding back the government from endorsing 

the document is a demand by the media community that the state be excluded 

from media ownership. 

The government feels that by doing so it would be breaching the country’s 

Union Constitution, in particular Article 18 that guarantees every citizen the 

right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to seek, receive, impart and 

disseminate information and ideas through any media. 

The same article, however, does not guarantee an absolute or unrestrained right 

to the said freedoms as highlighted in previous editions of this publication. 

The article and two others, Article 30 and 31, are also being worked on under 

the Media Law Reform Programme. 

Although in general terms the relationship between the government and the 

media continued to improve throughout the year, several violations of media 

freedom, mainly by state organs, were reported as illustrated in the alerts recorded 

in this chapter. 

Incidents worth mentioning include the harassment of two journalists by the 

police. The incidents took place while the reporters, a female and a male, were 

attempting to question the President and Vice-President. 

2002 

Another journalist is facing legal action for contempt of parliament after writ- 


TANZANIA 


ing an allegedly seditious article against the legislature. 

However, there was only one direct attack on the media by the government 

throughout the 2002. This was in the form of a strong warning that specifically 

targeted the media as unethical. It came shortly after legislators lashed 

out at such media in a National Assembly session. 

Both incidents came at a time when a good proportion of the media especially 

the yellow press were increasingly diverging from professionalism in order to 

compete for the market. This involved the publication of stories that invaded 

people’s privacy, publication of semi-pornographic materials and grisly photographs 

of dead people. 

These departures from ethics and professionalism were evidenced in the growing 

number of cases filed at the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) against 

newspapers and individual reporters. The number increased slightly to 22 in 

2002 from 20 the previous year. 

Many of the cases filed with the MCT concerned defamation and false reporting. 

The majority of the complaints were lodged by individuals who felt defamed 

by the publication of such stories and/or photographs. 

More and more people and organisations that felt aggrieved by the media 

prefer to submit their complaints to MCT which is free and faster at resolving 

such cases than the court of law. Only one such case was filed at a court in 

Kagera region against a freelance journalist. 

A step in the right direction on the part of the government was the signing of 

the SADC Information, Culture and Sports Protocol. The protocol that seeks 

to promote media freedom and freedom of expression in the region, however, 

awaits ratification by the government before it can come into force. It might 

be ratified anytime in 2003, probably before August when the country will be 

hosting a summit for the regional body. 

During the year journalists had to deal with a lack of transparency on the part 

of some government leaders. However, there were some improvements compared 

to previous years. 

Self-censorship was prevalent among both the public and private media regarding 

news assumed to be embarrassing to the government. In most cases 

editors did so in a bid to protect their positions and or businesses. 

The year under review witnessed growth in both the print and electronic media. 

Twenty newspapers were registered bringing the number of titles in circulation 

to 450. A similar trend was recorded in the electronic media, and by 



the end of the year the Tanzania Broadcasting Commission (TBC) had licensed 

26 radio stations, 15 TV stations, 20 television operators and 15 cable 

operators. 

This diversity has, however, not trickled down to help the voiceless majority, 

particularly the rural poor. That is mainly because the media is basically concentrated 

in urban areas. 

On the part of the electronic media the situation could be partly attributed to 

the government’s policy that limits private terrestrial broadcasters’ coverage 

to only 25 percent of the country. 

Enforcement of the policy has, however, been impractical in the wake of new 

technological developments, which make it difficult to supervise broadcasters 

who opt to use satellites as a mode of broadcasting. The government has 

taken note of the trend and is considering relaxing the limitation to 50 percent. 

A latest report from the TBC has revealed that the sector is developing very 

fast but without a concomitant set of rules and regulations. In December the 

TBC deliberated on a number of policy issues aimed at creating a level playing 

field for all. The central points were the questions of control and ownership, 

content and technical rules, and satellite broadcasting. 

The TBC said it would further develop rules and regulations governing the 

three areas and respective policy documents would be ready in April 2003 for 

discussion by stakeholders before they are endorsed by the Commission. 

The broadcasting environment is regulated and supervised by the TBC, which 

was established by legislation as an independent regulatory body. Its powers 

are not derived from the country’s constitution but rather from the Act itself. 

Its independence is, however, questionable as the same legislation empowers 

the minister responsible to interfere with the operations of the Commission. 

The Tanzania Union for Journalists (TUJ), which was established in the second 

half of 2001, continued to spread its wings by setting up branches at 

various media houses. The pace was, however, slow and by the end of the 

year only seven branches had been established. 

No effort was undertaken during the year to unite the existing associations. 

Currently there are more than 15 journalists associations and about the same 

number of press clubs. 

2002 

The year 2002 witnessed no significant change in the legal and constitutional 

environment in which the media operate. The atmosphere might improve tre- 


TANZANIA 


mendously during 2003 if all the positive developments come to fruition. 

The challenge that lies ahead is for journalists to enhance the media as a source 

of empowerment and enlightenment. They should continue with the fight for 

a free press system since without due autonomy and a free environment it is 

difficult to envision how the media can realise their potential as agents of 

democratisation. 

The media should, therefore, look at how best they can fulfil their democratic 

functions. They should put public interest ahead of other considerations. 



Tanzânia 

Por: Tuma Abdallah 

Journaliste 

ADemocracia é uma teia complexa de poder concedido e poder legal, 

de controlo da competição, de regulamentos e dum consenso sobre 

valores básicos democráticos. Envolve ainda o respeito por diferentes 

opiniões e a absoluta liberdade de expressão, de movimentos e de associação. 

É uma verdade inalienável que a democracia e a comunicação social têm um 

relacionamento do tipo galinha e o ovo. Isto é principalmente porque a forma 

de se definir até que ponto a sociedade é democratizada depende do controlo da 

comunicação social e do papel que ela desempenha. Qualquer que seja a forma 

que tome a luta democrática, a configuração da comunicação social está 

constantemente a moldar e a ser moldada pelo nível de democratização. 

A Tanzânia não tem sido poupada pelo vento de mudanças económicas e sociais 

que se faz sentir por todo o mundo. Foi este mesmo vento que levou o país a 

mudar de um sistema mono partidário com uma economia monopolizada pelo 

estado para um sistema multi partidário com uma economia privada. 

Uma vez que a comunicação social opera no sistema sócio económico de qualquer 

país, as alterações sociais e económicas que se registaram na Tanzânia no final 

da década de oitenta abriram as portas para uma comunicação social pluralista. 

Mas, apesar de toda esta evolução, o governo continua a ser o supervisor das 

funções da comunicação social no país. Orienta e regula a sua criação e as suas 

operações através de vários regulamentos e instrumentos legais, o que tem vindo 

a acontecer desde que o país alcançou a sua independência da coroa inglesa em 

1961. Os últimos doze meses não foram excepção. 

O facto de algumas das leis que governam a indústria serem muito restritivas e 

violarem gravemente a liberdade de expressão, incluindo a liberdade da 

comunicação social, tem sido objecto de constantes exigências pela comunidade 

ligada à comunicação social para que se registem alterações no quadro jurídico 

e regulador do país para facilitar a circulação livre de informação. 

O ano de 2002 não registou qualquer tentativa do governo de rever a legislação 

e a comunicação social não se manteve em silêncio. Uma das medidas nesse 

sentido, foi o projecto de reforma da lei da comunicação social que foi sustentado 

com grande vigor durante todo o ano. 

2002 

Durante o ano, três advogados da Universidade de Dar-es-Salaam foram 


TANZANIA 


incumbidos de analisar mais de 10 áreas da lei que afectam duma forma directa 

ou indirecta o trabalho da comunicação social, com o objectivo de prepararem 

a legislação completa e adequada à comunicação social, a ser conhecida por 

Lei da Liberdade de Informação. 

As leis que estão a ser examinadas ao abrigo deste projecto, que é coordenado 

conjuntamente pelo Conselho da Comunicação Social da Tanzânia, (MCT), o 

MISA-TAN, o Sindicato dos Jornalistas da Tanzânia,(TUJ), e a Associação 

das Mulheres na Comunicação Social da Tanzânia (TAMWA), incluem a 

vergonhosa Lei dos Jornais de 1976, que mantém a maior parte dos aspectos 

opressivos do Decreto dos Jornais do tempo colonial, com a pretensão de 

subjugar, explorar e domesticar os colonizados. 

A proposta lei, que eventualmente será entregue ao governo para aprovação, 

deverá estar pronta no final de 2003. Logo que seja promulgada, a legislação 

deverá facilitar a implementação da Política da Comunicação Social que está 

ainda estagnada em poder do governo. 

O documento político que deve fazer avançar uma maior liberalização da 

comunicação social, deveria ter ficado pronto durante o ano em análise. Contudo, 

espera-se agora que seja publicado no primeiro semestre de 2003. 

Um dos assuntos que está a fazer travar o processo do governo endossar o 

documento, é a exigência feita pela comunidade ligada à comunicação social 

para que o Estado não seja autorizado a ser proprietário de órgãos de comunicação 

social. 

O governo pensa que ao fazer isso, estaria a violar a Constituição da União, 

particularmente o Artigo 18, que garante a todos os cidadãos o direito à liberdade 

de opinião e expressão e de procurar, receber, transmitir e disseminar informação 

e ideias através de qualquer meio de comunicação. 

Contudo, o mesmo artigo não garante um direito absoluto ou sem restrições às 

liberdades acima descritas, como se afirma em edições anteriores desta 

publicação. 

O artigo e dois outros, os Artigos 30 e 31, estão também a ser alterados ao 

abrigo do Programa de Reforma da Lei da Comunicação Social. 

Apesar do relacionamento entre o governo e a comunicação social ter continuado 

a melhorar em termos gerais, durante todo o ano, várias violações da liberdade 

da comunicação social, principalmente por parte de organismos estatais, foram 

registadas como está ilustrado nos alertas que foram publicados por este capítulo. 

Os incidentes que merecem ser mencionados incluem a hostilização de dois 



jornalistas pela polícia. Os incidentes tiveram lugar quando os jornalistas, um 

homem e uma mulher, estavam a tentar fazer algumas perguntas ao Presidente 

e ao Vice-presidente. 

Outro jornalista enfrenta uma acção em tribunal por desrespeito ao Parlamento 

por ter escrito um artigo que se alega ser sedicioso contra a legislatura. 

Contudo, durante todo o ano de 2002, só se registou um ataque directo cometido 

pelo governo contra a comunicação social, na forma de uma forte advertência 

que criticava a comunicação social por não possuir ética. Tal ataque foi feito 

pouco depois dos deputados terem acusado essa comunicação social numa 

sessão da Assembleia Nacional. 

Ambos os incidentes tiveram lugar numa altura quando uma grande proporção 

da comunicação social, especialmente a imprensa sensacional, estava cada 

vez mais a divergir da ética profissional de forma a competir para um maior 

quinhão do mercado. Tal método envolvia a publicação de histórias invadindo 

a privacidade das pessoas, publicação de material semi pornográfico e de 

fotografias macabras de pessoas mortas. 

Estes desvios da ética e do profissionalismo, tornaram-se evidentes com o crescente 

número de casos apresentados no Conselho da Comunicação Social da Tanzânia, 

(MCT), contra os jornais e repórteres individuais. O número aumentou ligeiramente 

para 22 em 2002 em comparação com 20 no ano anterior. 

Muitos dos casos apresentados no MCT referem-se a difamação e notícias 

falsas. A maioria das queixas foram apresentadas por indivíduos que se sentiram 

difamados pela publicação de tais notícias e reportagens e / ou fotografias. 

Um número crescente de pessoas e organizações que se sentiram horrorizadas 

pela comunicação social, preferiram apresentar as suas queixas ao MCT, que 

é livre e mais rápido que o próprio tribunal a resolver tais casos. Destes casos, 

apenas um contra um jornalista que trabalha a tempo parcial, foi levado a 

tribunal na região de Kagera. 

Um passo dado pelo governo na direcção certa, foi a assinatura do Protocolo da 

SADC para a Informação, Cultura e Desportos. Contudo, o protocolo, que 

pretende promover a liberdade da comunicação social e a liberdade de expressão 

na região, tem que ser ratificado pelo governo antes de entrar em vigor. Poderá 

ser ratificado em qualquer altura durante 2003, provavelmente antes de Agosto, 

quando o país vai ser o anfitrião da Cimeira desta organização regional. 

2002 

Durante o ano os jornalistas tiveram que enfrentar falta de transparência por 

parte de alguns governantes. Contudo, registou-se uma melhoria ligeira em 

relação aos anos anteriores. 


TANZANIA 


Auto censura foi dominante entre os meios de comunicação social públicos e 

privados em relação às notícias que podiam ser consideradas como 

embaraçosas para o governo. Na maior parte dos casos, os chefes de redacção 

fizerem-no numa tentativa de proteger as suas posições e / ou negócios. 

O ano em análise testemunhou crescimento tanto na comunicação social escrita 

como electrónica. Vinte jornais foram registados elevando o número de títulos 

em circulação para 450. Uma situação idêntica foi registada na comunicação 

social electrónica e até ao fim do ano, a Comissão de Radiodifusão da Tanzânia 

(TBC) tinha registado 26 estações de rádio, 15 estações de televisão, 20 

operadores de televisão e 15 operadores de cabo. 

Contudo, esta diversidade não se alargou de forma a ajudar a maioria sem 

voz, particularmente os pobres das áreas rurais. Isto porque a comunicação 

social está principalmente concentrada nas áreas urbanas. 

No que diz respeito à comunicação social electrónica, a situação pode ser 

parcialmente atribuída à política do governo, que limita a cobertura das 

emissoras privadas terrestres a apenas 25 por cento do país. 

Contudo, na prática, a aplicação desta política tem sido impossível devido à 

nova tecnologia, o que faz com que se torne difícil supervisar as emissoras que 

optam pela utilização de satélites como forma de radiodifusão. O governo tomou 

nota da situação e está a considerar relaxar a limitação para 50 por cento. 

Um último relatório do TBC, revelou que o sector está a desenvolver-se 

rapidamente mas sem os regulamentos que o deveriam orientar. Em Dezembro, 

o TBC tomou decisões relacionadas com uma série de assuntos políticos com 

o objectivo de equilibrar a situação para todos os intervenientes. Os pontos 

centrais foram as questões de controlo e de propriedade, conteúdo e regras 

técnicas e a radiodifusão por satélite. 

O TBC disse que iria preparar mais regras e regulamentos para governar as 

três áreas e os respectivos documentos políticos estariam preparados para serem 

apreciados pelas partes interessadas em Abril de 2003 antes de serem 

endossados pela Comissão. 

O ambiente da radiodifusão é regulado e supervisado pelo TBC que foi 

estabelecido por legislação como um organismo regulador independente. Os 

seus poderes não são derivados da constituição do país mas da própria lei. A 

sua independência, contudo, é questionável uma vez que a mesma legislação 

dá poderes ao Ministro responsável para interferir nas operações da Comissão. 

O Sindicato de Jornalistas da Tanzânia (TUJ), que foi criado na Segunda metade 

de 2001, continuou a alargar as suas asas estabelecendo delegações em várias 

empresas da comunicação social. Contudo, o ritmo foi lento e até ao final do 



ano apenas sete delegações estavam a funcionar. 

Durante o ano, não foi feito nenhum esforço para unir as associações existentes. 

Actualmente há mais de 15 associações de jornalistas e cerca do mesmo número 

de clubes da imprensa. 

No ano de 2002 não se registou uma alteração significativa no meio legal e 

constitucional do país, no qual a comunicação social opera. A atmosfera pode 

melhorar substancialmente durante 2003 se todos os desenvolvimentos 

positivos forem frutuosos. 

O desafio que se enfrenta é o dos jornalistas serem capazes de fortalecer a 

comunicação social como forma de conceder poder, informação e 

esclarecimentos. Devem continuar com a sua luta por um sistema de imprensa 

livre, uma vez que, sem a devida autonomia e um meio livre, é difícil visionar 

como a comunicação social poderá realizar o seu potencial como agente da 

democratização. 

Consequentemente, os meios de comunicação social deveriam procurar como 

melhor podem desenvolver as suas funções democráticas. Deveriam colocar 

o interesse público acima doutras considerações. 

2002 


TANZANIA 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-15 

PERSON(S): Jenerali Ulimwengu 

VIOLATION(S): Expelled 

The government has turned down an 

application for naturalisation by 

Jenerali Ulimwengu, a veteran journalist 

and publisher. 

Ulimwengu, aged 53, is chairman 

of Habari Corporation and publisher 

of the highly regarded and fiercely independent 

newspapers “Rai”, 

“Mtanzania” and “The African”, 

which have often run foul of the government 

by writing revealing stories 

and biting commentaries about corruption 

in high places. 

In 2001, in a move that shocked 

many, the government announced that 

Ulimwengu and three other individuals 

had been stripped of their citizenship 

for allegedly failing to prove their 

parents’ citizenship. 

The four individuals were all advised 

to apply for naturalisation to address 

“technical problems.” On 

Wednesday February 13, 2002 it was 

revealed that all except Ulimwengu 

had been granted naturalisation by the 

Minister of Home Affairs. 

According to MISA’s Tanzanian 

chapter (MISA-Tanzania), this move 

has confirmed fears, expressed last 

year, that the whole affair was organised 

to punish Ulimwengu for his journalistic 

activities. 

Ulimwengu’s ‘s critical newspaper 

articles and weekly television programme 

have often irked the authorities. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-08 

PERSON(S): George Maziku 


George Maziku, a correspondent for 

“Mwananchi” newspaper, is facing a 

criminal case after being interrogated 

and detained by the police for several 

hours. He is alleged to have displayed 

“contempt of Parliament” by writing 

a seditious article against Parliament. 

In his column that appeared on 

April 7, 2002, entitled “Mabadiliko ya 

Sheria ya Uchaguzi yanakusudia 

nini?” (Where does electoral law reform 

lead us?), Maziku explained how 

the law reform is used to legalise different 

election scenarios in favour of 

the ruling Revolutionary Party of Tanzania 

(CCM). 

National Assembly Speaker Pius 

Msekwa wrote to the editor of 

“Mwananchi” on April 9, saying that 

according to Provision No. 3 of the 

1988 Parliamentary Immunities, Powers 

and Privileges Act, Maziku’s 

newspaper article misrepresented the 

intentions of Parliament. Msekwa explained 

that by doing so, the journalist 

faces a charge of “willful misrepresentation”. 

On April 12, Maziku received a letter 

from National Assembly Clerk 

Kipenka Musa, summoning him to 

report to the National Assembly to 

explain himself. The attorney general 

was instructed by the speaker of Parliament 

to take legal action against the 

journalist. Maziku was detained for 

some time by the police and has since 

been released on bail. 

The correspondent has yet to be officially 

charged but is looking for a 

lawyer to assist him. He claims he is 

terrified by the potential outcome of 

a court case and is considering seeking 

asylum beyond the country’s bor- 



2002 

ders. 

According to the law on defamation, 

the editor, publisher, printer and 

distributor of a publication are normally 

parties who are liable to answer 

the charges. 

MISA-Tanzania has since called on 

journalists, both from Tanzania and 

the rest of the region, to support 

Maziku’s defence. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-31 

PERSON(S): Abduel Kenge 

VIOLATION(S): Detained 

Journalist Abduel Kenge of “The Express” 

was arrested and held in police 

custody for four hours on Tuesday 

May 21, 2002. Kenge was arrested 

for allegedly engaging Vice 

President Ali Mohamed Shein in a 

manner not befitting the public official’s 

status. 

Kenge was attending the official release 

of a book entitled “Nyerere 

Legacy and Economic Policy Making 

in Tanzania” at the University of Dar 

es Salaam’s Council Chamber, where 

the vice president was the guest of 

honour. Kenge attempted to approach 

Shein for a comment at a reception 

after the book launch but was prevented 

from doing so by the vice 

president’s chief bodyguard. 

“Who the hell do you think you are 

to talk to the vice president this way?” 

the bodyguard demanded to know, insisting 

that Kenge leave the premises. 

A second bodyguard appeared on the 

scene and Kenge was escorted from 

the reception hall. 

Outside, the chief bodyguard told 

two senior police officers to place 

Kenge under arrest for harassing the 


vice president, a charge the journalist 

denied. Kenge was finally released after 

four hours without any charges being 

pressed. 

Press Secretary to the Vice President, 

Said Ameir, has since apologised 

to Kenge, admitting that the action of 

the bodyguards and police was too severe. 

However, he told Kenge that 

journalists should approach either the 

press secretary or security guards before 

speaking to a dignitary. This is 

not official policy, however. 

Commenting on an earlier incident 

where another reporter from “The Express” 

received similar treatment in 

her attempt to engage the president, 

Deputy Private Secretary to the President, 

Peter Kallaghe, told the “The 

Express” that there was nothing 

wrong in asking the president (and 

other senior government officials) a 

question. He suggested that it was a 

“healthy culture.” 

Kallaghe said the changing environment 

and culture brought in by the 

private media is foreign to government 

officials, and hence security 

guards tend to be nervous. He stated 

that newspapers are representatives of 

the public and have the right to hold 

the president accountable on behalf of 

the citizens. 

However, less than a week after his 

comments appeared in the “The Express”, 

the culture of misunderstanding 

the media’s role was again unveiled 

with Kenge’s arrest. The journalist’s 

arrest was strongly condemned 

by journalists, who feel that 

it violates media freedom and the right 

to information. 

“The Express”, published by Media 

Holdings (T) Ltd, is Tanzania’s 

biggest selling weekly newspaper. It

TANZANIA 


was also the first newspaper in the 

country to go online. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-06 

PERSON(S): Juma Nkamia 


Popular radio presenter Juma Nkamia 

has been banned from broadcasting 

Football Association of Tanzania 

(FAT) organised matches and competitions 

for one year. Nkamia, who 

works for the state-run Radio Tanzania 

Dar es Salaam (RTD), is being 

punished for allegedly hailing Kenya’s 

soccer team victory against Tanzania. 

The FAT Executive Committee imposed 

the ban on Nkamia, claiming 

that he announced that FAT should 

shoulder the blame for the national 

team’s humiliating defeat to Kenya. 

MISA has notified RTD management 

of the stern penalty given to 

Nkamia. According to Nkamia, he 

appealed the ban to the highest sports 

board in the country, Baraza la 

Michezo Tanzania (BMT), on May 

29, 2002. The BMT’s Executive Committee 

denies having received the appeal. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-06-10 

PERSON(S): Juma Nkamia 


State-run Radio Tanzania Dar es Salaam 

(RDT) has notified the Football 

Association of Tanzania (FAT) that it 

would not take disciplinary action 

against radio presenter Juma Nkamia, 

as he has neither violated the Civil 

Service Regulations nor breached the 

ethical code of conduct. 

RDT was responding to the FAT’s 

May 29, 2002 appeal, in which the 

football association urged the broadcaster 

to institute disciplinary proceedings 

against Nkamia. The letter 

of appeal also contained notification 

of the stern penalty that the FAT 

slapped on the presenter. The football 

association banned Nkamia from 

broadcasting FAT-organised matches 

and competitions for one year. 

RTD explained that its management 

could only take disciplinary action 

against an employee if there was clear 

proof of a violation of civil service 

regulations or a breach of the broadcasting 

code of ethical conduct. In this 

case, RDT management was satisfied 

that there were no grounds for disciplinary 

action. 

MISA reported on June 6 that popular 

RTD radio presenter Nkamia was 

banned from broadcasting FAT-organised 

matches and competitions for one 

year, allegedly for hailing Kenya’s 

national soccer team after their 5-0 

victory against their Tanzanian counterpart. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-09-05 

INSTITUTION(S): Media 


The government has issued a stern 

warning against “unethical” news 

media, saying that such conduct has 

contributed to the fall of moral standards 

in the country. 

On August 20 2002, the Prime Minister’s 

Office issued a four-page statement, 

warning that the government 

would not hesitate to take punitive 

measures against any newspaper that 



publishes material in violation of professional 

ethics. “It is the hope of the 

government that all the news media 

organs, which have been publishing 

materials provoking numerous complaints 

from the public, will stop such 

conduct forthwith so as to uphold 

morality in our society.” 

The statement specifically condemns 

tabloids that publish semi-pornographic 

materials and grisly front 

page photographs of dead people, ostensibly 

to “inform the public” about 

what is happening in society. Furthermore, 

it states that news media should 

respect people’s privacy and that intruding 

into an individual’s private life 

is only fair if geared towards demonstrable 

public interest. The statement 

notes that some newspapers have intruded 

on people’s privacy with the 

flimsy excuse that they were covering 

people who were prominent and 

hence newsworthy. Moreover, the 

government writes that the news that 

is published is often one-sided, exposing 

only the ills of these so-called 

prominent individuals. 

Since the advent of a free market, 

there has been a proliferation of private 

media outlets from a handful to 

over 400. However, a large number 

of the newer media houses are part of 

the “yellow press,” which often defies 

ethics in order to compete. 

On July 26, 2001, the Tanzanian 

government banned nine local 

Kiswahili weekly magazines and suspended 

three tabloids for allegedly 

publishing indecent photographs that 

corrupt society and thwart campaigns 

to combat HIV-AIDS in the country. 

The Kiswahili tabloids which were 

suspended for six months are “Cheko” 

and “Zungu”, while “Kombora” was 

suspended for twelve months. 

The Kiswahili magazines banned 

by the government are “Mama 

Huruma”, “Tafrani”, “Chachandu”, 

“Mizengwe”, “Maraha”, “Kula Vitu”, 

“Penzi Kikohozi”, “Uroda kwa 

Foleni” and “Simulizi Kutoka 

Chumbani”. 

Tanzania has a Media Council and 

Code of Conduct. However, neither 

is active nor adhered to due to operational 

problems. 

MISA’s Tanzanian chapter (MISA- 

Tanzania) is currently implementing 

a Media Freedom Monitoring Project, 

which, among other things, will look 

at the issue of ethics and professionalism 

in the local media. 

MISA opposes any legislative attempt 

to regulate the conduct and 

practice of the media. MISA believes 

that regulatory structures should be 

voluntary and free from both government 

intervention and control, as well 

as the control of media owners. 

2002 



Zambia 

By Oliver Kanene, Freelance Communications Consultant 

On January 3, 2003, the Zambia Broadcasting Corporation Television 

(ZNBC-TV) broadcast its annual Events of the Year special pro 

gramme. This was an in-depth review of the major events during the 

previous year, in which President Levy Mwanawasa’s swearing-in ceremony 

on January 2, 2002 was the start-off point followed by a petition by the major 

opposition parties demanding that the High Court declare the elections null 

and void because they were not free and fair. 

The TV programme repeated President Mwanawasa’s revelations of abuses 

of office during the reign of President Frederick Chiluba, involving some of 

his top government officials including press aide Richard Sakala, Head of the 

Zambia Intelligence Service Xavier Chungu, and Chief Justice Mathew 

Ngulube - who resigned his position amid incessant calls from the public for 

him to relinquish his office. 

ZNBC recalled the euphoria which, hot on the heels of the shooting down of 

former President Chiluba’s bid for a third term of office a few months previously, 

saw the Zambians make history once again by calling on parliament to 

strip Chiluba of his immunity. This was reportedly the first time such a move 

had been made by a parliament in the Commonwealth. 

The removal of his immunity was done to ensure that Chiluba could stand 

trial for his alleged misdeeds during his ten years in office and for plundering 

the national economy particularly through gross abuse of a Zambia Intelligence 

Service bank account in London from which dubious payments worth 

several millions of US Dollars were made by Chungu to Chief Justice Ngulube, 

Chiluba’ children and tailor, Zambia’s Ambassador to the United States Athan 

Shansonga, and Attorney General Bon Mutale, among others. 

Indeed, these were some of the events which dominated the media during the 

year and the TV programme reviewed the events, from the Chiluba’s political 

ups and downs, through government’s rejection of genetically modified maize 

from donors in the face of one of Southern Africa’s worst food crises, to the 

continued hearing of the petition in which major opposition parties are demanding 

the nullification of the elections which brought Mwanawasa to power. 

However, it was astonishing that the programme did not mention any of the 

major events which characterised the media themselves during 2002, the year 

which was seen by many as one in which important strides were made by the 

media towards achieving a more conducive working environment. The most 



important achievement was the tabling before parliament of three media bills, 

which are likely to be passed into law early in 2003. 

The ascension of legal practitioner Mwanawasa to the presidency and his proclaimed 

“New Deal administration of laws and not men” gave the media and 

general public a glimmer of hope that there would be a more responsive government 

attitude in the debate on media reform in the country. This was, however, 

not forthcoming. The mistreatment of journalists by police and political 

party cadres continued unabated and Section 69 of the Penal Code, which creates 

the offence of criminal libel against the president, continued to be flagrantly 

applied. The government was still very eager to keep its hold on ZNBC. 

However, this time around the ruling MMD government’s stance on the media 

and media reforms was met with a more concerted, determined and unprecedented 

opposing force fuelled by a unity of purpose on the part of media 

practitioners. 

The differences between the Press Association of Zambia (PAZA), which represents 

mainly government controlled media organisations and employees, 

and the Zambia Independent Media Association (ZIMA), which comprises 

independent media organisations and freelance journalists, were buried and 

the two organisations began to work together in the fight for greater press 

freedom in Zambia. The Zambia Media Women Association (ZAMWA) and 

the Association of Senior Journalists joined them. 

These media organisations collectively intensified the lobbying of members of 

parliament where they already had an allies in Dipak Patel, a long time proponent 

of a free press in Zambia, and Sakwiba Sikota, a vice president in the 

major opposition party, the United Party for Development (UPND), and defence 

lawyer for many journalists dragged to the courts during Chiluba’s rule. 

The result of lobbying and other concerted advocacy activities was the proposal 

that the ZNBC Act be repealed and replaced by a new Broadcasting Act 

under which ZNBC would not have any licensing powers as is currently the 

case and would be treated equally with other broadcasters. In addition the 

new act would remove the Minister’s powers to appoint the Board of Directors 

of ZNBC and therefore the appointment of the chief executive officer. 

It was further proposed that an Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) be 

established to regulate broadcasting and that a Freedom of Information Act 

be enacted. 

2002 

A document was prepared on the proposals and presented to government and 

was received with a surprise response. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 

had already submitted proposals, including the repeal of the ZNBC 


ZAMBIA 


Act and establishment of a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority, to Cabinet. 

The government response, though surprising, was a direct result of concerted 

advocacy from the media organisations which also won them more support 

from opposition members of parliament who later put forward a private members 

bill in parliament. Again government swept the idea under the carpet. 

Government quickly came up with their own bills - although most of them 

contained “plagiarised” sections of the proposals made earlier by the media 

and contained in the private members bill. By the end of the year the bills had 

been tabled in parliament and are to be debated in early 2003. There are, 

though, still some contentious issues in the government documents before 

parliament. 

The unity of purpose exhibited by the two main media organisations – PAZA 

and ZIMA- also helped media workers look at their own practices. For many 

years government’s rejection of media reform proposals was based on the 

excuse that the media was disorganised and was not speaking with one voice. 

The two organisations, midway through the year, agreed to harmonise their 

codes of ethics and proposed the establishment of the Media Council of Zambia 

(MECOZ). This will unify the Independent Media Council of ZIMA and 

the Media Ethics and Complaints Council of PAZA. With the minimum of 

controversy, the plan to create a harmonised MECOZ was concluded at the 

end of the year and registration is likely to be in the first quarter of 2003. 

The Association of Senior Journalists lodged a complaint to ZIMA against 

the Today newspaper after the paper alleged that former Home Affairs Minister, 

the late Luckson Mapushi, who died in a road accident towards the end of 

the year, was in fact drunk when his vehicle careered off the road and overturned. 

The Independent Media Council met and summoned the editor, 

Masautso Phiri, who is former Chairman of ZIMA, and resolved the matter. 

The environment for journalists in the country continued to be poor during 

the year. Section 69, which is one of the biggest hindrances to free media 

practice in Zambia, was applied against Post Newspaper Editor, Fred 

M’membe, who was charged with defaming President Mwanawasa in a story 

which quoted Dipak Patel calling the President “a cabbage”. The People Newspaper 

Editor Emmanuel Chilekwa, too, came face to face with Section 69 

when he was charged with defaming the President in an article, which alleged 

that Mwanawasa was suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. 

Other harassment, physical attacks, and interference continued during the year. 

At the beginning of the year the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mwelwa 

Chibesakunda, announced that journalists and the public would be barred from 

witnessing the election of the Speaker during the first sitting of parliament 

under the new administration. Though no reason was given, it was obvious 



that the election of the Speaker was bound to be controversial and the government 

wanted the proceedings to be conducted in a secretive manner. The ban 

was, however, lifted, without reasons being given. 

Throughout the year journalists were threatened, (twice through bomb scares), 

physically attacked or verbally abused by overzealous political party cadres, 

detained by police even for ‘bailable’ offences as was the case with Chilekwa 

and his reporters, and generally despised by government officials for not supporting 

“national development”. 

On the other hand, the public and media practitioners still saw the need to 

increase media coverage in the country. Former Zambia Institute of Mass 

Communication (ZAMCOM) Director, Mike Daka, launched Breeze FM a 

privately owned commercial radio station in Chipata, some 600 kilometres 

from Lusaka in the Eastern Province. A number of similar initiatives were 

planned for the year including a Catholic radio station in Mongu in Western 

Province, Radio Syuungu in Livingstone, Radio Kariba in Siavonga on the 

border with Zimbabwe and two other Catholic stations in Livingstone and 

Mansa in the North. It is expected that during the year 2003 at least three of 

the planned radio stations will hit the airwaves. 

2002 



Zâmbia 

Por Oliver Kanene, Consultor de Comunicações em Regime Livre 

No dia 3 de Janeiro de 2003, a Corporação de Radiodifusão e Televisão 

da Zâmbia (ZNBC-TV) transmitiu o seu programa especial anual 

Acontecimentos do Ano. Tratou-se de um programa em profundidade, 

uma retrospectiva dos mais importantes acontecimentos do ano anterior, no 

qual a cerimónia de tomada de posse do Presidente Levy Mwanawasa em 2 

de Janeiro de 2002, foi o primeiro assunto. Seguia-se uma solicitação feita 

pelos principais partidos de oposição para que o Alto Tribunal declarasse as 

eleições desprovidas de toda e qualquer validade porque não tinham sido livres 

e justas. 

O programa de televisão transmitiu também as revelações do Presidente 

Mwanawasa sobre os abusos do cargo durante o mandato do Presidente 

Frederick Chiluba, envolvendo alguns dos seus altos funcionários, incluindo 

o seu adido de imprensa Richard Sakala, o Chefe dos Serviços Secretos da 

Zâmbia, Xavier Chungu e do Juiz Presidente Mathew Ngulube – que se demitiu 

da sua posição na sequência de pedidos incessantes do público para que ele o 

fizesse. 

A ZNBC lembrou a euforia que envolveu as páginas da história escritas pelos 

Zambianos, logo a seguir à recusa do ex-presidente Chiluba se candidatar a 

um terceiro mandato presidencial, alguns meses antes, ao pedirem ao 

parlamento para que retirasse a imunidade a Chiluba. De acordo com as 

informações, foi esta a primeira vez que tal medida foi tomada por um 

parlamento da Commonwealth. 

A remoção da sua imunidade foi decretada para garantir que Chiluba pudesse 

responder em tribunal pelos alegados delitos que cometeu durante o seu 

mandato de dez anos e por ter levado a economia do país quase à banca rota, 

particularmente através do grave abuso de uma conta em nome dos Serviços 

Secretos da Zâmbia e aberta num banco em Londres, a partir da qual foram 

feitos pagamentos duvidosos por Chungu ao Juiz Presidente Ngulube, aos 

filhos e alfaiate de Chiluba, ao Embaixador Zambiano nos Estados Unidos 

Athan Shansonga, e ao Procurador Geral da República Bon Mutale entre 

outros, no valor de vários milhões de dólares americanos. 

Na verdade, estes foram alguns dos acontecimentos que dominaram a 

comunicação social durante o ano e o programa de televisão fez uma 

retrospectiva destes acontecimentos, desde os pontos altos aos pontos baixos 

políticos de Chiluba, passando pela rejeição do milho geneticamente 

modificado, oferecido por doadores frente a uma das piores crises alimentares 



da África Austral, até à continuação da sessão de audição da petição onde 

qual os mais importantes partidos da oposição exigem o cancelamento das 

eleições que levaram Mwanawasa ao poder. 

Contudo, foi surpreendente que o programa não tivesse mencionado nenhum 

dos mais importantes acontecimentos que caracterizaram a própria 

comunicação social durante 2002, o ano que foi considerado por muitos como 

o que conseguiu importantes avanços alcançados pela comunicação social no 

sentido de conseguir um ambiente de trabalho mais conducente. O mais 

importante avanço foi a apresentação no parlamento de três projectos de lei, 

que deverão ser aprovados no início de 2003. 

O subida à presidência do jurista Mwanawasa e do seu proclamado conceito 

“Novo processo de administração de leis e não de homens” deu à comunicação 

social e ao público em geral um raio de esperança de que se entrava num 

período em que a atitude do governo seria mais sensível em relação ao debate 

sobre a reforma da comunicação social no país. Contudo, isto não aconteceu. 

O abuso no tratamento dos jornalistas pela polícia e pelos quadros políticos 

do partido continuou com a mesma intensidade e o Parágrafo 69 do Código 

Penal, que estipula que é uma ofensa a difamação do Presidente, continua a 

ser flagrantemente aplicado. O governo continuava muito interessado em 

manter as suas garras na dominação da ZNBC. 

Contudo, desta vez, a posição do governo do MMD sobre a comunicação 

social e sobre as reformas da comunicação social, foi enfrentada por um 

movimento de oposição mais concertado, determinado e sem precedentes e 

iniciado por uma unidade de propósito por parte dos profissionais da 

comunicação social. 

As diferenças entre a Associação da Imprensa da Zâmbia (PAZA), que 

representa principalmente as organizações de comunicação social controladas 

pelo governo e os seus empregados, e a Associação da Comunicação Social 

Independente da Zâmbia (ZIMA), que envolve organizações da comunicação 

social independente e jornalistas em regime livre, foram enterradas e as duas 

organizações começaram a trabalhar conjuntamente na luta por uma maior 

liberdade de imprensa na Zâmbia. A Associação Zambiana das Mulheres na 

Comunicação Social (ZAMWA) e a Associação de Jornalistas Seniores juntouse 

às outras. 

2002 

Estas organizações da comunicação social intensificaram colectivamente o 

seu trabalho de “lobbying” dos membros do parlamento onde já possuíam 

aliados nas pessoas de Dipak Patel, um defensor de longa data de uma imprensa 

livre na Zâmbia e Sakwiba Sikota, um vice-presidente no mais importante 

partido da oposição, o Partido Unido para o Desenvolvimento (UPND) e um 

advogado de defesa para muitos jornalistas que foram arrastados para os 


ZAMBIA 


tribunais durante o governo de Chiluba. 

O resultado do “lobbying” e de outras actividades concertadas de advocacia foi 

a proposta de que a Lei da ZNBC seja anulada e substituída por uma nova Lei 

de Radiodifusão ao abrigo da qual a ZNBC não teria qualquer poder de conceder 

licenças como é actualmente o caso e seria tratada em igualdade de 

circunstâncias com as outras emissoras. Para além disso a nova lei removeria os 

poderes do Ministro de nomear o Conselho de Directores da ZNBC e 

consequentemente do Chefe Executivo da emissora. 

Foi ainda proposto que uma Autoridade Independente de Radiodifusão (IBA) 

fosse criada para regular a radiodifusão e que uma Lei de Liberdade de 

Informação fosse também criada. 

Foi preparado um documento sobre as propostas e apresentado ao governo que 

lhe deu uma resposta surpreendente. O Ministério da Informação e Radiodifusão 

já tinha apresentado ao gabinete certas propostas, incluindo a revogação da Lei 

da ZNBC e a criação de uma Autoridade Reguladora da Radiodifusão. 

A resposta do governo, apesar de surpreendente, foi o resultado directo da 

campanha concertada de advocacia das organizações da comunicação social 

que também lhes trouxe mais apoio dos deputados membros da oposição, que 

mais tarde apresentaram no parlamento o projecto de lei dos membros privados. 

De novo o governo pôs a ideia de lado. O governo rapidamente apresentou os 

seus próprios projectos de lei - apesar da maioria deles conterem artigos 

“plagiados” das propostas feitas anteriormente pela comunicação social e 

contidas no projecto de lei dos membros privados. Por alturas do final do ano, 

os projectos de lei tinham sido apresentados no Parlamento e devem ter sido 

debatidos nos princípios de 2003. Contudo, há ainda alguns pontos de 

contencioso nos documentos apresentados pelo governo ao Parlamento. 

A unidade de propósito demonstrada pelas duas principais organizações da 

comunicação social – a PAZA e a ZIMA- ajudou também os profissionais da 

comunicação social a olharem para as suas próprias práticas. Durante muitos 

anos, a rejeição das propostas de reforma da comunicação social por parte do 

governo, foi baseada na desculpa de que a comunicação social estava 

desorganizada e não falava com uma só voz. 

As duas organizações, em meados do ano, concordaram em harmonizar os 

seus códigos de ética e propuseram a criação do Conselho da Comunicação 

Social da Zâmbia (MECOZ). Isto irá fazer a unificação do Conselho da 

Comunicação Social Independente da ZIMA e o Conselho de Ética e Queixas 

da Comunicação Social da PAZA. Com o mínimo de controvérsia, o plano 

harmonizado para criar o MECOZ foi completado no final do ano e o registo 

poderá ser feito no primeiro trimestre de 2003. 



A Associação de Jornalistas Seniores apresentou uma queixa à ZIMA contra 

o Jornal “Today” depois do jornal ter alegado que o antigo Ministro do Interior, 

o falecido Luckson Mapushi, que morreu num acidente de viação quase 

no fim do ano, estava de facto bêbado quando o seu veículo saiu da estrada 

e capotou. O Conselho da Comunicação Social Independente reuniu-se e 

convocou o Chefe da Redacção, Masautso Phiri, que é o antigo Presidente 

da ZIMA, e resolveu o assunto. 

Durante o ano, o ambiente para os jornalistas no país continuou a ser fraco. 

O Parágrafo 69, que é um dos principais obstáculos à prática da liberdade 

de imprensa na Zâmbia, foi invocado contra o Chefe da Redacção do Jornal 

“ Post ”, Fred M’membe, que foi acusado de difamar o Presidente 

Mwanawasa numa reportagem que citava Dipak Patel apelidando o presidente 

de “repolho”. O Chefe da Redacção do jornal “The People Newspaper” 

Emmanuel Chilekwa, também teve que enfrentar o Parágrafo 69 quando foi 

acusado de difamar o Presidente num artigo, que alegava que Mwanawasa 

sofria da Doença de Parkinson. 

Outras perseguições, assaltos físicos e interferência continuaram durante o 

ano. No início do ano, o Secretário da Assembleia Nacional, Mwelwa 

Chibesakunda, anunciou que os jornalistas e o público seriam proibidos de 

assistir à eleição do Presidente do novo Parlamento durante a sua primeira 

sessão. Apesar de não ter sido dada nenhuma razão, foi óbvio que a eleição 

do Presidente do Parlamento iria ser controversa e o governo queria que os 

trabalhos fossem conduzidos de forma secreta. Contudo, a proibição foi 

levantada sem terem sido dadas nenhuma razões. 

Durante o ano, houve jornalistas que foram ameaçados, (duas verses com 

ameaças de bombas), atacados fisicamente ou insultados por quadros muito 

zelosos de partidos políticos e detidos pela polícia, até mesmo por violações 

“caucionáveis” como foi o caso com Chilekwa e os seus repórteres e duma 

forma geral desprezados pelos funcionários do governo por não apoiarem o 

“desenvolvimento nacional”. 

2002 

Por outro lado, o público e os profissionais da comunicação social acharam 

necessário aumentar a cobertura informativa no país. O Director do antigo 

Instituto de Comunicação de Massas da Zâmbia (ZAMCOM), Mike Daka, 

lançou em Chipata, na Província Oriental e a cerca de 600 Km de Lusaka, o 

“Breeze FM”, uma estação de rádio comercial de propriedade privada. Várias 

outras iniciativas idênticas foram planeadas para o ano, incluindo uma estação 

de rádio Católica em Mongu na Província Ocidental, a Rádio Syuungu em 

Livingstone, a Rádio Kariba em Siavonga na fronteira com o Zimbabwe e 

duas outras estações de rádio Católicas em Livingstone e em Mansa no Norte. 

Espera-se que durante o ano de 2003, pelo menos três das planeadas estações 

de rádio comecem a transmitir. 


ZAMBIA 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-11 

INSTITUTION(S): National Mirror 


On February 7, 2002, bomb scares 

were received at about the same time 

at Multimedia Zambia, a media complex 

housing the weekly “National 

Mirror” newspaper, and Multichoice 

Zambia, a subscription television provider 

situated nearby. Both bomb 

scares forced operations to grind to a 

halt for several hours. 

A report in the February 9 to 15 edition 

of “National Mirror” explained 

that an anonymous caller called the 

two organisations at about 11:00 a.m. 

(local time) and warned that bombs 

had been planted there. The calls 

prompted the immediate evacuation 

of the premises, while bomb disposal 

experts were called in. The newspaper 

reports that police declared the 

premises safe after combing them for 

about two hours. 

Police spokesman Lemmy Kajoba 

told “National Mirror” that police 

were investigating the possible source 

of the bomb hoaxes and that the perpetrators 

faced stiff penalties if 

caught. Two other bomb hoaxes were 

recorded on 2 January, when an 

anonymous caller phoned the Lusaka 

High Court and the Zambia Revenue 

Authority, warning the occupants that 

bombs had been planted there. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-11 

INSTITUTION(S): Media in 

Zambia, general public 


On January 24, 2002, Zambian Parliament 

Clerk Mwelwa Chibesakunda 

announced that journalists and members 

of the public would be barred 

from witnessing the election of the 

speaker, scheduled for January 25. 

The ban remained in force until February 

5. 

The ban was announced in an official 

notice from Parliament, broadcast 

on the state-owned Zambia National 

Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) 

television, summoning Parliament for 

its first official sitting since the December 

27 general elections, during 

which a new president, Parliament and 

councillors were elected. 

Though no reason was given for 

barring the media and public from the 

sitting, which has previously been 

open to the public, it is possible that 

the move was taken by the clerk to 

avoid adverse publicity from an election 

that was expected to be controversial, 

in view of the sharp differences 

between the opposition and the 

ruling Movement for Multiparty Democracy 

(MMD) on both the choice 

of speaker and mode of voting. The 

opposition favoured an open system 

of voting for fear of manipulation by 

the ruling party if the voting were secret, 

while the MMD insisted on a 

secret ballot. 

An unofficial transcript of the proceedings 

in Parliament obtained clandestinely 

and published in the January 

26 issue of the privately owned 

“Post” revealed that the speaker’s 

election was violently disrupted by 

opposition members of parliament, 

who assaulted Chibesakunda when he 

announced that voting would be held 

by secret ballot. Parliament was then 

adjourned indefinitely pending an application 

to the High Court for a rul- 



2002 

ing on the mode of voting. 

In a January 31 statement, the Zambia 

Independent Media Association 

(ZIMA) called for the lifting of the 

ban against the media and the public 

from observing the proceedings. 

“We find the Clerk’s decision draconian, 

unacceptable and totally uncalled 

for, because it is a direct impingement 

of the Constitutional guarantee 

of freedom of expression, which 

the Zambian media are entitled to. In 

the interest of transparency and good 

governance, we urge the Clerk to allow 

the media to cover the election of 

the Speaker the next time the House 

sits to resolve this issue,” said ZIMA 

Chairman Masautso Phiri in a statement. 

When Parliament reconvened on 5 

February, after the state abruptly withdrew 

the High Court petition, the media 

and public were allowed to witness 

the proceedings. In a 4 February 

statement, Chibesakunda announced 

the lifting of the ban. No reason was 

given for the change of heart, though 

it is thought that it might have been in 

response to criticisms over the earlier 

ban. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-12 

PERSON(S): Fred M’membe 

VIOLATION(S): Detained, legislation 

On February 11, 2002, Fred 

M’membe, editor-in-chief of the privately-owned 

“Post” newspaper, was 

arrested and charged with defaming 

newly-elected Zambian President 

Levy Mwanawasa. “Defamation of 

the President” is forbidden under Section 

69 of the Zambian Penal Code. 


M’membe appeared before Principal 

Resident Magistrate Frank Tembo 

on 12 February, only to be informed 

that his case had been reallocated to 

another magistrate. No plea was 

taken. M’membe is out on police bond 

and is due in court again on February 

14. 

Section 69 of the Penal Code makes 

it an offence to defame the Zambian 

president. Under this section, it is illegal 

for anyone, “with intent to bring 

the President into hatred, ridicule, or 

contempt, to publish any defamatory 

matter insulting of the President”. The 

“insulting matter” may be in writing, 

print, word of mouth or any other form 

or manner. If convicted, an accused 

person faces a maximum jail sentence 

of three years, without the option of a 

fine. 

One of M’membe’s lawyers, 

Mutembo Nchito, described his client’s 

arrest as “intimidation.” He wondered 

why the state was in such a 

hurry to bring M’membe to trial that 

it flouted normal judicial procedures 

by bringing him to court prematurely. 

Nchito said that ordinarily, the case 

should have been allocated to a magistrate 

first, before his client was summoned 

to court for plea and setting of 

trial dates. 

“They are just trying to intimidate 

him. This is evidenced by their earlier 

refusal to grant him bail,” Nchito 

said. 

According to the February 12 issue 

of “Post” newspaper, M’membe was 

briefly detained the previous day at 

Woodlands police station in Lusaka, 

where he had presented himself for 

questioning, in compliance with a 

police summons. He was initially denied 

release on police bond, but this

ZAMBIA 


was granted after his lawyers intervened. 

M’membe was being sought by 

police for questioning about a story 

published in his newspaper on January 

25, which quoted opposition Forum 

for Democracy and Development 

(FDD) Member of Parliament (MP) 

for Lusaka Central Dipak Patel allegedly 

referring to President 

Mwanawasa as a “cabbage.” 

Patel was commenting on the government’s 

alleged scheme to manipulate 

the election of the speaker of Parliament, 

scheduled for January 25, 

through bribing opposition MPs and 

arbitrarily changing the mode of voting 

from one of acclamation to secret 

ballot, when he allegedly told the 

newspaper, “This is happening when 

this cabbage keeps saying this is a 

government of laws and not men.” 

On several occasions in recent 

weeks, Mwanawasa has said that his 

government would be of “laws” and 

not of “men.” 

Earlier, the February 9 issue of 

“Post” hinted at M’membe’s impending 

arrest along with Patel, when it 

reported that his lawyer, Nchima 

Nchito, was approached by police officers 

from the Woodlands police station 

in Lusaka, demanding that 

M’membe and Patel present themselves 

at the station. The lawyer promised 

that the two men would do so on 

February 11. 

During the campaign leading to the 

presidential polls of December 27, 

2001, Mwanawasa’s opponents described 

him repeatedly as a “cabbage,” 

an apparent reference to his 

supposed diminished mental capabilities 

due to a near fatal accident suffered 

almost ten years earlier, in which 

he suffered severe head injuries. He 

has admitted that as a result of the 

accident he has developed a stammer 

and his speech is slower. However, he 

denies that he is mentally impaired. 

Mwanawasa, a lawyer by training, 

dismissed the taunts from his opponents 

as baseless, arguing that he was 

of very sound mind, as evidenced by 

his continued practise of law. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-02-15 



On February 14, 2002, the editor-inchief 

of the privately owned “Post” 

newspaper, Fred M’membe, appeared 

in a Lusaka magistrate’s court for 

mention, following his February 11 

arrest for allegedly defaming newly 

elected President Levy Mwanawasa, 

an offence under Section 69 of the 

Penal Code. 

M’membe appeared before Magistrate 

Handson Hampande at the Boma 

courts. No plea was taken because the 

prosecution is awaiting consent from 

the director of public prosecution before 

proceeding with the case. Mention 

is a legal formality whereby an 

accused person appears in court at intervals 

before trial begins. M’membe 

is expected to make his next appearance 

in court on March 18. 

His lawyer, Mutembo Nchito, 

charged that the state was wasting 

time by trying to prosecute a case 

which would lead nowhere because 

his client was innocent. “[M’membe] 

has been charged in his capacity as 

editor of the ‘Post’ for words he did 

not mention,” Nchito said. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-19 

INSTITUTION(S): Zambia National 


(ZNBC), Zambia Information 

Services (ZIS), Zambia News 

Agency (ZANA) 


Operations at the state-owned Zambia 

National Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZNBC), Zambia Information 

Services (ZIS) and Zambia News 

Agency (ZANA) ground to a halt for 

about one hour on 15 February 2002 

due to a bomb scare at Mass Media 

Complex in Lusaka, where the three 

organisations are based. 

A report in the February 16 issue 

of “Times of Zambia” said an anonymous 

caller phoned Timothy Mwale, 

a duty technician in the ZNBC radio 

control room, at 6:50 a.m. (local time) 

and told him that a bomb had been 

planted in the building. 

Mwale said the caller neither specified 

the location of the bomb nor the 

time it would explode. He simply advised 

him to alert security officers and 

suggested that everyone vacate the 

premises as a safety precaution. 

Mwale then phoned ZNBC Director 

General Eddie Mupeso, who in turn 

called bomb experts to comb the 

building. 

The building was declared safe after 

a combined team of police officers 

and bomb disposal experts 

searched it for about one hour. 

Mupeso, who addressed employees 

from the three institutions after the 

search, advised them to be vigilant and 

report suspicious looking objects to 

the police. He also said ZNBC was 

taking measures to tighten security at 


its studios. 

This bomb hoax came a week after 

two bomb scares were reported at two 

other media houses, Multimedia Zambia, 

publishers of the weekly “National 

Mirror” and MultiChoice Zambia, 

a subscription television service 

operator. In January, two other bomb 

scares were recorded in Lusaka. 

Meanwhile, on February 15, police 

spokesman Lemmy Kajoba said that 

police were closing in on the people 

suspected of being behind the bomb 

threats. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-19 

PERSON(S): Jerry Nkwendeenda 


On February 14, 2002, Jerry 

Nkwendeenda, a reporter who works 

for Mazabuka community radio station, 

situated in Mazabuka (about 120 

kilometres south of Lusaka), was illegally 

detained for about one hour 

by three police officers for allegedly 

“interfering with their work.” 

Nkwendeenda, aged 32, was held 

at a shop selling mealie meal, Zambia’s 

staple food, which is currently 

in short supply, when he went to investigate 

a commotion surrounding 

the sale of the food. What aroused his 

curiosity was the fact that the commodity 

was being sold at an unusual 

hour, 7:30 p.m. (local time), when the 

shop would ordinarily be closed. 

The three police officers were hired 

by the shop owner to help bring order 

at the premises, where confusion 

reigned for some time due to a stampede 

for stocks of the scarce commodity, 

which was being sold cheaply. 

Nkwendeenda saw a police officer

ZAMBIA 


at the scene demanding and receiving 

a sum of K10 000 (US$2) as payment 

for assisting a buyer to purchase six 

bags of mealie meal. “I was suspicious 

that mealie meal was being sold at 

night. When I arrived at the shop, I 

was even more surprised to witness a 

police officer demand and receive 

K10 000,” the reporter said. 

When Nkwendeenda queried the 

buyer about the money he had offered 

the police officer, all three officers 

attacked him, grabbed him by the 

shoulders, confiscated his note book 

and threw him into a disused room 

without any windows, he told the 

Zambia Independent Media Association 

(ZIMA) on February 15. 

“They read my notes and then demanded 

an explanation [as to] why I 

had written them,” Nkwendeenda 

said. “They accused me of being 

cheeky and detained me for an hour 

to teach me a lesson,” he explained. 

Nkwendeenda, who had his mobile 

phone at the time, then phoned 

Mazabuka District Administrator 

Munyati Hanambe and asked for help. 

Hanambe secured the journalist’s release 

within one hour. In an 18 February 

interview, Hanambe confirmed 

the events to ZIMA, adding that two 

of the police officers fled the scene 

when he arrived. 

Hanambe said he was upset with the 

level of corruption among public officials, 

especially the Mazabuka police. 

He also said the officers involved 

in the incident should be “removed. 

They are public officers and are not 

supposed to get extra payment for 

their work.” 

Mazabuka community radio station 

supervisor Kelvin Chibomba said the 

station had lodged an official complaint 

with the officer-in-charge at 

Mazabuka police, who said the matter 

would be investigated and the culprits 

brought to book. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-02-25 



On Friday February 22, 2002, Fred 

M’membe, editor-in-chief of the privately 

owned “Post” newspaper, was 

“put on his defence” in a case where 

he was charged with defaming former 

president Frederick Chiluba. 

His lawyer, Mutembo Nchito, told 

the Zambia Independent Media Association 

(ZIMA) that this means 

M’membe’s defence team now has to 

give evidence to support the claim 

published in the “Post” in 2001 that 

Chiluba was a thief. 

Nchito said he was not surprised 

with the magistrate’s ruling and was 

happy because, “it will enable the 

public to know what Chiluba and his 

friends were doing while he was in 

government.” 

He was optimistic that he would be 

able to successfully defend his client, 

though he added, “one cannot be 100 

percent sure.” 

M’membe is alleged to have defamed 

former Zambian president 

Frederick Chiluba in an editorial titled 

“A thief for president”, published 

in the August 17, 2001 edition of “The 

Post”, when he alleged that Chiluba 

had stolen public funds. 

He is charged under Section 69 of 

the Zambian Penal Code, which 

makes it an offence “to publish anything, 

in any form, deemed as tend- 



2002 

ing to bring the office and person of 

the president into hatred, ridicule or 

contempt”. The offence carries a 

maximum penalty of three years in jail 

without the option of a fine. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-28 



Zambian Director of Public Prosecutions 

(DPP) Mukelebai Mukelebai 

told the Zambia Independent Media 

Association (ZIMA) on February 27, 

2002 that he had instructed police on 

February 11 to drop the “defamation 

of the President” charge against Fred 

M’membe, editor-in-chief of the privately 

owned “Post” newspaper. 

Mukelebai said that having studied 

the docket sent to him by the police 

shortly after M’membe’s arrest, he 

had concluded that “the case was neither 

here nor there” and advised them 

to drop the charge. He said the case 

will be formally withdrawn on 14 

March, when M’membe is next due 

to appear in court. 

However, when contacted for comment, 

M’membe’s lawyer Mutembo 

Nchito told ZIMA that although he 

had read about the DPP’s statement 

in the press, he had received no official 

communication about the development. 

The intended withdrawal of the case 

follows an appeal to the DPP by President 

Levy Mwanawasa, asking him to 

consider withdrawing the charge 

against M’membe because Dipak 

Patel, the opposition member of parliament 

who allegedly referred to him 

as a “cabbage”, had since apologised 

to him. 


M’membe was arrested on February 

11 and charged with defaming 

President Mwanawasa. This followed 

his newspaper’s publication of a story 

on 25 January in which Patel was said 

to have referred to President 

Mwanawasa as a “cabbage.” 

M’membe was briefly detained. However, 

he was released on police bond 

the same day after the DPP intervened. 

“Defamation of the President” is an 

offence under Section 69 of the Penal 

Code. 

In a February 13 statement, ZIMA 

demanded that the charge against 

M’membe be dropped, and described 

his arrest as “a worrying indication 

that the honeymoon between President 

Mwanawasa’s ‘New Deal’ government 

and the independent media 

is over.” 

ZIMA Chairperson Masautso Phiri 

described Section 69 of the Penal 

Code as “an obnoxious and archaic 

piece of legislation” and demanded its 

repeal, along with the abolishment of 

other repressive press laws. 

Under Section 69, it is illegal for 

anyone “to bring the President into 

hatred, ridicule, or contempt by publishing 

or broadcasting any defamatory 

matter that insults the President”. 

If convicted, an accused person faces 

a maximum jail sentence of three 

years, without the option of a fine. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-06 

PERSON(S): Thomas Nsama 


On February 24, 2002, Thomas 

Nsama, a photographer working for 

the privately owned “Post” newspaper, 

was beaten by ruling Movement

ZAMBIA 


for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) 

supporters. They were angered by 

Nsama photographing them forcibly 

moving a “Post” newspaper editorial 

vehicle from where it was parked 

along the driveway of the Mulungushi 

International Conference Centre in 

Lusaka onto the centre’s lawn, about 

a metre away. 

The party supporters decided to lift 

the “Post” vehicle, along with about 

five other vehicles parked along the 

same driveway, to create more room 

for the arrival of MMD party President 

Frederick Chiluba and his entourage 

for a membership card renewal 

exercise. 

Nsama told the Zambia Independent 

Media Association (ZIMA) that he 

was beaten in full view of the police 

who did nothing to rescue him from a 

mob of about fifteen party members. 

“The beating started when I took a 

photo of the cadres as they lifted the 

‘Post’ vehicle from where it was 

parked to the lawn. A female cadre 

who saw me take the photograph 

alerted the group that I had taken a 

photo of them and that I was from the 

‘Post’. When they heard that, they 

suspended their action and descended 

upon me, beating and punching me in 

full view of the police,” Nsama said. 

He said the attackers tried to grab 

his camera, but he quickly gave it to a 

fellow photographer who bolted with 

it to safety. Nsama complained that his 

whole body was aching as a result of 

the severe beating he had undergone. 

He also complained about having difficulties 

hearing out of his left ear. 

Nsama said he reported the assault 

to Lusaka Central police station on the 

same day. Police officers were, however, 

reluctant to open a docket, saying 

“they were too junior” to handle 

the case. As of February 25, a docket 

had not been opened despite the fact 

that Nsama obtained a medical report 

from a government hospital confirming 

that he had been assaulted. 

Police spokesperson Lemmy 

Kajoba confirmed receiving a report 

of the beating and the difficulties 

Nsama was having getting a docket 

opened. However, Kajoba said he had 

referred Nsama back to the Lusaka 

Central police station. “It takes time 

to open a docket. Maybe the complainant 

did not have money to open 

the docket,” Kajoba said. 

Nsama disputed Kajoba’s claim, 

saying he had the money to pay for 

opening the docket, but the police 

were reluctant to do so. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-29 

PERSON(S): Owen Miyanza 


On April 17, 2002, Owen Miyanza, a 

photojournalist from the privatelyowned 

newspaper “The Monitor”, 

had his camera briefly seized and film 

confiscated by police after he took 

pictures of opposition party supporters 

protesting at a police station in 

Lusaka. 

Miyanza, aged 26, said the incident 

took place in the corridors of the 

Lusaka Central Police station as he 

was taking snapshots of opposition 

United National Independence Party 

(UNIP) President Tilyenji Kaunda, 

who had been summoned to the police 

station for questioning. 

“I was taking photos of the UNIP 

president and his supporters, who had 

invaded the police station in an ap- 



2002 

parent show of solidarity with their 

leader, who had been called for questioning. 

They were holding placards 

and chanting anti-government slogans 

both outside and along corridors of the 

police station. A police officer saw me 

taking the photos inside the station, 

grabbed my camera and forced me 

into one of the offices, where I was 

kept for about 20 minutes while police 

decided what to do with me,” he 

told the Zambia Independent Media 

Association (ZIMA). 

Miyanza said the police ordered 

him to accompany them to a film 

processing shop in town to develop 

the film. When it was developed, they 

decided to keep the pictures taken 

both outside and inside the station, 

claiming the film included pictures of 

sensitive areas of the police station. 

However, Miyanza protested this 

claim, saying “I have taken shots before 

in the police station.” 

Goodson Machona, assistant editor 

of “The Monitor”, confirmed 

Miyanza’s story. However, he denied 

that it was the result of his 

photojournalist’s mistake. “Miyanza 

is a good photojournalist who keeps 

himself out of trouble. I suppose his 

only mistake is that he wants to get 

the best picture when some people 

don’t want him to,” Machona said. 

Lusaka Division Police Commanding 

Officer Francis Kabonde told 

ZIMA that his office was holding 

Miyanza’s pictures. “The photos are 

on my desk. I will release only those 

that I feel are not putting the nation’s 

security at risk,” he said. 

Miyanza’s lawyer Leah Mtonga 

said efforts to retrieve the photos from 

the police had failed. “We went to the 

police and found that Kabonde and his 


deputy had gone out on an assignment 

to State House,” she said. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-30 

PERSON(S): Emmanuel Chilekwa 


On May 28 2002, police ordered 

Emmanuel Chilekwa, editor of the 

privately-owned “People” weekly, to 

report to police headquarters in 

Lusaka on May 29 for questioning. 

Police said the questioning was related 

to an article that alleged President 

Levy Mwanawasa is suffering 

from Parkinson’s disease. 

On May 29, Chilekwa was informed 

by police that they were investigating 

a “defamation of the president” 

complaint. “Defamation of the 

president” is an offence under Section 

69 of the Zambian Penal Code. Under 

its provision, it is an offence to 

bring hatred, ridicule or contempt to 

the reputation of the president, to publish 

any defamatory matter, whether 

in writing, print, word of mouth, or 

any other form or manner. A conviction 

carries a jail term of up to three 

years without the option of a fine. 

Norman Sampa, a lawyer who accompanied 

Chilekwa to the police 

headquarters, told the Zambia Independent 

Media Association (ZIMA) 

that police merely read out the facts 

of the case to his client. Chilekwa refused 

to answer any questions and was 

told that he may be required to appear 

before the police again in the future 

“if [the] need arose.” He was then allowed 

to go. 

Chilekwa informed ZIMA that he 

stands by his story because the issues 

being raised in his newspaper are of

ZAMBIA 


national interest. “This is a constitutional 

matter. We believe it is in the 

best interest of this nation and not a 

crime to ask how fit the President is 

because he is in charge of everything 

in the nation,” he said. “The constitution 

says that a person aspiring to be 

president should be physically and 

mentally fit. Lack of fitness is ground 

for someone to lose his position,” he 

noted. 

The police appear to be motivated 

by a complaint from President 

Mwanawasa, who complained that his 

character was maligned by the allegation 

that he has Parkinson’s. President 

Mwanawasa has accused dissidents 

within the ruling Movement for 

Multiparty Democracy (MMD) of 

wanting to tarnish his reputation and 

that of his five-month old administration 

with the allegation. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-04 

PERSON(S): Emmanuel Chilekwa, 

Jane Chirwa, Shadreck Banda 

VIOLATION(S): Detained, Beaten 

On May 31, Emmanuel Chilekwa, 

managing editor of the privatelyowned 

“People” weekly, his assistant 

editor Shadreck Banda and student 

reporter Jane Chirwa were picked up 

by police. Police questioned them 

about a story “People” was investigating 

concerning alleged links between 

a government minister and 

criminal elements. 

Chilekwa and Banda told the Zambia 


(ZIMA) that they were assaulted and 

verbally abused by police officers 

while transported to police headquarters 

in Lusaka. 

Tisah Mashow, a reporter at “The 

People”, told ZIMA that three plainclothes 

officers arrived at their offices 

just before 9:00 a.m. (local time). The 

police had orders to take Chirwa to 

police headquarters. Banda did not let 

the police take Chirwa, arguing that 

police needed to give her sufficient 

notice before taking her into custody. 

After an angry exchange of words the 

police officers left. 

The same officers returned an hour 

later, accompanied by another officer 

who seemed to be in charge. They hit 

Banda with the butt of their guns, 

slapped him across the face and 

punched him until he was bleeding 

from the mouth. They took Banda and 

drove him to the site where the newspaper 

was being printed. There, they 

found Chilekwa and also assaulted and 

verbally abused him. He was forced 

into a police vehicle and handcuffed 

to Banda. 

Banda told ZIMA that they were 

then driven to police headquarters, 

where Chilekwa was taken out of the 

car and questioned. Banda was told to 

remain in the vehicle and help the officers 

locate Chirwa. She was found 

about one hour later and taken to police 

headquarters. The journalists were 

held for approximately three hours. 

Only Chirwa and Chilekwa were questioned. 

Chirwa said police questioned her 

about a query she had sent to an individual 

regarding an investigation of a 

government minister. She was released 

after about one hour of questioning and 

after signing a statement. Chilekwa 

was questioned for about 30 minutes. 

He complained that police denied him 

the use of a phone to call his lawyers. 

On May 29, police informed 



2002 

Chilekwa that he was being investigated 

and faces a possible charge of 

“defamation of the president” for a 

report published in the May 25-31 edition 

of his newspaper. The report alleged 

that President Mwanawasa was 

suffering from Parkinson’s disease. 

“Defamation of the president” is an 

offence under Section 69 of the Penal 

Code. A conviction carries a jail term 

of up to three years without the option 

of a fine. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-07 


Jane Chirwa, Shadreck Banda, 

Kings Lweendo 

VIOLATION(S): Detained, Legislation 

On June 5, 2002, Emmanuel 

Chilekwa, managing editor of the privately-owned 

newspaper “The People”, 

his assistants Shadreck Banda 

and Kings Lweendo, and student journalist 

Jane Chirwa were arrested and 

formally charged with “Defamation 

of the President”. 

Chilekwa, Banda and Lweendo are 

being detained at Longacres Police 

Post. Chirwa is detained at Lusaka 

Central Police Station. On June 7, they 

were denied bail by Lusaka Principal 

Resident Magistrate Frank Tembo. 

Tembo told defence lawyers 

Nicholas Chanda and Alfreda 

Mwamba that he would make a ruling 

on the bail application on June 25, 

when the case comes up again. 

Chilekwa and his co-accused have 

been remanded in custody. 

On May 28, Zambian police ordered 

Chilekwa to report to police headquarters 

in Lusaka for questioning on 29 


May, in connection with an article published 

in his newspaper’s May 25-31 

issue, which alleged that President 

Levy Mwanawasa was suffering from 

Parkinson’s disease. 

The police subsequently informed 

Chilekwa that he was being investigated 

in connection with a complaint 

of “Defamation of the President”. On 

May 31, Chilekwa and his colleagues 

were picked up, assaulted and verbally 

abused while being interrogated on a 

story “People” was investigating concerning 

alleged links between a government 

minister and criminal elements.. 

The move by police follows a complaint 

by President Mwanawasa that 

his character was being maligned by 

people alleging that he was suffering 

from Parkinson’s disease. He blamed 

this on his political opponents within 

the ruling Movement for Multiparty 

Democracy (MMD), whom he said 

wanted to tarnish his reputation and 

that of his five-month old administration. 

“Defamation of the President” is an 

offence under Section 69 of the Zambian 

Penal Code. It is an offence under 

this provision for anyone to “bring 

hatred, ridicule or contempt to the 

reputation of the president, to publish 

any defamatory matter, whether in 

writing, print, word of mouth, or any 

other form or manner”. A conviction 

carries a jail term of up to three years 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-13 

PERSON(S): Masautso Phiri 


Masautso Phiri, editor of “Today”

ZAMBIA 


newspaper and chairman of Zambia 


(ZIMA), was briefly detained by a 

Lusaka magistrate on June 10, 2002. 

This follows the same magistrate’s 

dismissal of his application for a case 

in which he was found in contempt 

of court to be referred to the High 

Court for determination of constitutional 

issues. 

On May 17, Magistrate John 

Njapau found Phiri in contempt of 

court for publishing an article commenting 

on a matter that was before 

the court. Phiri was then summoned 

to appear before the magistrate on 4 

June to show why he should not be 

jailed for the alleged offence. 

During his June 4 court appearance, 

Phiri, who represented himself, argued 

that since the alleged contempt 

was not committed in court, the matter 

should be referred to the Director 

of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who 

would be the right person to prosecute. 

Alternatively, he argued, the matter 

was to be referred to the High Court 

for determination of constitutional issues, 

because the case infringed on 

press freedom. 

But in his June 10 ruling, the magistrate 

said a matter became active 

when an individual was arrested. By 

publishing the article, the magistrate 

said, Phiri was in contempt of court. 

He rejected the notion that he should 

refer the matter to the DPP or the High 

Court. 

After the ruling, Phiri applied for 

an adjournment because his leading 

defence lawyer was out of town. The 

magistrate granted the application but 

ordered that Phiri be remanded in custody 

until his lawyer was present in 

court. 

Phiri was only saved from further 

detention when his lawyer applied for 

bail, which was granted. Phiri was 

released about two hours later, when 

the bail formalities were concluded. 

The case has been adjourned until 

June 26. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-13 

PERSON(S): Newspaper vendors 


On June 6, 2002, several newspaper 

vendors were violently attacked and 

injured by a group of people believed 

to be members of the ruling Movement 

of Multiparty Democracy 

(MMD), in a bid to stop them from 

selling newspapers believed to be 

critical of President Levy 

Mwanawasa. 

Eyewitnesses identified Norman 

Sakala, an MMD member, as the 

group’s leader. The group, armed with 

knives, machetes, chains and 

knobkerries, attacked newspaper vendors 

selling the privately-owned publications 

“The Post”, “Today” and 

“The People” at the Lusaka City Centre 

and in surrounding areas. 

One of the victims, Julius Mulenga, 

told “The Post” newspaper that he was 

forced into a minibus used by the attackers 

and severely beaten. Another 

victim, Robby Chasaya, told the 

newspaper that his hands were slashed 

with a knife and he sustained a broken 

tooth. Other vendors reportedly 

had cuts on their heads, faces and 

hands. 

Police spokesperson Lemmy 

Kajoba confirmed receiving a report 

of the attacks against the vendors. He 

also stated that the police had 



2002 

launched an investigation into the attack. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-06-26 


Shadreck Banda, Kings Lweendo, 

Jane Chirwa 



On June 25 2002, the Lusaka-based 

“People” newspaper editor, 

Emmanuel Chilekwa, assistant editor 

Shadreck Banda, reporter Kings 

Lweendo and student journalist Jane 

Chirwa pleaded not guilty to a charge 

of defaming President Levy 

Mwanawasa. The case has been adjourned 

to 9 July for trial. 

The journalists, who appeared before 

Principal Resident Magistrate 

Frank Tembo, were charged with 

“defamation of the president” for publishing 

a story headlined 

“Mwanawasa has brain disease?” in 

the May 25 to 31 edition of the “People” 

newspaper. The article alleged 

that President Mwanawasa was suffering 

from Parkinson’s disease, an 

incurable brain disorder. 

Defamation of the president is prohibited 

under Section 69 of the Zambian 

Penal Code. If convicted, an accused 

person faces a jail term of three 

years without the option of a fine. 

The journalists were arrested on 5 

June and are still detained because 

their bail application was denied. 

Magistrate Tembo, in a June 17 ruling 

made in his chambers, said he was 

denying the journalists bail because 

defamation of the president cases were 

prevalent in Zambia. “Bail is granted 

at the discretion of the court and having 

taken several factors into consideration, 

including the prevalence of 

this offence, I will not grant the application 

for bail,” he said. 

However, the decision was greeted 

with consternation by defence lawyer 

Nicholas Chanda, who accused the 

magistrate of abusing his discretion. 

He also wondered why the magistrate 

had not informed the defence team of 

the ruling until his clients appeared in 

court on June 25. He said he would 

appeal the decision to the High Court. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-06-27 


Shadreck Banda, Kings Lweendo, 

Jane Chirwa 


On Thursday June 27 2002, the 

Lusaka High Court granted bail to 

four journalists from the “People” 

newspaper following a successful petition 

by their lawyers. The journalists 

are charged with “defamation of 

the president”. 

The four journalists are editor 

Emmanuel Chilekwa, assistant editor 

Shadreck Banda, reporter Kings 

Lweendo and student reporter Jane 

Chirwa. 

High Court Judge Gregory Phiri 

quashed the ruling of Principal Resident 

Magistrate Frank Tembo, who 

denied the journalists bail on 17 June, 

arguing that the magistrate erred in his 

decision. Phiri granted each of the four 

journalists bail of K500,000 (US$125) 

with two working sureties, each worth 

K500 000. The journalists are required 

to pay the court a total of K6 000,000 

(US$1,500) before being released.

ZAMBIA 


The Zambia Independent Media Association 

(ZIMA) has secured the bail 

money for journalists. 

The journalists were arrested on 

June 5 and placed in police custody. 

On June 7, they appeared before 

Tembo for mention. An application for 

bail by their lawyer, Nicholas Chanda, 

was not granted pending a ruling by 

the magistrate. The journalists were 

then sent to jail until their next court 

appearance on June 25. 

Tembo made his ruling on June 17 

and denied the journalists bail, arguing 

that cases of “defamation of the 

president” had become prevalent in 

Zambia. The journalists’ lawyers only 

learned about the ruling on June 25, 

when the journalists appeared in court 

to plea their case. They indicated that 

they would appeal the ruling immediately. 

Tembo set July 9 as the trial 

date for the journalists. 

“Defamation of the president” is 

prohibited under Section 69 of the 

Zambian Penal Code. If convicted, a 

person faces a jail term of three years 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-16 

PERSON(S): Kabanda Chulu, 

Happy Kabwe 


On September 11, 2002, Kabanda 

Chulu, a reporter working for the privately 

owned “The Monitor” newspaper, 

was ejected from Arrakan barracks 

in Lusaka because he was allegedly 

spying. The reporter had gone 

to cover the closing ceremony of the 

Zambian army inter-unit drill competition. 

Chulu told MISA’s Zambia chapter, 

ZIMA (Zambia Independent Media 

Association), that he was singled 

out by a military police officer while 

he was sitting with other reporters in 

the press section before the event began. 

Chulu stated that he was escorted 

out after a lieutenant from the military 

police announced that the army 

did not deal with reporters from private 

newspapers. The reporter tried to 

explain that he came to cover the event 

because the Zambia Information Services, 

the government’s public relations 

wing, had notified his newspaper that 

it was an event that could be covered 

by all media organisations. However, 

he was told his ejection was “normal 

procedure.” 

Chulu said the military police officer 

told him: “Maybe you have just 

come to spy or you won’t cover this 

event but write something else.” 

Reacting to the ejection of his reporter, 

“The Monitor” newspaper’s 

chief reporter Chali Nondo condemned 

the army’s act as “harassment.” 

In another incident, on August 23, 

2002, Happy Kabwe, a freelance journalist 

who writes for the “Post” newspaper, 

was barred from covering a 

government department heads’ meeting 

addressed by Guston Sichilima, 

Mbala member of parliament for the 

ruling Movement for Multiparty Democracy 

(MMD) party. However, 

Kabwe’s colleague from the Zambia 

Information Services was allowed to 

cover the same event. 

Kabwe said in a letter to ZIMA that 

he was not told why he was being 

ejected from the meeting. According 

to the journalist’s information, the 

meeting was about the disbursement 

of funds for road building. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-16 

PERSON(S): Arthur Simuchoba, 

Chali Nondo 

VIOLATION(S): Legislated 


On September 16, 2002, editor Arthur 

Simuchoba and chief reporter Chali 

Nondo, both of the privately owned 

bi-weekly “The Monitor” newspaper, 

were summoned to the Supreme 

Court for the commencement of contempt 

of court proceedings against 

them. 

The two were called to court following 

an application by lawyer 

Michael Mundashi, on behalf of President 

Levy Mwanawasa, citing the 

journalists with contempt of court for 

publishing an article in the August 16- 

19, 2002 edition of “The Monitor”. 

The article alleged that Mwanawasa 

had increased the salaries of supreme 

court judges “to soften the judiciary 

ahead of the Presidential petition hearing.” 

Mwanawasa’s election in December 

2001 is being challenged by 

three opposition party leaders who 

allege that he was dubiously elected. 

Mundashi told the seven judges of 

the Supreme Court that the story entitled 

“Levy back-pedals on early polls” 

casts aspersions on the integrity of his 

client and the judicial process. He argued 

that the newspaper should have 

avoided making comments suggesting 

that the president had used the 

salary increase to persuade the court 

to rule in his favour in the election 

petition case. The president’s lawyer 

requested that Simuchoba and Nondo 

be cited for contempt of court. 

James Shonga, the journalists’ legal 

representative, asked the court to 

give him time to study the case before 

replying to Mundashi’s claims. 

The case was adjourned until 20 September. 

Simuchoba told MISA’s Zambian 

chapter (Zambia Independent Media 

Association, ZIMA) that Mwanawasa 

is “very unhappy with us [‘The Monitor’].” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-17 

PERSON(S): Henry Salim 


On September 16, 2002, freelance 

photographer Henry Salim sustained 

a deep cut near his left eye from a 

stone thrown by supporters of the opposition 

United Party for National 

Development (UPND), during a skirmish 

with ruling Movement for Multiparty 

Democracy (MMD) supporters 

outside the Supreme Court in 

Lusaka. 

The two parties’ supporters had 

gathered outside the court to show 

support for their leaders at the start of 

a presidential election petition hearing, 

where three opposition party 

presidents are challenging the election 

of Zambian President Levy 

Mwanawasa during presidential polls 

held in December 2001. 

Salim told MISA’s Zambian chapter 

(Zambia Independent Media Association, 

ZIMA) that the stone that 

struck him came from UPND supporters 

who were throwing stones at the 

MMD supporters as police fired tear 

gas to disperse the rival groups. “I was 

taking a photograph of police firing 

tear gas at the MMD supporters when 

I was struck by the stone which made 

me bleed severely,” he said. The photographer 

reported the matter to the

ZAMBIA 


police who gave him a medical form 

to seek treatment. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-11-06 

PERSON(S): Opposition political 

parties, media in Zambia 


The government has temporarily 

blocked efforts by Zambian opposition 

political parties to present three 

private members’ bills relating to freedom 

of information (FOI), broadcasting, 

and the Independent Broadcasting 

Authority (IBA). 

The government blocked the bills 

by invoking Article 81 of the Constitution, 

which requires bills with financial 

implications to be approved by the 

president, through the vice-president 

or finance minister, before they can 

be brought to Parliament. National 

Assembly Speaker Amusaa 

Mwanamwambwa gave this as an explanation 

as to why the three private 

members’ bills, which were expected 

to be tabled on 5 November 2002, had 

been struck off the day’s order paper, 

despite Vice-President Enock 

Kavindele’s 1 November announcement 

that the bills would be tabled. 

Mwanamwambwa said Article 81 

of the Zambian constitution and National 

Assembly Standing Order 76 

required that all bills with financial 

implications be cleared by the executive 

before being brought to Parliament. 

He explained that unless the 

movers of the concerned bills received 

executive approval, the bills would 

not be considered. 

Meanwhile, the government has 

gazetted and published its own versions 

of the FOI and IBA bills in the 

media. Both borrow heavily from the 

private members’ bills. However, 

rather than repealing the current Zambia 

National Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZNBC) Act and replacing it with 

a Broadcasting Act, as proposed in the 

private members’ bills, the government 

has merely chosen to amend the 

ZNBC Act. The proposed amendment 

includes provisions for removing the 

minister of information and broadcasting 

services’ licencing powers and allowing 

ZNBC to collect television licence 

fees. Speaking on ZNBC Television 

on 3 November, Legal Affairs 

Minister George Kunda said the government 

was preparing to present its 

bills to Parliament. 

Lusaka Central Member of Parliament 

Dipak Patel, who has been spearheading 

the private members’ bills, 

has accused the government of deliberately 

refusing to give its consent. He 

says the opposition would get a court 

order compelling the minister of finance 

to approve the bills. 

“The Government is uncomfortable 

with the private members’ bills simply 

because they are generated by the 

opposition,” Patel noted in a letter to 

Finance Minister Emmanuel 

Kasonde. 

A November 4 joint statement by 

the Zambia Independent Media Association 

(ZIMA), the Press Association 

of Zambia (PAZA), the Zambia 

Women Media’s Association 

(ZAMWA), the Society of Senior 

Zambian Journalists (SSZJ) and the 

Zambia Union of Journalists (ZUJ) 

expressed disappointment at the government’s 

lack of commitment to relinquish 

political control of ZNBC. 

“We regret that the government is 

not interested in transforming ZNBC 



2002 

from a state-owned and controlled 

broadcaster to a public service, independent 

and professionally run broadcaster. 

It is an indisputable fact that in 

its current form, and as suggested by 

government in their bill, ZNBC is a 

propaganda machinery of the ruling 

Movement for Multiparty Democracy 

(MMD),” the statement read. 

The initiative to introduce the private 

members’ bills has been driven 

by MISA’s Zambian chapter, known 

locally as ZIMA. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-11-14 

PERSON(S): Arthur Simuchoba, 

Chali Nondo 


On November 12, 2002, the Supreme 

Court dismissed an application made 

by President Levy Mwanawasa’s lawyer, 

Michael Mundashi. Mundashi 

was seeking the citation of Arthur 

Simuchoba, editor of the privatelyowned 

newspaper “The Monitor”, 

and Chali Nondo, his chief reporter, 

for “contempt of court”, for commenting 

on an ongoing election petition 

against Mwanawasa’s election in December 

2001. 

On September 16, Mundashi applied 

to the court to cite the journalists 

for “contempt of court” in relation 

to an article published in the 16 

to 19 August edition of “The Monitor”, 

which alleged that Mwanawasa 

had increased Supreme Court judges’ 

salaries “to soften the judiciary ahead 

of the Presidential petition hearing.” 

Mundashi told all seven Supreme 

Court judges that the story, entitled 

“Levy back-pedals on early polls”, 

had cast doubt on the integrity of his 


client and the judicial process. He 

further argued that the newspaper 

should have avoided publishing comments 

suggesting that the president 

had influenced the court into ruling 

in his favour through the salary increment, 

because such reporting was 

prejudicial to a fair trial. 

However, in his November 12 ruling, 

Chief Justice Ernest Sakala said 

that though he found the report to be 

“very sarcastic,” the matter could not 

be dealt with by the court. He suggested 

that the case be handled by the 

Director of Public Prosecutions, using 

relevant Penal Code provisions. 

Justice Sakala noted that both the 

media and politicians with an interest 

in the election petition had made 

comments about the proceedings that 

might be prejudicial to a fair trial. 

“We view with grave concern the 

ongoing statements in the press and 

comments by the media and some individuals 

on this particular petition. 

Some of these statements and comments 

in fact tend to cast aspersions 

on the court itself while others are 

deliberately calculated opinions on 

what individuals think the final verdict 

in this petition should be,” Justice 

Sakala said. He warned all parties 

to limit their comments on the 

trial to factual statements or risk being 

cited for contempt. 

President Mwanawasa’s December 

2001 election is being challenged 

in the Supreme Court by three opposition 

party leaders, who allege that 

he was dubiously elected. 

The case has attracted widespread 

comment in the media, with both the 

president and those challenging his 

election saying they would win the 

case.

ZAMBIA 


UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-11-26 




On November 22, 2002, Minister of 

Information and Broadcasting Services 

Newstead Zimba presented three 

media bills being put forward by the 

government for first reading in Parliament. 

The bills being presented are 

the Zambia National Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZNBC) [Amendment] 

Bill, the Freedom of Information 

(FOI) Bill and the Independent 

Broadcasting Authority (IBA) Bill. 

The bills were originally scheduled 

to be presented on 8 November. However, 

Zimba deferred them until a later 

date, without offering any explanation. 

The deferral came a day after 

media associations, which had been 

championing private members’ bills 

on similar subjects, wrote to the minister 

demanding that amendments be 

made to the government bills in exchange 

for the media associations’ 

support. 

Following the bills’ deferral, Ministry 

of Information and Broadcasting 

Services officials held consultations 

with media associations and various 

other stakeholders in order to reconcile 

their differences on the bills. A 

second reading of the ZNBC [Amendment] 

Bill was to be held on November 

26, while the second reading of 

the FOI and IBA Bills was scheduled 

for November 27. 

The ZNBC [Amendment] Bill removes 

the power to issue broadcasting 

licences from the minister of information 

and broadcasting services 

and transfers it to the IBA, which will 

be created under the proposed IBA 

Bill. The IBA would regulate all aspects 

of broadcasting in Zambia. In 

addition, the ZNBC [Amendment] 

Bill gives the current ZNBC, which 

is a cash-strapped, governmentowned 

and controlled broadcaster, 

power to collect television licence fees 

in an effort to boost its revenue. 

The FOI Bill aims to give Zambian 

citizens and residents, for the first time 

ever, the legal right to seek information 

from government ministries and 

departments and any organisations 

operating in the public domain. However, 

defence and security organisations 

have been exempted from the 

bill’s provisions. 

The opposition had initially intended 

to present their own versions 

of the bills, namely the Broadcasting 

Bill, FOI Bill and IBA Bill, as private 

members’ bills on 5 November. However, 

they were prevented from doing 

so by National Assembly Speaker 

Amusaa Mwanamwambwa, who 

cited Article 81 of the Constitution. 

Article 81 stipulates that bills with financial 

implications must be cleared 

by the president before being brought 

to Parliament. The opposition accused 

the government of deliberately frustrating 

them by using the provision 

even though the financial implications 

of their bills were similar to those of 

the government. 

The media associations which have 

been advocating for the private members’ 

bills, including the MISA’s Zambia 

Chapter, known locally as the 

Zambia Independent Media Association 

(ZIMA), have agreed to support 

the government’s FOI and IBA bills, 

as long as the government incorporates 

amendments which will bring 



2002 

the bills in line with international 

standards. 

While the media associations welcome 

the removal of the Minister of 

Information’s powers to issue broadcasting 

licences, they reject the minister’s 

continued control of ZNBC and 

would prefer that the ZNBC be separated 

from the executive. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-12-18 




On December 13, 2002, the revised 

Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZNBC) Amendment Bill 

passed a second reading in Parliament, 

indicating that it will be enacted 

into law, despite strong objections by 

the opposition. 

The bill was originally introduced 

by Minister of Information and Broadcasting 

Services Newstead Zimba on 

November 22, along with the Freedom 

of Information (FOI) and Independent 

Broadcasting Authority 

(IBA) Bills. However, Zimba withdrew 

the original ZNBC Amendment 

Bill, when it became clear that it 

would be defeated because it did not 

go far enough in transforming ZNBC 

into a public service broadcaster. 

In the original ZNBC Amendment 

Bill, the government sought only two 

amendments to the ZNBC Act of 

1997: namely, the removal of the Minister 

of Information’s power to issue 

broadcasting licences and allowing 

ZNBC to collect licence fees to finance 

its operations. However, opposition 

members of Parliament and 

media associations, which had been 


campaigning for media law reforms, 

felt the measures did not go far enough 

in reforming ZNBC. 

“Further changes to the law must 

be made to enable ZNBC [to] operate 

as a truly independent, public service 

broadcaster, while ownership is retained 

by the government,” read a 

November 21 letter to Information 

and Broadcasting Services Permanent 

Secretary David Kashweka, signed by 

MISA’s Zambian Chapter (Zambia 

Independent Media Association, 

ZIMA), the Press Association of Zambia 

(PAZA), the Zambia Union of 

Journalists (ZUJ), the Society of Senior 

Zambian Journalists (SSZJ) and 

the Zambia Media Women’s Association 

(ZAMWA). 

Outlining his objection to the original 

ZNBC Amendment Bill, Lusaka 

Central Member of Parliament (MP) 

Dipak Patel expressed concern about 

the government’s determination to 

control ZNBC. “It is worrying to see 

[the] government’s resolve not to let 

go of ZNBC,” he said. 

Following further criticism from 

the opposition, on November 27 

Zimba withdrew the ZNBC Amendment 

Bill to include amendments that 

the opposition had circulated in Parliament. 

He re-introduced the revised 

ZNBC [Amendment] Bill on 11 December. 

The opposition welcomed it 

as “a first attempt to transform ZNBC 

into a public service broadcaster.” 

Patel commended the government 

for taking into account some of the 

objections to the original ZNBC 

[Amendment] Bill. However, he wondered 

why government wanted the 

minister to approve the appointment 

of the ZNBC director general when 

this was supposed to be the job of an

ZAMBIA 


autonomous board. 

Opposition Kabwata MP Given 

Lubinda objected to licence fees, saying 

that this system would be difficult 

to implement and would probably 

cost ZNBC more money to collect 

than would be realised. He said the 

answer to ZNBC’s survival and 

recapitalisation did not lie in licences 

but in making it a public institution, 

and added, “people in Zambia are 

starved of information and should not 

be charged for watching television at 

a time when the world is trying to 

bridge the digital divide.” 

The proposed television license fee 

is K3 000 (approx. US$0.60) per 

month. 

The FOI and IBA Bills, which are 

largely borrowed from what the media 

associations proposed, passed 

through the crucial second reading 

without much difficulty on 28 November. 

However, the major objection 

to the FOI Bill is the blanket exemption 

given to defiance, intelligence and 

security organs such as the police 

service, army, national service, Interpol 

and the Zambia Intelligence Security 

Service (ZISS). 

The IBA Bill seeks to establish an 

independent broadcasting body that 

will issue broadcast licences as well 

as regulate broadcasting in Zambia, 

while the FOI Bill seeks to protect 

Zambian citizens’ right to access public 

information from public offices. 

On November 5, an attempt by opposition 

MPs to present private members’ 

bills on FOI, the IBA and Broadcasting 

were thwarted by Speaker of 

the National Assembly Amusaa 

Mwanamwambwa, who said the bills 

could not be tabled because consent 

had not been obtained from the president 

in view of their financial implication. 

However, MP Patel said this was 

just a ploy by the government to prevent 

the opposition from being the 

first to table the much talked-about 

media bills. He said the financial implications 

in the private members bills 

were similar to the ones in the government’s 

bills. 

ZIMA has been spearheading the 

campaign along with PAZA, 

ZAMWA, ZUJ and SSZJ. 



Zimbabwe 

By Irene Petras. 

Petras is lawyer by profession and a human rights activist. Presently she is 

working for the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights as a Coordinator. She 

also works as a consultant for various organisations in Zimbabwe. 

“... Negative publicity has damaged the economy of this country... The 

negative reports that were relied upon by the international community 

were mostly fabricated or exaggerated or sensationalised stories of violence... 

In the interest of protecting public security and economic well-being 

it is necessary ... to make such potentially disastrous journalistic practices 

criminal at the strict liability level.” 

Affidavit of Minister of Information and Publicity, Jonathan Moyo, 

in Association of Independent Journalists of Zimbabwe & 2 Ors -v- 

Minister of State for Information and Publicity & 2 Ors SC 252/02) 

Such statements were indicative of the government’s attitude in handling the 

private media in 2002. Independent media practitioners strove to expose corruption, 

maladministration and socio-economic decay in Zimbabwe. The State, 

however, refused to tolerate critical analysis of a disputed electoral process, 

state-sponsored political violence and a flawed land reform programme; it 

utilised publicly owned information machinery to apologise for its policies 

and often misled its readers/listeners. 

The private media was threatened and attacked throughout 2002, particularly 

by Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, the Army-General, the police and 

even President Mugabe, who accused the sector of “peddling lies, exaggerations 

and manufacturing news” (Alert Update 18/03/02). This occurred usually 

as a result of articles considered detrimental to the respectability and 

authority of the ruling party and State organs. 

2002 

Journalists’ homes were raided; several were barred from, or assaulted whilst, 

covering public events. The violence did not spare public media journalists 

who were on some occasions harassed by opposition party supporters and a 

ZBC cameraperson was once severely beaten by soldiers. Several foreign 

journalists were denied accreditation to cover the presidential elections in 

March. The Daily News offices and community radio stations Voice of the 

People (VOP) and Radio Dialogue were raided; documentation and tapes were 

illegally removed. Most seriously the Daily News’ Bulawayo offices were 

petrol-bombed, as was the printing press of a company that produced opposition 

campaign material. A bomb destroyed the entire VOP premises in August. 

Police have failed to charge a single person in any attack. 

During 2002 the private media was forced to operate in the most restrictive 


ZIMBABWE 


legislative environment since independence. The Public Order and Security 

Act (POSA) was enacted in January and marked the commencement of a 

determined assault on constitutional freedoms of speech and association. 

Amongst other provisions it criminalises reports undermining the authority 

of the President and publication of false statements prejudicial to the State. 

The enactment of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 

(AIPPA) in mid-March dealt the greatest blow to freedom of speech and press 

freedom. In its Bill form the Parliamentary Legal Committee described it as 

“the most calculated and determined assault on our [constitutional] liberties”. 

(Per Chairman, Dr EJ Zvobgo) 

Although AIPPA permits access to information relating to public bodies, it 

bars reporting on substantive issues such as cabinet deliberations and government 

policy issues. Release of third party information is also left to the discretion 

of public officials. The Act creates an all-powerful government-appointed 

Media and Information Commission (MIC), which is non-representative 

of diverse journalistic interests. The MIC has quasi-judicial and investigative 

powers, which usurp the function of the courts and the police respectively, 

and which allow it to unjustifiably and unconstitutionally intrude in 

the affairs of media houses and professionals. 

In terms of AIPPA accreditation of journalists and registration of media houses 

is mandatory for the practice of journalism, and the spectrum of those affected 

is so wide that it may encompass advertisers, publishers, non-governmental 

organisations (NGOs) and web-related industries. Foreign ownership 

of the media is outlawed and foreign correspondents are only permitted to 

register for “a limited period”. Finally, the provisions and penalties relating to 

false news and abuse of “journalistic privilege” are harsher than those found 

unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the since-repealed Law and Order 

(Maintenance) Act. 

The enforcement of these two Acts has greatly contributed to the increased 

assault on the private media and the denial of freedom of expression and it 

has further impeded the free flow of information to the public inside and 

outside Zimbabwe. 

POSA was strictly enforced immediately after promulgation. During 2002 

five journalists were arrested and charged, notably under provisions relating 

to public gatherings and publishing information prejudicial to the State. To 

date, none of the cases have been prosecuted to completion. A disturbing 

trend also emerged: police often detained journalists covering opposition 

rallies, student and other demonstrations and some were assaulted by police 

officers whilst in custody. They were initially arrested for contravening POSA, 

only to be released without formalisation of charges after hours (or days) in 



detention. 

Once AIPPA was enacted 14 journalists and editors found themselves in 

custody at various times, charged with the crime of “publishing falsehoods”. 

This carries a maximum two-year imprisonment term. In all, 44 media practitioners 

were arrested in 2002. Of these, two cases were prosecuted to completion, 

six had charges withdrawn, 22 were released without charge, one 

was deported and 13 cases are pending. Despite several false stories in statefunded 

newspapers, however, not one journalist or editor from this sector 

was arrested and charged. 

The first prosecution was that of Andrew Meldrum, a Guardian correspondent. 

In a victory for press freedom and under immense government pressure 

Magistrate Godfrey Macheyo dismissed the charges, highlighting the inadequate 

drafting of the false news provision and ruling that strict liability was 

not intended. Meldrum was immediately served with deportation papers 

signed by the Home Affairs minister. He has challenged the constitutionality 

of his removal and remains in Zimbabwe pending the outcome of his case. 

The only other matter pursued under the false news provision has been referred 

to the Supreme Court for argument on its constitutionality and the 

matter remains outstanding. The Information Ministry has, however, effectively 

conceded the unconstitutionality of this and several other sections by 

placing revised provisions before Parliament in the Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Amendment Bill. 

Journalists were also persecuted under other legislation. Two journalists filming 

the leader of the opposition who was on his to a police station situated 

near the State House were detained and charged under the Protected Areas 

Act for having filmed the State House. The Attorney General refused to 

prosecute. The Zimbabwe Independent editor was charged under the Censorship 

Act for publishing a photograph of an Amazonian in (scant) traditional 

attire. A Daily Mirror reporter, Tawanda Majoni, was arrested for writing 

a story questioning the state of health of the Commissioner of Police. As 

a former policeman, the journalist was prosecuted, convicted and jailed for 

desertion under the Police Act. He is however out of custody pending the 

hearing of an appeal he made. Two AFP journalists were forced to leave 

Zimbabwe after their re-registration applications were denied. 

2002 

Criminal defamation charges were laid against several independent journalists 

and editors for various articles, including a report on the First Lady’s 

brother soliciting her help to resolve a labour dispute, and one relating to the 

beheading of an opposition supporter by ZANU-PF members (which was 

later found to be false and retracted). Public officials lodged personal claims 

based on articles exposing their corrupt practices. Due to the State’s refusal 


ZIMBABWE 


to prosecute under AIPPA offenders against the opposition party, NGOs and 

their officials these parties were also forced to file many defamation claims. 

During 2002 magistrates showed great courage and did not shy away from 

making decisions unfavourable to the State, nor from questioning the constitutionality 

of media-related legislation. The High Court and Supreme Court, 

however, were unconvincing. When approached to stop the accreditation 

procedure until the information required in the application form was made 

less invasive of journalists’ privacy rights, the High Court dismissed the 

matter as “not urgent”. It was within the judge’s discretion to make a substantive 

ruling despite the lack of urgency in view of the importance of the 

matter, but this was overlooked. A similar ruling was made in the Supreme 

Court when the Foreign Journalists’ Association challenged the constitutionality 

of several sections of AIPPA. The Supreme Court has reserved judgment 

in two other constitutional challenges - one of AIPPA and the other of 

the Broadcasting Services Act. These are unacceptable tactics, which delay 

and thus severely compromise an applicant’s constitutional right to a fair 

hearing and determination within a reasonable time. 

The State’s monopoly in the broadcasting sector continued in 2002. Two 

applications for satellite broadcasting licences by local companies were rejected 

without reason or right of appeal. Government interfered in the affairs 

of Joy TV, a second television channel leased from the Zimbabwe Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZBC). First it was made to cease its broadcasts of BBC 

World News; then after a few live interviews of personalities who included 

members of the opposition, civic leaders, ruling party officials, and entertainment 

celebrities, its lease was not renewed after it expired. The government 

argued that leasing of ZBC assets or stations violated the Broadcasting 

Services Act. The Broadcasting Act however has a pending Supreme Court 

judgment challenging its constitutionality. The ZBC defied a court order to 

broadcast a live talk show featuring diverse political representation. Instead, 

public radio and television were utilised to promote the ruling party’s electoral 

and land reform policies and, together with publicly-funded newspapers, 

the vicious hate campaign against the opposition MDC, various NGOs 

and the farming and business community has intensified. The editorial and 

operational independence of the public broadcaster have been irreparably 

compromised. 

Several new newspapers were launched in 2002, of note being the Business 

and Weekend Tribune, which were launched by Media Africa Group. A businessman 

with ties to the government took a controlling interest in the Financial 

Gazette. The privately owned Daily News faced some internal problems 

at the end of the year leading to the dismissal of its internationally acknowledged 

editor, Geoffrey Nyarota, in December. 

The media environment has deteriorated dramatically in 2002. Government 



and independent media workers continue to be highly polarised and cannot 

find common ground. Considering the minefield of legislation facing media 

practitioners, they have performed admirably in informing the public at great 

personal risk. Their task has been made more difficult by pervasive state broadcasting 

and information machinery, and a minister wielding too much power 

and an open disdain for journalism critical of the ruling party and its policies. 

A great struggle lies ahead in convincing an intimidated judiciary to repeal 

offensive legislation, in ensuring that police prosecute true offenders, including 

those who deny people their right to freely impart and receive information 

of their choice, and in attempting to convince an aggressive government that 

constructive criticism should be welcomed rather than punished. Only if this 

is achieved will independent voices survive in Zimbabwe in 2003. 

2002 



Zimbabwe 

Por Irene Petras. 

Irene Petras é advogada de profissão e activista dos direitos humanos. 

Actualmente trabalha para a organização Advogados para os Direitos 

Humanos do Zimbabwe como Coordenadora. Trabalha ainda como consultora 

para várias organizações no Zimbabwe. 

“... A publicidade negativa prejudicou a economia deste país... As 

reportagens negativas que foram credíveis para a comunidade 

internacional eram, na sua maioria, fabricações ou exageros ou histórias 

de violência transformadas em sensacionais... No interesse de proteger a 

segurança pública e o bem estar económico, é necessário … fazer com que 

tais práticas jornalísticas potencialmente desastrosas sejam consideradas 

criminosas a um nível estritamente de responsabilidade.” 

Depoimento escrito, feito sob juramento, pelo Ministro de Informação e 

Propaganda, Jonathan Moyo, na Associação dos Jornalistas Independentes 

do Zimbabwe & 2 Ors -v-Minister of State for Information and Publicity & 

2 Ors SC 252/02) 

Tais afirmações são indicativas da atitude do governo no tratamento da 

comunicação social privada em 2002. Os profissionais da comunicação social 

independente empenharam-se profundamente para expor a corrupção, a 

má administração e a decadência sócio económica no Zimbabwe. O Estado, 

contudo, recusou-se a tolerar a análise crítica de um processo eleitoral 

disputado, da violência política patrocinada pelo Estado e um programa 

deficiente de reforma agrária; utilizou a maquinaria de informação de 

propriedade pública para pedir desculpas pelas suas políticas e muitas vezes 

enganou até os seus ouvintes / leitores. 

A comunicação social privada foi ameaçada e atacada durante todo o ano de 

2002, particularmente pelo Ministro da Informação e Propaganda Jonathan 

Moyo, pelo Comando do Exército, a polícia e mesmo o próprio Presidente 

Mugabe, que acusaram o sector de serem “vendilhões de mentiras, exageros e 

de fabricação de notícias” (Alert Update 18/03/02). Isto ocorreu normalmente 

como resultado de artigos considerados prejudiciais ao respeito e autoridade 

do partido no poder e dos órgãos estatais. 

Residências de jornalistas foram revistadas; vários jornalistas foram proibidos 

de fazer a cobertura de acontecimentos públicos ou foram agredidos enquanto 

estavam a fazê-lo. A violência não poupou os jornalistas dos meios de 

comunicação públicos que em algumas ocasiões foram assaltados pelos 

simpatizantes dos partidos da oposição e um operador de câmara da Corporação 

de Radiodifusão do Zimbabwe (ZBC) foi uma vez agredido violentamente 



por soldados. Foi recusada a vários jornalistas estrangeiros a sua acreditação 

para fazerem a cobertura das eleições presidenciais em Março. Os escritórios 

do jornal Daily News e de rádios comunitárias Voz do Povo (VOP) e Rádio 

Diálogo foram revistados de surpresa pela polícia e documentação e fitas foram 

apreendidas ilegalmente. Mais grave ainda, os escritórios do Daily News de 

Bulawayo foram incendiados com bombas de gasolina, tendo acontecido o 

mesmo à impressora de uma companhia que produziu material da campanha 

eleitoral da oposição. Uma bomba incendiária destruiu completamente as 

instalações da Rádio VOP em Agosto. A polícia não conseguiu ou não quis 

acusar ninguém em relação a todos estes ataques. 

Durante 2002 a comunicação social privada foi obrigada a operar sob as mais 

restritivas condições legislativas de que há memória desde a independência. 

A Lei da Ordem Pública e Segurança (POSA) foi aprovada em Janeiro e marcou 

o início dum assalto sistemático às liberdades constitucionais de expressão e 

de associação. Entre outras cláusulas, esta considera criminosas as reportagens 

ou notícias que enfraqueçam insidiosamente a autoridade do Presidente e a 

publicação de depoimentos falsos que sejam prejudiciais ao Estado. 

A promulgação da Lei do Acesso à Informação e Protecção da Privacidade, 

(AIPPA), em meados de Março, foi o principal golpe contra a liberdade de 

expressão e liberdade de imprensa. Na sua forma de projecto de lei, a Comissão 

Parlamentar para Assuntos Legais descreveu-a como “o assalto mais calculado 

e determinado contra as nossas liberdades (constitucionais).” (Per Chairman, 

Dr EJ Zvobgo). Apesar da AIPPA permitir o acesso à informação relacionada 

com os organismos públicos, proíbe a informação sobre assuntos substantivos 

como as deliberações do gabinete e assuntos de política do governo. A circulação 

de informação de terceiras partes é deixada à discrição de funcionários públicos. 

A lei cria uma Comissão de Comunicação Social e Informação, (MIC), toda 

poderosa e nomeada pelo governo, que não representa os vários interesses 

jornalísticos. A MIC tem poderes quase judiciais e de investigação que usurpam 

a função tanto dos tribunais como da polícia, permitindo-a intrometer-se de 

forma inconstitucional e injustificada nos assuntos das organizações de 

comunicação social e dos profissionais da comunicação social. 

2002 

Nos termos da AIPPA é obrigatória para a prática do jornalismo a acreditação 

dos jornalistas e o registo das empresas de comunicação social. Mas o espectro 

dos que são afectados é tão vasto que pode inclusivamente envolver organizações 

de publicidade, organizações não governamentais (ONG’s) e indústrias 

relacionadas com web. É ilegal a propriedade estrangeira de meios da 

comunicação social e os correspondentes estrangeiros só são autorizados a 

registar-se por “um período limitado”. Finalmente, as disposições e multas 

relacionadas com as notícias falsas e abuso do “privilégio jornalístico” são mais 

duras do que aquelas que foram já consideradas inconstitucionais pelo Tribunal 

Supremo ao abrigo da Lei já revogada da (Manutenção) da Lei e da Ordem. 


ZIMBABWE 


A entrada em vigor destas duas leis tem contribuído em muito para o aumento 

do assalto à comunicação social privada e a negação da liberdade de expressão, 

tendo contribuído também para um aumento das dificuldades com a livre 

circulação de informação pelo público tanto no interior como no exterior do 

Zimbabwe. 

A POSA foi estritamente aplicada imediatamente após a sua entrada em vigor. 

Durante o ano de 2002, cinco jornalistas foram presos e acusados, 

especificamente ao abrigo das disposições relacionadas com ajuntamentos 

públicos e publicação de informação prejudicial ao Estado. Até à data, não foi 

terminada nenhuma das acções judiciais. Uma outra tendência perturbadora 

também emergiu: muitas vezes a polícia deteve jornalistas que faziam a cobertura 

de comícios da oposição, de estudantes e outras manifestações, tendo alguns 

dos jornalistas sido agredidos pela polícia durante a sua detenção. Inicialmente 

os jornalistas foram presos por transgredirem a POSA, para a seguir, depois de 

horas (ou dias) em detenção, saírem liberdade sem culpa formada. 

Logo que a AIPPA foi promulgada 14 jornalistas e chefes de redacção foram 

detidos em várias alturas, acusados pelo crime de “publicarem falsidades”. Tal 

crime é punível com uma pena máxima de dois anos de cadeia. Ao todo foram 

presos 44 jornalistas em 2002. Destes, dois casos foram julgados até ao fim; em 

seis outros, a acusação desistiu da acção em tribunal; 22 jornalistas foram 

libertados sem culpa formada e um foi deportado; outros 13 casos aguardam 

solução. Contudo, apesar de várias notícias falsas terem sido publicadas em 

jornais financiados pelo estado, nenhum jornalista ou chefe de redacção deste 

sector foi preso ou acusado. 

A primeira acção judicial foi instaurada contra Andrew Meldrum, um dos 

correspondentes do Guardian. Numa vitória para a liberdade de imprensa e sob 

enorme pressão governamental, o Magistrado Godfrey Macheyo rejeitou a 

acusação, sublinhando a redacção inadequada da cláusula sobre notícias falsas 

e determinando que a responsabilidade estrita não era intencional. 

Andrew Meldrum recebeu imediatamente os documentos para a sua deportação 

assinados pelo Ministro do Interior. O Jornalista desafiou o aspecto constitucional 

da sua remoção e está ainda no Zimbabwe a aguardar o resultado desta causa. 

A única outra acção lançada ao abrigo da cláusula de notícias falsas, foi referida 

ao Tribunal Supremo para análise da sua constitucionalidade e a questão ainda 

não foi resolvida. Contudo, o Ministro da Informação aceitou a 

inconstitucionalidade deste e de outros parágrafos, ao apresentar ao Parlamento 

o Projecto de Alterações da Lei de Acesso à Informação e Protecção da 

Privacidade. 

Houve jornalistas que foram também importunados ao abrigo de outra legislação. 

Dois jornalistas que filmavam o líder da oposição que estava a caminho de uma 



estação de polícia situada perto da State House, foram detidos e acusados ao 

abrigo da Lei das Áreas Protegidas por terem filmado a State House. O procurador 

Geral da República recusou-se a processar os jornalistas. O Editor do Zimbabwe 

Independent foi acusado ao abrigo da Lei de Censura por publicar uma 

fotografia de uma habitante do Amazonas em trajo muito sumário, num vestido 

tradicional. Um repórter do Daily Mirror, Tawanda Majoni, foi preso por escrever 

uma reportagem questionando o estado de saúde do Comissário da Polícia. 

Como antigo polícia, o jornalista foi , processado, considerado culpado e 

sentenciado por deserção ao abrigo da Lei da Polícia. Contudo, está em liberdade 

à espera da sessão do apelo que fez contra a sentença. Dois jornalistas da Agence 

France Press foram forçados a abandonar o Zimbabwe depois dos seus pedidos 

para se registarem de novo, terem sido recusados. 

Processos de difamação criminal foram instaurados contra vários jornalistas e 

chefes de redacção independentes por vários artigos, incluindo uma reportagem 

sobre o irmão da Primeira Dama que lhe pediu ajuda para resolver uma disputa 

de trabalho e outra relacionada com um partidário da oposição que foi decapitado 

por membros da ZANU-FP (que mais tarde se descobriu ser uma informação 

falsa e anunciada como tal pelo jornal). Funcionários públicos instauraram 

processos de indemnização, baseados em artigos publicados, que expunham as 

suas práticas corruptas. Devido ao facto do Estado se ter recusado a processar 

os transgressores da AIPPA contra os partidos da oposição, ONG’s e seus 

funcionários, estas pessoas viram-se na obrigação de instaurarem muitos 

processos de indemnização por difamação. 

Durante 2002, os magistrados mostraram grande coragem e não fugiram à sua 

responsabilidade de tomarem decisões contra o Estado, nem de porem em dúvida 

em termos constitucionais, a legislação relacionada com a comunicação social. 

Contudo, o Alto Tribunal e o Supremo Tribunal foram pouco convincentes. 

Quando abordado para suspender o procedimento de acreditação até que a 

informação necessária e requerida pelos formulários não invadisse tão 

profundamente os direitos de privacidade dos jornalistas, o Alto Tribunal 

considerou o assunto como “não sendo urgente”. Devido à importância do 

assunto, o Juiz devia ter tomado uma decisão substantiva apesar da falta de 

urgência, mas tal responsabilidade foi ignorada. Uma decisão idêntica foi feita 

pelo Tribunal Supremo quando a Associação de Jornalistas Estrangeiros pôs 

em causa a constitucionalidade de vários artigos da AIPPA. O Tribunal Supremo 

reservou a sua decisão em duas outras questões constitucionais – uma 

relacionada com a AIPPA e a outra relacionada com a Lei de Serviços de 

Radiodifusão. Trata-se de tácticas não aceitáveis, que atrasam e 

consequentemente comprometem muito o direito constitucional do requerente 

a ser ouvido de forma justa dentro de um período razoável. 

2002 

O monopólio do Estado no sector da radiodifusão continuou em 2002. Dois 

pedidos para licenças de radiodifusão via satélite apresentados por companhias 


ZIMBABWE 


locais foram rejeitadas sem qualquer razão apresentada nem direito a apelo. O 

Governo interferiu nos assuntos da Joy TV, um Segundo canal de televisão que 

foi alugado à Corporação de Radiodifusão do Zimbabwe (ZBC). Primeiro foi 

forçada a parar as suas transmissões das Notícias Internacionais da BBC e depois, 

na sequência de várias entrevistas feitas ao vivo, com várias personalidades, 

incluindo membros da oposição, líderes cívicos, funcionários do partido no poder 

e celebridades da cena de entretenimento, a sua licença não foi renovada depois 

de ter expirado. O governo defendeu a posição de que o aluguer de bens ou 

estações da ZBC violavam a Lei dos Serviços de Radiodifusão Contudo, uma 

decisão do Tribunal Supremo sobre a Lei da Radiodifusão não ser aceite em 

termos constitucionais, continua pendente. A ZBC desafiou uma ordem do tribunal 

para que transmitisse um debate ao vivo com várias representações 

políticas. Em vez disso, a rádio e televisão pública foram usadas para promover 

as políticas eleitorais e de reforma agrária do partido no poder e, juntamente 

com os jornais financiados por fundos públicos, intensificaram a perversa 

campanha contra o partido da oposição o MDC, contra várias ONG’s e contra 

a comunidade de agricultores e de empresários. A indepedência editorial e 

operacional dos serviços públicos de radiodifusão ficou irreparavelmente 

comprometida. 

Vários jornais novos foram lançados em 2002, sendo de notar o Business e o 

Weekend Tribune, que foram lançados pelo Media Africa Group. Num outro 

desenvolvimento, um empresário com ligações com o governo comprou a 

maioria das acções do Financial Gazette. O Daily News, de propriedade privada, 

enfrentou alguns problemas internos no final do ano, o que levou, em Dezembro, 

à demissão do seu Editor, Geoffrey Nyarota , reconhecido internacionalmente. 

O ambiente da comunicação social deteriorou-se dramaticamente em 2002. Os 

trabalhadores da comunicação social do governo e independente continuam a 

estar intensamente polarizados e não conseguem encontrar uma base comum. 

Considerando a legislação altamente explosiva que os profissionais da 

comunicação social enfrentam, estes profissionais actuaram de forma admirável 

pois, com enorme risco pessoal, conseguiram informar o público. O seu trabalho 

foi dificultado pela subtil radiodifusão e maquinaria de informação e por um 

ministro que possui muito poder e um desdenho total pelo jornalismo crítico do 

partido no poder e suas políticas. Apresenta-se para o futuro uma enorme luta 

para convencer um sistema judicial que se encontra intimidado, a revogar a 

legislação ofensiva, a garantir que a polícia só intente processos contra 

verdadeiros criminosos, incluindo aqueles que negam às pessoas o seu direito 

de circularem e receberem livremente informação da sua escolha e para tentar 

convencer um governo agressivo de que a crítica construtiva deve ser bem 

recebida em vez de punida. As vozes independentes só poderão sobrevier no 

Zimbabwe de 2003, se tudo isso for alcançado. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-09 

INSTITUTION(S): Media in Zimbabwe 


Zimbabwe’s President Robert 

Mugabe told church leaders that journalists 

who write what he termed “libelous 

reports” would be arrested. 

Mugabe said this in a meeting with 

Zimbabwe’s church leaders at his offices 

on December16, 2001. 

The church leaders asked Mugabe 

to uphold press freedom, especially the 

right to balanced reporting. However, 

Mugabe replied that journalists and 

editors should not enjoy more rights 

and freedoms than other citizens. “The 

media has been assaulting the integrity 

of private citizens and public citizens. 

In my view, an assault on one’s 

integrity is even worse than an assault 

in physical terms,” said Mugabe. 

Mugabe made reference to “libelous” 

reports, which were not properly 

attributed or attributed to “unreliable 

sources.” “If these sources are reliable, 

let them be reliable enough to come 

and rescue you when you are arrested,” 

boasted Mugabe. 

Mugabe also made reference to foreign 

funding of the media that he said 

was destabilising the country. He said 

that this was not peculiar to Zimbabwe, 

but was happening in Zambia as 

well. Mugabe said he is particularly incensed 

by media reports that he has 

properties in Europe, particularly Scotland. 

“Why should I go and buy property 

there? I have not a single cent outside 

the country. I have told them to 

take that money and give it to charity, 

if they find it. If I have any money I 

would keep it here,” said Mugabe. 


The Zimbabwean government is in 

the process of enacting an Access to 

Information and Protection of Privacy 

Bill and a Public Order and Security 

Bill. These two bills will significantly 

limit and restrict the operations of the 

media in Zimbabwe. Journalists and 

media houses would have to be licensed, 

foreign correspondents would 

be banned and a number of limitations 

put on what journalists can report on. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-09 

INSTITUTION(S): The Daily 

News, newspaper vendors 


Youths from the ruling Zimbabwe African 

National Union - Patriotic Front 

(ZANU-PF) party have destroyed 

hundreds of copies of the independent 

“The Daily News” in the town of 

Masvingo during a demonstration 

against alleged misinformation by the 

paper. 

On December 27, 2001, the youths, 

numbering over 100, took to the streets 

in Masvingo to protest what they alleged 

to be lies being published by the 

newspaper about the Zimbabwean 

government. The demonstrating 

youths, who were addressed by 

Masvingo’s Provincial Governor 

Josiah Hungwe, spent the whole day 

chasing “The Daily News” vendors 

from the streets of Masvingo. 

A spokesperson for the group who 

was quoted in “The Herald” said that 

the demonstration was a warning to the 

newspaper that negative publicity 

would not be tolerated. “We want the 

paper and its white supporters and 

black puppets to know that we will not 

watch while they continue telling lies

ZIMBABWE 


about our country,” said the unidentified 

spokesperson. 

According to the December 28 edition 

of “The Daily News”, the youths, 

some as young as ten years old, said 

they had taken their instructions from 

ZANU-PF Chairperson for Masvingo 

and Higher Education, Minister 

Samuel Mumbengegwi. 

Mumbengegwi is reported to have 

watched the mayhem from a distance. 

“We have banned the sale of ‘The 

Daily News’ from Masvingo. The paper 

is writing bad news about the ruling 

party and we no longer want to see 

it on the streets,” said some of the 

youths quoted in “The Daily News”. 

The newspaper reports that some of 

the hired youths were not even sure 

why they were destroying copies of 

“The Daily News”. “We were hired to 

do this, but I am sure we are demonstrating 

against corruption,” said one 

of the youths quoted in “The Daily 

News”. 

Although a report was made to the 

police about the destruction of the 

newspapers, the police stood by idly 

as the youths continued their rampage. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-09 

INSTITUTION(S): CNN 


Zimbabwe’s Minister of State for Information 

and Publicity Jonathan 

Moyo has banned a CNN news bulletin 

from being aired by the national 

broadcaster, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZBC). The twentyminute 

programme was aired daily. 

In response to a question from an 

opposition member of parliament in 

parliament on Wednesday December 

20, 2001, Moyo said that CNN was 

dropped in line with government 

policy. Moyo said that the ban is also 

in line with the restructuring of the 

ZBC. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-10 

INSTITUTION(S): Independent 

media, foreign correspondents 


Zimbabwean Army General Vitalis 

Zvinavashe has warned the independent 

media and foreign correspondents 

of dire consequences if they continue 

to report negatively about the Zimbabwean 

government, human rights 

abuses and the security forces’ actions. 

Addressing a press conference attended 

by Zimbabwe’s top military, 

police and intelligence brass, 

Zvinavashe said the independent media 

and foreign correspondents are involved 

in a campaign to demonise the 

security forces by undermining Zimbabwe’s 

security and peace. 

Zvinavashe claimed that over the 

past two years there has been an increase 

in speculative, imaginary and 

false articles by both the independent 

media and foreign journalists. “The 

statements have caused insecurity, uncertainty, 

confusion, and tarnished the 

credibility of the country’s security 

arms,” he stated. 

He also said that there is a need for 

the media to make a distinction between 

political and security institutions. 

Zvinavashe cited examples of 

what he claimed were false reports, 

including the alleged looting of resources 

in the Democratic Republic of 

Congo by the Zimbabwean government 

and top military officers, includ- 



2002 


ing himself, allegations of political victimisation 

of prison officers who support 

the opposition, and the story on 

the assassination attempt of “The Daily 

News”’s editor-in-chief by intelligence 

officer Bernard Masala. 

“Whilst it is known that media 

houses are in business, they must not 

generate profits out of false reports that 

discredit security organisations, which 

are sensitive by nature and have rights 

like any other institutions,” said 

Zvinavashe. “In these cited stories, no 

iota of evidence was provided. We are 

therefore advising all citizens of Zimbabwe 

that the full force of the law will 

meet any reports and actions designed 

to create instability in Zimbabwe. This 

will include enforcement, where it is 

deemed necessary. Individuals will be 

answerable for their actions,” he 

warned. 

“The law will take its place to ensure 

that Zimbabwe’s independence, 

territorial integrity and sovereignty - 

which to [a] large extent depend on upholding 

the values and good name of 

the security organisations - are preserved,” 

warned Zvinavashe. He added 

that there was therefore a need to respect 

the security forces, which were 

constitutionally established to safeguard 

Zimbabwe’s hard-won independence. 

A failure to do so would result 

in instability, lawlessness and ultimately 

anarchy, he said. 

At the same press conference, 

Zvinavashe announced that the army 

would not support any president who 

does not suit their requirements. In 

apparent reference to the leader of the 

opposition Movement for Democratic 

Change, Morgan Tsvangirai, 

Zvinavashe said the army would not 

accept, support and salute any president 

who did not fight in the war of 

independence. 

“We wish to make it very clear to 

all Zimbabwean citizens that the security 

organisations will only stand in 

support of those political leaders that 

will pursue Zimbabwean values, traditions 

and beliefs, for which thousands 

of lives were lost, in pursuit of 

Zimbabwe’s hard-won independence, 

sovereignty, territorial integrity and national 

interests,” said Zvinavashe. “To 

this end, let it be known that the highest 

office in the [country] is a straitjacket, 

whose occupant must observe 

the objectives of the liberation struggle. 

We will therefore not accept, let 

alone support anyone, or salute anyone, 

with a different agenda that threatens 

the very existence of our sovereignty, 

our country and our people,” 

he added. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-14 



On Thursday January 10, 2002, the 

Zimbabwean Parliament passed the 

Public Order and Security Bill, which 

contains repressive provisions on the 

operations of the media. The bill was 

passed after a vote was taken, pitting 

the ruling Zimbabwe African National 

Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU- 

PF) party against the opposition 

Movement for Democratic Change 

(MDC). MDC members of parliament 

opposed the bill but lost the vote. 

The bill now awaits President 

Robert Mugabe’s signature before it 

is put into effect. Parliament pushed 

the controversial bill through despite

ZIMBABWE 


wide protests by civic organisations 

and the international community. 

Specific clauses of the act that stifle 

freedom of expression, speech 

and that of the media include Clause 

15, which makes it a criminal offence 

to publish or communicate false 

statements prejudicial to the state. 

Under this clause, a person may be 

fined or imprisoned for up to five 

years for publishing a false statement 

likely to promote public disorder, or 

undermining public confidence in the 

police, armed forces or prison officers. 

Clause 16 makes it an offence to 

make a public statement with the intention 

to, or knowing there is a risk 

of “undermining the authority of or 

insulting” the president. This includes 

statements likely to engender 

feelings of hostility towards the 

president, cause “hatred, contempt or 

ridicule” of the president, or any 

“abusive, indecent, obscene or false 

statement” about him personally or 

his office. 

Clauses 23 to 31 regulate the organisation 

and conduct of public 

gatherings. A senior police officer 

will be the regulating authority and 

has powers to disperse people, ban a 

meeting and use reasonable force if 

necessary to achieve his/her goals. 

The Public Order and Security Act, 

combined with the Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy 

Bill, to be debated next week, will 

result in the most repressive media 

laws in Zimbabwe. 

However, journalists in Zimbabwe 

have taken a position not to honour 

the laws and take the government to 

court in the event the bill is passed 

next week. 

ANNEX 

The Zimbabwe chapter of MISA 

(MISA-Zimbabwe) placed the following 

advertisement in daily newspapers 

as part of their public 

awareness and advocacy campaign: 

SILENCING THE PEOPLE 

PUBLIC ORDER AND SECURITY 

ACT VIOLATES FREEDOM OF 

SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND 

RIGHTS OF JOURNALISTS AND 

ZIMBABWEANS 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa 

- Zimbabwe Chapter (MISA- 

Zimbabwe) expresses its deep reservations 

and outright disapproval over 

some sections of the Public Order and 

Security Bill that was passed by Parliament 

on 10 January 2002. 

The Act contains sections that seriously 

impinge on the rights of Zimbabweans 

in terms of freedom of speech, 

expression and media rights. Journalists, 

for example, will not be able to 

report on the activities of our leaders. 

Members of the public will need clearance 

from the police to hold meetings 

on any business. 

The normal life and democracy ushered 

in at independence in 1980 is 

threatened by this Act. 

Clause 15 of the Act makes it a 

criminal offence to publish or communicate 

false statements prejudicial to 

the state. A person may be fined or 

imprisoned up to five years for publishing 

a false statement likely to promote 

public disorder, or undermining 

public confidence in the police, armed 

forces or prison officers. 

Clause 16 makes it an offence to 

make a public statement with the in- 



2002 

tention to, or knowing there is a risk 

of “Undermining the authority of or 

insulting” the President. This includes 

statements likely to engender feelings 

of hostility towards the President, 

cause “hatred, contempt or ridicule” of 

the President, or any “abusive, indecent, 

obscene or false statement” about 

him personally or his office. 

Clauses 23 to 31 regulate the organisation 

and conduct of public gatherings. 

A senior police officer will be the 

regulating authority and has powers to 

disperse people, ban a meeting and use 

reasonable force if necessary to 

achieve his/her goals. 

The position of MISA-Zimbabwe 

is that: 

The new law gives too much power 

to the police. Besides maintaining law 

and order by detecting and arresting 

criminals, police can now tell us when 

to and not to meet for personal business 

even if we are not committing 

any crime. 

There is no need for special laws to 

protect the President, his honour or 

dignity. The new law gives protection 

to public figures that is not available 

to the rest of Zimbabweans. This 

means that public figures are now protected 

even from standing accountable 

for heinous deeds and they have their 

own laws that do not apply to the rest 

of us. 

Having sought public office, public 

officials, be it the President or Members 

of Parliament, become servants 

of the people, not its masters. The law 

makes public officials masters of the 

people of Zimbabwe by making it a 

criminal offence for journalists to report 

the shortcomings of our leaders. 


The law provides that the leaders 

themselves will determine and decide 

how and when they feel that they have 

been “offended”, “insulted” or when 

their dignity and reputation is undermined. 

This means that journalists can 

be arrested for reporting on any kind 

of wrongdoing by a public official. 

The shielding of public officials 

from scrutiny violates the notion of 

transparency and accountability, which 

must underline the conduct of all state 

business. The law is therefore meant 

to stifle all Zimbabweans. Government 

business, which must be subject to 

controls and participation by the rest 

of Zimbabweans, is now a preserve of 

the leaders. 

It is the position of MISA-Zimbabwe 

that the ultimate objective of a free 

media is to provide a healthy check on 

centers of power (public and private) 

in order to maintain a free and enlightened 

Zimbabwe. People usually talk 

of a free media in line with democracy, 

meaning that a free media is the cornerstone 

of democracy. Actions of government, 

which is only the trustee of 

the collective will of the people, are 

expected to be regulated by the force 

of public opinion. Newspapers, television, 

radio, magazines and public 

meetings are important tools for gauging 

and reflecting public opinion. The 

important task of informing the public 

cannot be entrusted to the rulers for 

they will only tell the people what they 

want them to know and not the rest. 

Unfortunately, the Public Order and 

Security Act will silence Zimbabweans. 

MISA-Zimbabwe therefore calls 

upon the Parliament to revisit the 

whole Act, so that the freedoms Zimbabweans 

fought for are maintained

ZIMBABWE 


and preserved for the good of the nation. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-14 

INSTITUTION(S): Broadcasters 


Zimbabwe’s Minister of State for Information 

and Publicity Jonathan 

Moyo wants the European Union 

(EU) to urge the British and Netherlands 

governments to stop sponsoring 

short wave radio stations that 

broadcast in Zimbabwe. 

On Friday January 11, 2002, Moyo 

was talking to “The Sunday Mail” 

about the current deliberations between 

the EU and Zimbabwe taking 

place in Brussels, Belgium. He said 

that Britain and the Netherlands are 

sponsoring illegal short wave radio station 

broadcasts in Zimbabwe. “The 

British are funding their citizen, Jerry 

Jackson, who in September 2000 ran 

a pirate radio station calling itself 

“Capital Radio”, working with [Movement 

for Democratic Change, MDC] 

legislator and Rhodesian war veteran 

David Coltart, Mike Auret Jnr. and 

other Rhodesians,” said Moyo. “Who 

else is having access to the EU sponsored 

illegal broadcasts besides the 

treacherous MDC?” asked Moyo. 

The “Voice of the People” and “SW 

Radio Africa” are the two radio stations 

to which Moyo was referring in 

his attack. Both are operating shortwave 

stations broadcasting news on 

the situation in Zimbabwe. Moyo accuses 

the two of being pro-opposition. 

Jackson is the former director of Capital 

Radio; the first station to challenge 

the monopoly of the state-owned and 

run Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZBC) at the Supreme Court. 

ZBC’s monopoly was subsequently 

overthrown, deemed unconstitutional. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-15 



On January 14, 2002, an all-night 

vigil at the Zimbabwean Parliament, 

organised by journalists working for 

the independent media in Zimbabwe, 

was cut short as police threatened the 

use of force if the journalists defied 

an order to vacate. The vigil was organised 

in protest of the Access to Information 


Bill, which is set to be passed on 15 

January. 

The journalists, numbering between 

30 and 40, gathered at the Parliament 

as of 7:30 p.m. (local time), in the capital 

Harare. Parliament security immediately 

ordered the journalists to leave, 

stating that the Parliament building is 

a protected security area. The police 

said that no one is allowed near the 

building after 6:00 p.m. and that anyone 

who defied this risked being shot. 

Parliament security and police who 

guard the premises threatened to confiscate 

cameras and video cameras 

from journalists who were taking pictures 

of the peaceful protest. 

The leaders of the demonstrating 

journalists, Basildon Peta and Abel 

Mutsakani, were briefly whisked into 

the Parliament building by police and 

Parliament security, where they were 

warned not to defy the order to leave. 

A police inspector in charge of the 

Central Business District was called 

and indicated that if the journalists re- 



2002 

fused to leave he would immediately 

mobilise the riot police to “deal with 

them”. 

The police advised the journalists to 

hold their protest on 15 January instead, 

and to present their grievances 

when Parliament opened for business. 

The police also said that the demonstration 

was illegal since the journalists 

had not applied for permission 

from the police. As more and more 

truckloads of police and intelligence 

officers continued to arrive at the Parliament 

building, the journalists decided 

to call off the protest and decide 

on a way forward for January 15. By 

10:00 p.m., the journalists had dispersed. 

The Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Bill is expected to 

be passed on January 15. The bill contains 

draconian provisions that would 

virtually signal the end of the independent 

media in Zimbabwe. The bill 

has been largely condemned by journalists, 

including the president of the 

Zimbabwe Union of Journalists (ZUJ), 

Mathew Takaona, who works for the 

state-owned “The Sunday Mail”. 

Takaona was quoted in the 15 January 

edition of “The Daily News” as stating 

that the bill must be thrown out. 

“ZUJ’s position on the bill has never 

changed from the first time we learnt 

of it. We have raised cries over it and 

with other media stakeholders. We will 

be holding workshops on the way forward,” 

said Takaona. 

The statement by Takaona is seen 

by analysts as significant because it 

breaks the divide between state and 

independent media journalists that 

Minister of Information Jonathan 

Moyo is largely seen as fanning in order 

to promote acceptance of the bill. 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-17 

INSTITUTION(S): Bulawayo Dialogue, 

Radio Dialoque FM 


Zimbabwe’s Information and Publicity 

Minister Jonathan Moyo has said 

that he will not issue a licence to 

Bulawayo Dialogue, a civic grouping 

based in Bulawayo (Zimbabwe’s second 

biggest city), “The Daily News” 

reported on January 16 2002. 

Twenty civic groups based in the 

city endorsed the community radio station 

project to be known as “Radio 

Dialogue FM”. The Bulawayo City 

Council, the Zimbabwe Teachers Association 

and the Confederation of 

Zimbabwe Industries are among some 

of the prominent bodies that had approved 

the community radio station 

project. The project was in an advanced 

stage with some broadcasting 

equipment already on the ground in 

anticipation of a licence. 

Moyo said that he would not issue a 

licence to Bulawayo Dialogue because 

the organisation was donor-funded. 

“We can say in advance that organisations 

and individuals which are foreign-funded 

will not be licensed,” said 

Moyo. Moyo said that the Konrad 

Adenauer Foundation and George 

Soros were sponsoring Bulawayo Dialogue, 

hence it was not eligible for a 

licence. 

In response to Moyo’s statement, 

Jethro Mpofu, a coordinator of the 

“Radio Dialogue FM” project, said that 

the people of Matebeleland were consulted 

extensively and are driving the 

radio initiative. Speaking to MISA- 

Zimbabwe on January 16, Mpofu said 

that they had been denied a licence

ZIMBABWE 


even before they had applied for it. 

“This government always talks of 

putting the people first. Now we are 

surprised by what they mean when 

they deny the same people a licence to 

run their own station,” noted Mpofu. 

“We now realise that the licence will 

have to be a product of our struggle, 

not a donation from the government,” 

he added. Mpofu also said that citizens 

would be mobilised and urged to take 

to the streets to protest the denial of 

the radio station’s licence. 

Although the Broadcasting Authority 

of Zimbabwe has invited aspiring 

broadcasters to apply for licences, the 

authority has not licenced anyone to 

date. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-01-18 



Parliamentary debate on Zimbabwe’s 

controversial Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Bill has 

been deferred to the week of January 

21, 2002 as Minister of Information 

and Publicity Jonathan Moyo considers 

proposed amendments to the bill. 

The bill was expected to be debated 

and passed on January 15. “The Daily 

News” reported that a number of members 

of parliament (MPs) from the ruling 

Zimbabwe African National Union 

- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party 

felt that the bill was embarrassing because 

it included a number of provisions 

that violated the constitution and 

rights of journalists and ordinary people. 

“Most people within the party have 

voiced their concern at the way the bill 

was embarrassingly infringing on most 

of the fundamental clauses in the constitution,” 

a ZANU-PF MP was quoted 

as saying by “The Daily News”. 

“There are going to be some major 

amendments [that] have been given to 

the Department of Information and 

Publicity. In other words, you can say 

the party has given itself an adverse 

report on the bill,” the MP added. 

The newspaper also reports that 

MPs from both the ruling party and the 

opposition felt that the bill was drafted 

without the involvement of legal experts. 

ZANU-PF Chief Whip Joram 

Gumbo confirmed that the bill was 

being “patched up” after several 

amendments were proposed by people 

both within and outside the ZANU- 

PF. 

Minister of Justice and Leader of the 

House Patrick Chinamasa said the bill 

was being amended after some 

“lengthy consultations” on amendments 

proposed by “some objective 

minded” organisations and individuals. 

“The Minister of Information is 

currently going through the submissions 

that I have given him and I hope 

he will be ready next Tuesday [January 

22],” said Chinamasa. 

In a statement carried by “The Herald” 

on January 17, Information Minister 

Moyo attacked his detractors, including 

Andrew Meldrum, a foreign 

correspondent in Zimbabwe, as “confused 

people.” 

“The record will show that all the 

so-called foreign correspondents, led 

by the confused Andrew Meldrum 

and their local running dogs, approached 

the bill with open mouths 

and shut minds and what a pity that 

has been,” said Moyo. “While the 

empty vessels have been making 



2002 

noise, we have been making law. Fortunately, 

the majority of Zimbabwean 

journalists and editors, most of them 

from the so-called public media, have 

quietly given us very useful submissions 

which we are seriously considering 

with a view to taking them on 

board,” he added. Moyo also said that 

all submissions would be made public 

on Tuesday January 22 in the form 

of amendments to the bill. 

“That would serve as a reminder to 

our thoughtless detractors that in a 

constitutional democracy such as 

ours, a bill is a discussion paper until 

it becomes law. That is why bills are 

gazetted - for the public to debate 

them and contribute to their refinement. 

We are happy that some of our 

citizens understand this. You either 

participate constructively in the discussion 

by making specific contributions 

or you shut up,” Moyo said. 

MISA notes, however, that despite 

Moyo’s statements, the Minister ignored 

all the submissions that were 

proposed by media organisations, including 

MISA-Zimbabwe. MISA- 

Zimbabwe made its first submission 

to Minister Moyo as far back as August 

2001. The allegation that people 

were making noise without making 

official submissions is therefore 

without merit. 

In addition to making submissions 

to the Minister, MISA-Zimbabwe 

and other organisations have also 

made submissions and had interviews 

with the Parliamentary Portfolio 

Committee on Transport and 

Communications over the bill. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-20 

INSTITUTION(S): The Financial 


Gazette, The Daily News 


On Thursday January 10, 2002, a 

number of the ruling Zimbabwe African 


(ZANU-PF) party’s supporters tore 

up and burnt copies of the independent 

weekly newspapers “The Financial 

Gazette” and “The Daily News”, 

according to a report in the 17 January 

edition of “The Financial Gazette”. 

The incident occurred while 

the ZANU-PF supporters were on 

their way to Harare International Airport 

in hired buses to welcome Congolese 

President Joseph Kabila. 

While on its way to the airport, a 

crew from “The Financial Gazette” 

witnessed the destruction of the 

newspapers. The ruling party youths, 

who were wearing t-shirts with the 

ZANU-PF logo, got off a ZUPCO 

(Zimbabwe United Passenger Company 

Limited) bus with registration 

number 438-108 M on Chiremba 

road in the suburb of Hatfield. They 

then forced newspaper vendors to 

hand over large bundles of “The 

Daily News” and “The Financial 

Gazette”, which they burnt publicly. 

The youths, who were visibly 

drunk, chased some vendors and anyone 

seen with a copy of the two newspapers. 

Motorists were also forced to 

stop and their newspapers were confiscated 

and burnt. 

ZANU-PF has accused the independent 

media of writing lies about 

events in the country and President 

Mugabe. Incidences of ZANU-PF 

youths destroying independent media 

newspapers are becoming widespread 

as the country prepares for the 

March presidential elections.

ZIMBABWE 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-01-30 

PERSON(S): Cornelius Nduna , Foster 

Dongozi, Rhodah Maschavane 


Three journalists were arrested in 

Harare on the afternoon of January 30, 

2002. The arrests occurred during a 

demonstration outside Parliament, 

where the Access to Information and 

Protection of Privacy Bill was being 

discussed. 

“The Daily News” journalists Foster 

Dongozi and Rhodah Maschavane 

and “The Standard” news editor 

Cornelius Nduna were arrested when 

armed police officers rushed the 

crowd. The demonstration, organised 

by MISA-Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwean 

Union of Journalists (ZUJ), 

was attended by approximately fifty 

journalists, mostly from independent 

media outlets. MISA-Zimbabwe has 

secured legal counsel for the journalists. 

Bruce Mujeye of the legal firm 

Gollop & Blank and Tawanda 

Hondora of the Kantor & Immerman 

firm will act on their behalf 

The journalists were taken to the 

police’s Law and Order Section and 

were to be charged during the afternoon 

of 30 January. They were protesting 

the fact that the bill was being 

discussed in Parliament, despite 

an adverse report by the Parliamentary 

Legal Committee released on 29 

January. 

On January 29, the Parliamentary 

Legal Committee said that the Access 

to Information and Protection of Privacy 

Bill remains unconstitutional, 

despite the thirty-six amendments to 

the bill. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-02-01 



The controversial Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Bill 

was finally passed on January 31, 

2002, with minor amendments. The 

bill still contains restrictive clauses on 

accessing information and regulation 

of media workers in Zimbabwe. 

The bill, which will come into effect 

after being signed by President 

Robert Mugabe, has been toned down 

considerably, especially on the quasijudicial 

powers of the proposed Media 

Commission and those of the Minister 

of Information and Publicity. 

Under the original bill, the Minister 

of Information and Publicity had the 

power to review judgements of the 

courts and direct any government official, 

even in other ministries, to furnish 

him with information. This has 

been struck down under the passed bill. 

Furthermore, the Minister will no 

longer appoint the Media Commission 

single-handedly. Journalists’ associations 

will nominate three representatives 

and an association of media 

houses will nominate another three. 

The Media Commission will not be 

made up of fewer than five or more 

than nine members. The appointment 

of the members and their resumption 

of duty is, however, subject to approval 

by the Minister, in consultation with 

the President. 

The Media Commission, which had 

powers under the original bill to withdraw 

licences and suspend and punish 

media houses for failure to pay fees, 

will now resort to a competent court 



2002 

in order to receive any levy or take any 

action against a media house. The Minister, 

who also had powers to issue a 

certificate for the confiscation of a 

media house’s equipment for breaching 

the provisions of the Act, would 

also need a decision from the courts to 

take that action. The blanket insulation 

from prosecution of legal suits being 

made against the Commission has also 

been removed. 

In relation to media ownership, the 

bill now reads that foreigners can invest 

in the media but the major 

shareholding of any media enterprise 

would rest with the citizen(s) of Zimbabwe. 

The bill also reads that: “Nothing 

continued in this section shall prevent 

any person who is an existing 

mass media owner as at 31 January 

2002 from continuing to be a mass 

media owner to the same extent as his 

ownership on that date”. 

The amount of fines to be levied 

against a media owner who breaches 

the bill has been reduced from $1 million 

Zimbabwean dollars (approx. 

US$18 034) to $300 000 Zimbabwean 

dollars (approx. US$5 410). Such punishment 

will, however, be applied after 

a court procedure in accordance 

with Zimbabwe’s Criminal Procedure 

and Evidence Act. 

On the accreditation of journalists, 

media houses can now apply for accreditation 

on behalf of the journalists 

in their employment or those they intend 

to employ. Any journalist who is 

not a Zimbabwean citizen or permanent 

resident may be accredited for a 

limited time period. However, what is 

meant by a limited time period is not 

specified. The final (passed) bill still 

stipulates, however, that no journalists 

can practice their profession without 


being accredited. Media houses are 

also barred from employing persons 

who are not accredited. The final bill 

has also done away with Section 69 of 

the original bill, which had an array of 

what was termed “abuse of journalists’ 

privileges”. The following were listed 

under that term in the original bill: 

- “Divulging a lawfully protected secret” 

- “Denigrating, bringing into hatred 

or contempt or ridicule or excite disaffection 

against the President, the law 

enforcement agents or the administration 

of justice in Zimbabwe” 

- “Publishing a fabricated record of 

personal information” (The passed bill 

has changed this to read: “knowingly 

publishing a fabricated document”) 

- “Contravening any provisions of 

this Act”. 

On the protection of privacy, the bill 

now reads that a public official will not 

disclose information about any individual 

if the disclosure of that information 

were to result in the unreasonable 

invasion of a third party’s privacy. 

The original had put a blanket ban on 

the disclosure of personal information 

of third parties. 

However, the bill retains limitations 

on information that can be accessed by 

journalists and ordinary members of 

the public. The decision to release information 

remains at the discretion of 

public officials, who are under no binding 

obligation to release information 

to the media and members of the public. 

Information that is exempted from 

disclosure includes, for example, government 

policy issues and cabinet deliberations. 

There is still a ban on reporting 

on council and municipal 

policy matters and deliberations. No 

clear procedure of appeal against re-

ZIMBABWE 


fusal of access to information is set out, 

excepting a note that appeals would be 

directed to the administrative court. 

The restrictions put on information that 

can be exempted are still wide, unqualified 

and subject to abuse. The restrictions 

signal an end to investigative 

journalism. 

The Media Commission still has the 

power to investigate any wrongdoing 

by media houses and journalists. The 

commission can still pass this information 

to the attorney general for prosecution. 

It must be noted that the power 

of investigating lies with the police and 

not with an appointed Media Commission. 

Despite removing most of the 

quasi-judicial powers that had been 

granted to the Commission and the 

Minister, the amended bill remains 

overtly restrictive in terms of the media’s 

operations in Zimbabwe. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-02-01 

PERSON(S): Rhoda Mashavane, 

Foster Dongozi, Cornelius Nduna 


Three journalists, Rhoda Mashavane 

and Foster Dongozi of “The Daily 

News” and Cornelius Nduna, news 

editor from “The Standard”, who 

were arrested on Wednesday January 

30, 2002 in Harare, were released that 

same day. However, they were told 

to report to the police station on 

Thursday, January 31. 

The three journalists were released 

after four hours of interrogation by the 

police’s Law and Order section. The 

police threatened to keep the journalists 

for seven days, as provided for in 

the newly enacted and repressive Public 

Order and Security Bill. The journalists 

were told to report to the station 

on 31 January, where they were 

to be officially charged. 

Over fifty journalists, mostly from 

the independent media, gathered at the 

Parliament building to protest against 

the repressive Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Bill. The 

three journalists took part in the demonstration, 

which was organized by 

MISA-Zimbabwe together with the 

Zimbabwe Union of Journalists. Heavily 

armed riot police dispersed the 

peaceful gathering. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-02-04 



Zimbabwe’s Information and Publicity 

Minister Jonathan Moyo stated 

that the government is not opposed 

to the formation of a voluntary media 

council by media workers. 

The government, however, will set 

up a statutory media council under the 

newly enacted Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act. Moyo, 

in a story that appeared in the February 

1, 2002 edition of “The Herald”, 

said that the establishment of a statutory 

media and information commission 

does not stand in the way of a 

voluntary media council. “The media 

industry is quite free, as in any other 

profession, to proceed in that direction,” 

said Moyo. The Minister however 

added that the formation of a voluntary 

media council would not eradicate 

the government’s legitimate right 

to make laws that provide instruments 

and institutions for the enforcement of 



2002 

universally accepted standards of professional 

ethical conduct. 

The formation of a voluntary media 

council has been stalled in Zimbabwe 

because of state media journalists’ lack 

of participation. Journalists in the state 

media participated in the drafting of 

the voluntary media council constitution 

and code of conduct. However, 

many have stopped participating in the 

project, openly admitting they fear victimisation 

by the government. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-04 

PERSON(S): Sally Sara 


Despite assurances by the Zimbabwean 

government that foreign journalists 

will be allowed in the country, 

Australian journalist Sally Sara has 

been denied accreditation. 

In a January 23, 2002 article in the 

state-owned newspaper “The Herald”, 

Department of Information and Publicity 

Permanent Secretary George 

Charamba said that the request by the 

Australian Broadcasting Corporation 

to send a reporter to Zimbabwe was 

not genuine. 

Charamba stated that the Australian 

government had used their application 

to test Zimbabwe’s commitment to the 

Abuja agreement. The Abuja agreement 

was brokered by Nigeria in an 

attempt to ease the tension between 

Britain and Zimbabwe over the controversial 

land issue and human right 

abuses. Under the agreement, the Zimbabwean 

government agreed to allow 

local and foreign journalists to operate 

unhindered. 

Charamba added that the Australian 

government wanted to use the case to 


indict the Zimbabwean government at 

the upcoming Commonwealth Summit 

in Australia. He said that his department 

consults with bona fide journalists 

and noted that he is concerned 

when such matters become government 

business. “As a matter of policy 

we will treat requests for visits by news 

people on their own merit, not in terms 

of which government official is behind 

them. We deal with news people, not 

governments, otherwise you begin to 

wonder whether you are dealing with 

a bona fide reporter,” said Charamba. 

“The Herald” reported that Australian 

Foreign Minister Alexander 

Downer wrote a letter to Zimbabwean 

Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge complaining 

about the Information Department’s 

refusal to accredit the journalist. 

The newspaper reported that 

Downer, in his letter to Mudenge, said 

that the Abuja agreement recognised 

freedom of expression and that he 

would be surprised if the Zimbabwean 

government decided to walk away 

from the agreement. 

Charamba commented on the letter, 

stating that his department was very 

clear about the details of the Abuja 

agreement. “Abuja talks about […] 

freedom of expression. It does not talk 

about the freedom of journalists to 

walk in and out and to roam the country 

to their delight without any recognition 

of the rules and laws of this 

country,” said Charamba. “There are 

rules and this is why Abuja recognises 

Zimbabwe’s laws and ask[s] for [the] 

enjoyment of freedom of expression 

in terms of the rules and laws of Zimbabwe,” 

he said. 

At the Southern Africa Development 

Community meeting held in 

Malawi on 14 January, President

ZIMBABWE 


Robert Mugabe agreed that his government 

would respect freedom of 

expression principles and also allow 

foreign journalists to cover important 

national events. However, this would 

be done in accordance with Zimbabwe’s 

laws. With the passing of the 

Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Bill, foreign journalists will 

be allowed to visit Zimbabwe to cover 

specific events. Foreign journalists’ accreditation 

for longer periods, however, 

remains banned and the act is silent 

on what is meant by a “short period”. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-04 

PERSON(S): Thabo Kunene 

VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored 

On Tuesday January 29, 2002, BBC 

correspondent Thabo Kunene was arrested 

and detained for one hour in 

Lupane, a district centre 100 kilometres 

outside of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s 

second biggest city. 

According to a report in the February 

1 edition of “The Daily News”, 

Kunene was accompanied by a visitor 

from Holland and a driver. They were 

arrested at a roadblock in the politically 

charged district. The three were 

held at the Insiza police station on the 

grounds that they were a threat to the 

area’s security. “They separated us on 

arrival at the police station and we were 

continually told that we were a security 

risk,” Kunene told “The Daily 

News”. “They seized a […] cassette 

from the car. After the interrogation, 

we were told to wait for thirty minutes 

as the police were waiting for instructions 

from an undisclosed person,” said 

Kunene. 

The Matebeleland North Police 

spokesperson, Inspector Alfred 

Zvenyika, confirmed the incident. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-04 

PERSON(S): Basildon Peta 

VIOLATION(S): Bombed (see classification 

on page 4) 

Police raided and searched the home 

of Basildon Peta, secretary-general of 

the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists 

and special projects editor for the “Financial 

Gazette”, on Thursday January 

31, Friday February 1 and Saturday 

February 2, 2002. 

Peta’s home was raided as police 

searched for what they called evidence 

linking him to the organisation of a 

January 24 demonstration by journalists. 

On that day, over fifty journalists 

from the independent media gathered 

outside Parliament as the Access to 


Bill was being debated. The demonstration 

was in protest against repressive 

clauses in the bill. The bill was 

finally passed on Thursday 31 January. 

The police, however, could not locate 

Peta who had gone into hiding 

prior to flying to South Africa to see 

his ill child. 

MISA’s Zimbabwe chapter, MISA- 

Zimbabwe, arranged for a lawyer, 

Tawanda Hondora of Kantor and 

Immerman Legal Practitioners, to represent 

Peta and find out the exact 

charge being laid against him. 

Hondora was told that Peta was 

wanted on charges of organising an illegal 

demonstration. Under the new 

Public Order and Security Act, it is illegal 

to organise a gathering without 



2002 

notifying the police seven days prior 

to the gathering. Peta, who returned to 

Zimbabwe on Monday February 4, 

was expected to visit the police during 

the course of the day. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-02-05 

PERSON(S): Basildon Peta 

VIOLATION(S): Bombed (see classification 

on page 4) 

Zimbabwe’s Office of the Attorney 

General has refused to prosecute 

Basildon Peta, secretary-general of 

the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists 

(ZUJ), over allegations of organising 

an illegal demonstration. 

Peta’s lawyer Tawanda Hondora 

told MISA-Zimbabwe that the Attorney 

General’s Office had refused to 

prosecute the journalist on the grounds 

that the Public Order and Security Act, 

under which Peta was charged, does 

not require professional bodies to seek 

police approval when they organise 

gatherings or demonstrations. The Attorney 

General’s Office agreed that the 

demonstration was organised by the 

ZUJ, which is a professional body. 

Part 4, Section 24 (5) exempts certain 

classes of gatherings as described 

in the schedule. The schedule mentions 

professional organisations and bodies 

as being exempted from requiring police 

authority to hold gatherings or 

demonstrations. 

Contrary to a number of media reports, 

on Monday February 4 2002, 

Peta voluntarily reported to the police 

station at 2:00 p.m. (local time), in the 

company of his lawyer. He was released 

from police custody at 7:00 p.m. 

that same day. 

Police raided and searched Peta’s 


home on Thursday January 31, Friday 

February 1 and Saturday February 2. 

Police were searching for what they 

called evidence linking him to the organisation 

of a demonstration held by 

journalists on January 24. 

Hondora said that his client was 

wanted on charges of organising a 

demonstration, which is illegal under 

the new Public Order and Security Act. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-11 

INSTITUTION(S): The Daily News 


The Bulawayo offices of the independent 

daily newspaper “The Daily 

News” were pasted with campaign 

posters of the ruling Zimbabwe African 


(ZANU-PF) party on the morning of 

Thursday February 8, 2002. 

A group of ZANU-PF-affiliated 

youths raided the newspaper’s offices 

and forced a security guard manning 

the premises to chant ZANU-PF slogans. 

They also ordered him to stand 

at attention while they put up the posters. 

The ruling party has often accused 

the daily newspaper of reporting negatively 

about its activities and of being 

partisan in its reporting. 

The February 8 issue of “The Daily 

News” carried a front page showing 

pictures of President Robert Mugabe 

pasted all over the newspaper’s offices. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-11 



The Bulawayo offices of “The Daily 

News”, Zimbabwe’s leading inde-

ZIMBABWE 


pendent daily newspaper, were petrol-bombed 

on February 11, 2002 at 

around 3:00 a.m. (local time). The 

printing press of Daily Press (not related 

to “The Daily News”), a printing 

company that printed campaign 

materials for the opposition Movement 

For Democratic Change 

(MDC), was also bombed. 

A security guard who witnessed the 

bombing of “The Daily News” said 

that two bombs were hurled at the 

newspaper’s reception area. The offices 

suffered minor damages as the 

guard rushed to extinguish the fire. 

Mduduzi Mathuthu, a reporter with the 

newspaper, said that the bomb 

smashed a plate glass window at the 

entrance of the newspaper’s offices, 

burning a carpet in the lobby. 

The private printing firm Daily 

Press, which is five streets away from 

“The Daily News” offices, was burnt 

down after a petrol bomb was hurled 

inside the building. The company has 

been printing campaign materials for 

the opposition MDC. 

No one was injured in the attack on 

“The Daily News”’s offices, though it 

could not be established if anyone was 

injured at the Daily Press premises. 

Journalists at “The Daily News” returned 

to work after police carried out 

their investigation. 

On February 8, the offices of “The 

Daily News” were plastered with campaign 

posters of President Robert 

Mugabe. The government accuses the 

paper of “misrepresenting information” 

and supporting the opposition. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-18 

PERSON(S): Gorrel Espelund 


Swedish journalist Gorrel Espelund 

was denied accreditation and told to 

leave Zimbabwe just hours after Swedish 

diplomat and European Union 

Chief Election Observer Pierre Schori 

was thrown out of the country, ahead 

of the 2002 presidential elections 

scheduled for March 9 and 10, 2002. 

Espelund, the South African based 

correspondent for “Sydsvenska 

Dagbladet” newspaper, said she received 

a faxed letter on Sunday 17 

February from Zimbabwe’s Department 

of Information informing her that 

her application to cover the presidential 

election had been turned down. 

Espelund informed the Cable News 

Network (CNN) that two other journalists 

working for different newspapers 

had also been sent the same letter. 

Swedish nationals and citizens of 

five other countries have been refused 

accreditation by President Mugabe. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-19 

PERSON(S): Newton Spicer 


On February 18, 2002, Newton Spicer 

of Spicer Productions, a documentary 

and film production house, was arrested 

in Harare, allegedly for operating 

as a journalist without official 

accreditation. 

Spicer was arrested at 4:00 p.m. (local 

time) in downtown Harare as he 

was filming the stoning of the opposition 

Movement for Democratic 

Change offices by supporters of the 

ruling party Zimbabwe African National 

Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU- 

PF). Police arrested Spicer and took 

him to the Harare Central Police Sta- 



2002 

tion Law and Order Section, where he 

was detained until 9:00 p.m. He was 

released and advised to visit the police 

station on 19 February for formal 

charges to be conferred on him. 

Newton’s wife Edwina Spicer informed 

MISA’s Zimbabwean chapter 

(MISA-Zimbabwe) that the police said 

he was operating without official accreditation. 

She added that Newton is 

officially accredited but did not have 

his card with him when he was arrested. 

The police took Spicer’s video 

camera and kept it overnight. It has still 

not been established if the journalist 

has been charged or whether the video 

camera has been returned intact. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-20 


media 


Zimbabwean President Robert 

Mugabe has again attacked the independent 

media in his country, saying 

that they are involved in “peddling 

lies, exaggerations and manufacturing 

news.” 

Mugabe was addressing journalists 

in Beira on Sunday February 17, 2002, 

after talks with Mozambican President 

Joachim Chissano and Malawian 

President Bakili Muluzi. Journalists at 

the meeting’s press briefing asked 

Mugabe to answer allegations that his 

government was muzzling the media 

through repressive legislation, acts of 

violence and intimidation. 

In response, Mugabe gave the example 

of former “Financial Gazette” 

staffer Basildon Peta, whom he said 

was forced to resign after admitting 

that he lied in a story he wrote to the 


British press. He also alluded to a 1999 

event, when the army arrested journalists 

Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto 

for writing a story alleging that a coup 

was being prepared against Mugabe. 

Mugabe alleged that the world’s attention 

was focused on the arrest and not 

on the “false” report the two journalists 

had published. 

Mugabe urged journalists to be objective 

and impartial, saying that when 

the Zimbabwean independent media’s 

criticisms of the government were 

valid, government officials accepted 

such reports without reservations. He 

added that journalists “are not super 

human beings” and “must not go 

around defaming people.” 

However, MISA-Zimbabwe notes 

that the president’s statements run contrary 

to the behaviour of the police and 

government officials, who in many 

incidences have arbitrarily arrested and 

harassed journalists. 

The notion that the independent 

media is free to report on anything as 

long as it is factual also runs contrary 

to the defamation charges that have 

been conferred on journalists, such as 

Geoff Nyarota, over media reports 

concerning the conduct of senior government 

officials. 

Mugabe’s words are largely seen as 

adding to the ruling elite’s determination 

to implement the draconian Access 

to Information and Protection of 

Privacy Bill. 

The act seeks to restrict reporting on 

certain information, requires journalists 

to be registered and provides for 

severe punitive measures for “wayward” 

journalists. Journalists are also 

barred from reporting negatively about 

the president under the Public Order 

and Security Act.

ZIMBABWE 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-20 

INSTITUTION(S): International 

and local media 


MISA-Zimbabwe has established that 

the Zimbabwean government is selectively 

accrediting international journalists 

to cover the presidential elections 

scheduled for March 2002, despite 

commitments made to the Commonwealth 

Ministerial Action Group, 

the Southern African Development 

Community and provisions in the 

Abuja Accord. 

British journalists have notably been 

targeted by deportations and refusals 

for accreditation. MISA-Zimbabwe 

has established that not a single BBC 

journalist has been accredited. However, 

the Zimbabwean government has 

allowed ITN Africa correspondent Tim 

Ewart to continue his coverage up to 

the March 9 ballot. BBC reporter 

Rageh Omaar was expelled from Zimbabwe 

on July 25, 2001 after being 

accused of “biased” reporting. 

David Blair of “The Daily Telegraph” 

was denied accreditation and 

deported on the weekend of February 

16 and 17. MISA-Zimbabwe understands 

that a number of other journalists, 

mostly from European countries 

that were not invited to observe the 

elections, have also been denied accreditation. 

The Associated Press has been denied 

permission to send foreign reporters. 

CNN has been allowed to bring in 

two reporters, but the two individuals 

will not be allowed in the country before 

February 25. The South African 

Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has 

been allowed to cover the elections, 

while a number of South African based 

newspapers were denied accreditation. 

MISA-Zimbabwe has not been able 

to establish a complete list of the names 

of South African journalists and media 

organisations that have been denied 

accreditation. A spokesperson for the 

South African High Commission said 

he was not aware of any South African 

journalist being denied accreditation. 

MISA-Zimbabwe understands that 

many media organisations have been 

told that only Zimbabwean reporters 

will be accredited. Twenty local journalists 

have been accredited to date to 

cover the elections, at a fee of ZW$1 

000 (approx. US$18) each. It is widely 

believed that the limitations and restrictions 

that are being placed on journalists 

will impact negatively on election 

coverage. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-22 

PERSON(S): Lovemore Ncube 

(Radio Dialogue) 


On Saturday February 16, 2002, Radio 

Dialogue, an aspiring community 

radio station based in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s 

second largest city, had its 

promotional road shows stopped by 

the police and ruling party Zimbabwe 

African National Union - Patriotic 

Front (ZANU-PF) supporters in 

Plumtree. 

Lovemore Ncube, of Radio Dialogue, 

who had gone to Plumtree, a 

border town 100 kilometers from 

Bulawayo, to put up posters inviting 

residents to witness what the initiative 

had to offer, was detained for five 

hours by the police. “When we went 



2002 

to Plumtree to facilitate Lovemore’s 

release, the police warned us against 

going ahead with the road show, which 

they referred to as a meeting, saying 

that it had not been sanctioned under 

the Public Order and Security Act 

(POSA),” said Qubani Moyo, the station’s 

marketing director. 

POSA bars people from holding 

meetings without police authority. “We 

tried to tell the police that ours wasn’t 

a meeting but a promotional event of 

our product. They said that they knew 

Radio Dialogue was a political organisation 

and had been instructed by their 

superiors to bar us from holding any 

promotional shows and that they 

would deal with us like any other political 

organisation,” Moyo said. 

Radio Dialogue decided to defy the 

warning and went ahead with setting 

up the stage and arranging their gallery. 

ZANU-PF supporters stormed the 

stage, threatening to assault the show’s 

organisers. The show was subsequently 

abandoned. 

Radio Dialogue seeks to establish a 

community radio station, the first of 

its kind to cover the Matebeleland region. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-02-26 

PERSON(S): Newton Spicer 

VIOLATION(S):Detained, censored 


Police have returned the video camera 

and tapes that they seized from 

Newton Spicer on February 18, 2002. 

Spicer is a journalist with the video 

and documentary media house Spicer 

Productions. 

The journalist was arrested in Harare 

on 18 February, allegedly for operating 

as a journalist without official accreditation. 

On Thursday February 21, 

he was informed that he was free to 

go, as no charges were filed against 

him. Police also returned his video 

camera and tapes. They had been confiscated 

at the time of his arrest. 

Spicer was arrested on February 18 

at 4:00 p.m. (local time) in Harare as 

he was filming the stoning of the opposition 


Change offices by supporters of the 

ruling Zimbabwe African National 

Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) 

party. Police arrested Spicer and took 

him to the Harare Central Police Station 

Law and Order Section, where he 

was detained, together with about 150 

ZANU-PF youths, until 9:00 p.m. 

Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe that he 

and the youths were asked about their 

political affiliations. He explained that 

he was not affiliated with any party. 

Spicer was told that he was being 

investigated for working as a journalist 

without accreditation and also inciting 

a riot. He was released and advised 

to report to the Law and Order 

Section on February 19 for formal 

charges. His camera and the tapes were 

withheld as “evidence”. Police refused 

to return the video camera and tapes 

to the journalist on February 19, on the 

pretext that the investigating officer 

was not available. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-26 

PERSON(S): Moses Oguti 


Moses Oguti, the editor-in-chief of 

Botswana-based magazine “Trans- 

Kalahari”, was arrested on February 

17, 2002 for allegedly entering Zimbabwe 

illegally through the Forbes

ZIMBABWE 


Border Post (at the border between 

Zimbabwe and Mozambique). 

According to a February 23 report 

in “The Daily News” newspaper, Oguti 

is still being held in Mutare prison, a 

week after his arrest. Mutare is a border 

town located about 263 kilometres 

east of the Zimbabwean capital, 

Harare. 

Stanley Shamido, the head of Immigration 

in Manicaland province, 

said that Oguti is being held in police 

cells as the authorities ascertain where 

he resides. Shamido also said that police 

would lay charges of “entry by 

evasion” on Oguti. “We don’t know 

what type of a person he is. This is a 

straightforward case. We’ll just prosecute 

and later deport him,” said 

Shamido. 

Oguti is said to have tried to enter 

Zimbabwe through Forbes Border Post 

from Mozambique, but immigration 

officials refused him entry, because his 

papers were allegedly not in order. The 

following day, a Mozambican driving 

a car that looked similar to the one 

Oguti was using entered the border 

area, raising the suspicion of immigration 

officers, who alerted the police. 

The Mozambican driver was allowed 

in because his papers were in 

order. Police spokesman Francis 

Mubvuta alleges that while his car was 

being driven into the country, Oguti 

entered Zimbabwe through an illegal 

entry point in the mountains, used 

mainly by unauthorised cross-border 

traders. It is alleged that Oguti paid off 

the Mozambican driver, who in turn 

handed over the car to the journalist. 

“We traced Oguti at a food outlet in 

the city centre and arrested him. The 

reason for his being in the country has 

not yet been established. Meanwhile, 

we are holding him at Mutare prison,” 

stated Mubvuta. 

In a February 26 interview with 

MISA-Zimbabwe, Mubvuta said that 

Oguti would be transferred to Harare 

to await deportation. However, he did 

not specify when the journalist would 

be deported. “Oguti will be charged 

with entry by evasion and will also be 

declared a prohibited immigrant,” explained 

Mubvuta. 

Asked why Oguti entered Zimbabwe, 

Mubvuta stated that the journalist 

claimed to simply be visiting. 

Mubvuta declined to answer questions 

as to whether Oguti was in Zimbabwe 

to perform media-related work or not. 

The Zimbabwean government is 

denying hundreds of foreign journalists 

accreditation to enter the country 

as the presidential election draws 

closer. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-02-28 

PERSON(S): Edwina Spicer, 

Jackie Cahi 


Zimbabwean journalists Edwina 

Spicer and Jackie Cahi were arrested 

on February 25, 2002 and held for 

twenty hours in the capital, Harare, 

on allegations of filming State House, 

which is a prohibited area under the 

Protected Areas Act. 

Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe that 

she and her colleague were filming 

Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition 


Change, as he went to the Morris Depot 

Police Station, where he was summoned 

to answer to charges of plotting 

to assassinate President Robert 



2002 


Mugabe. Morris Depot is near State 

House. 

“We were filming Mr. Tsvangirai’s 

story of being ordered to report to 

Morris Depot to face charges of treason. 

As his convoy had passed State 

House, I later got a shot of the ‘No traffic 

6-6’ sign and then filmed as we 

were driving past the State House security 

wall along Josiah Tongagara,” 

explained Spicer. 

Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe that 

she and her colleague did not stop, attempt 

to film inside State House or 

drive through Chancellor Avenue, 

which is closed from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 

a.m. (local time) every day. Spicer and 

Cahi drove back past State House after 

filming the opposition leader as he 

entered the police station. 

“At 4:30 p.m., we drove back past 

State House. We were not filming, but 

we were flagged down by the police 

and Presidential Guard and told that I 

had violated the law by filming in a 

restricted area. I was taken to Harare 

Central Police Station. Cahi was also 

asked to drive her car to the Central 

Police Station,” said Spicer. Both journalists 

were informed that they would 

be charged. 

“Our lawyer, Bryant Elliot, pointed 

out to the police officers that according 

to the Protected Areas Act, there 

has to be a clear public sign indicating 

exactly what restrictions are in force 

in a ‘restricted area’, and that the act 

refers to the taking of photographs ‘on 

the premises’ of a restricted area,” said 

Spicer. 

The two journalists were nevertheless 

locked up for the night. On Tuesday 

February 26, their other lawyer, 

Ray Moyo, took over the case. Spicer 

and Cahi were charged with contravention 

of Section 5, Subsection 5 of the 

Protected Areas Act, Chapter 11.12., 

because they took photographs of State 

House. 

“In terms of Section 5.5, we had 

“failed to comply with the direction as 

to movement or conduct in a protected 

area,” explained Spicer. 

Moyo and Elliot pointed out that no 

such directive about how people are 

to move around State House were ever 

published or gazetted. The senior public 

prosecutor also failed to find such 

directions. 

“In other words, there are no directions 

as to how we as journalists should 

move or conduct ourselves in this protected 

area,” noted Spicer. The senior 

public prosecutor subsequently refused 

to prosecute the two journalists, and 

they were released on February 26 at 

1:00 p.m. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-12 

PERSON(S): Foreign journalists 


Zimbabwean Minister of Information 

and Publicity Jonathan Moyo has 

warned foreign journalists operating 

illegally in Zimbabwe that they face 

jail terms if caught. Moyo was speaking 

in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second 

largest city, on Friday March 8, 

2002. 

Minister Moyo, who was addressing 

the media, warned journalists who 

were denied accreditation to cover the 

elections but had entered the country 

as tourists that they would be caught 

and prosecuted. Moyo added that any 

journalist caught working in the country 

illegally, “might take a long time 

... to go back to their countries.”

ZIMBABWE 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-11 

PERSON(S): Ish Mafundikwa, 

Jestina Mukoko and Shorai Makoni. 


Three journalists from the “Voice of 

the People” radio station were denied 

accreditation to cover the March 9 and 

10, 2002 presidential elections. The 

three journalists are Ish Mafundikwa, 

Jestina Mukoko and Shorai Makoni. 

MISA-Zimbabwe was told by 

Mafundikwa that when they went to 

the Election Supervisory Commission 

(ESC) seeking accreditation on March 

2, an ESC officer identified only as 

Pasi informed them that he had to 

check with the Department of Information 

and Publicity as to whether the 

three journalists could be accredited. 

March 2 was the last day that local 

journalists could apply for accreditation 

to cover the presidential elections. 

Mafundikwa told MISA-Zimbabwe 

that Pasi had promised to inform them 

of their accreditation status that 

evening. Upon being called in the 

evening, Pasi told Mafundikwa that the 

three journalists had been denied accreditation. 

No reasons were given to 

explain the rejection of their applications. 

The Zimbabwean government has 

been regularly harassing Voice of the 

People and SW Radio Africa. The two 

are short wave radio stations broadcasting 

on issues in Zimbabwe. 

The government accuses Britain and 

the Netherlands of supporting and 

“harbouring” the two stations. However, 

the three journalists who were 

denied accreditation are Zimbabwean 

journalists who are accredited with the 


through the old Ministry of Information, 

Post and Telecommunications. 

Journalists were required to obtain 

special accreditation with the ESC to 

gain access to polling stations during 

the election period. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-03-12 



Moses Oguti, the detained editor-inchief 

of Botswana-based magazine 

“Trans Kalahari”, has been transferred 

to Harare Central Prison, in the 

Zimbabwean capital, Harare. Oguti is 

accused of entering Zimbabwe illegally 

and misrepresenting information 

to the police. 

According to a report in the March 

11, 2002 edition of “The Daily News”, 

Oguti was transferred to Harare on 

March 2 at the request of senior immigration 

officers. The newspaper reported 

that immigration officers in 

Mutare refused to explain why Oguti 

had yet to appear in court. However, 

the police spokesperson in Mutare, 

Francis Mubvuta, explained that Oguti 

had not appeared in court because his 

co-accused, an unnamed driver from 

Mozambique, was still at large. Oguti 

languished in Mutare prison for two 

weeks before being transferred to 

Harare. 

MISA-Zimbabwe could not establish 

the status of Oguti’s case at the 

time of writing this alert. 

Oguti was arrested on February 17 

for allegedly entering Zimbabwe illegally 

through the Forbes Border Post 

(the border between Zimbabwe and 



2002 

Mozambique). 

Oguti’s co-accused, a driver from 

Mozambique, is still at large. The 

driver is said to have driven Oguti’s 

vehicle into Zimbabwe, while Oguti 

himself is said to have entered Zimbabwe 

through an illegal entry point in 

the mountains. 

On February 26, Mubvuta indicated 

that Oguti would be charged with “entry 

by evasion” and would also be declared 

a prohibited immigrant. He is 

expected to be deported shortly after 

his transfer to Harare prison. 

It is still not clear if Oguti entered 

Zimbabwe with the intent to perform 

media-related work. He had apparently 

told police and immigration officials 

that he was merely visiting. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-03-12 

INSTITUTION(S): BBC 


Zimbabwean Minister of State for 

Information and Publicity Jonathan 

Moyo has warned that the BBC could 

be permanently banned from reporting 

from Zimbabwe. 

Addressing local and foreign journalists 


largest city, on March 8, 2002, 

Moyo said he had information that 

some BBC reporters had entered the 

country. “There is a large and divergent 

media in the country, with over 500 

journalists, but we are dismayed with 

reports from the BBC, who are boasting 

that some of its journalists have 

sneaked into the country,” said Moyo. 

Moyo said that the BBC reporters’ 

conduct was illegal and demonstrated 

why his department refused accreditation 

to the BBC to cover the recent 


presidential elections. 

In reference to Pierre Schori, the 

head of the European observer mission 

that left Zimbabwe before the elections, 

Moyo said “the BBC would not 

succeed where Schori failed.” He 

added that “those BBC people are not 

better than terrorists and that is why 

they do not deserve to be here.” 

“Those elements, if caught, might 

take long to go back to their home 

country and they are not even ashamed 

as they are boasting about it. In fact 

they have compromised their working 

in Zimbabwe for a temporary moment 

that might not have been permanent,” 

said Moyo. 

The Department of Information and 

Publicity said that two BBC correspondents, 

John Sweeney and Fergal 

Keane, also entered the country in February 

and spent two weeks in the 

Matabeleland region, investigating the 

violence that gripped the region after 

independence. 

The Zimbabwean government refused 

accreditation to the BBC and 

many other international media organisations 

on allegations of biased reporting. 

According to the Department of 

Information and Publicity, over 580 

foreign journalists were accredited to 

cover the elections. This figure could 

not be independently verified. The department 

has also threatened to find all 

foreign journalists who are working 

“illegally” in Zimbabwe. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-18 



President Robert Mugabe signed

ZIMBABWE 


Zimbabwe’s Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act into law 

on Friday March 15, 2002, effectively 

making it an active law. 

The act, which has been criticised 

by local journalists’ organisations and 

the international community, seeks 

among other things to establish a Media 

Commission that would register 

media houses and journalists. An array 

of punitive measures is also included 

in the act, which include 

deregistering media houses and journalists. 

Other measures provide for 

monetary fines and jail terms for breaking 

the act. 

Media organisations in Zimbabwe 

have already stated that they would 

take the government to court in the 

event of the act being signed and any 

of its regulations being affected. The 

signing put to rest speculation that 

Mugabe might be persuaded not to 

sign the law because of last minute 

amendments that were made to the bill 

before it was passed by Parliament on 

January 31. The changes proposed by 

the Parliamentary Legal Committee 

removed most of the powers that were 

granted to the Minister of Information 

and instead pushed for the supremacy 

of the judiciary in any matter concerning 

the breach of the media law. The 

changes also removed a clause banning 

the accreditation of foreign journalists 

to work in Zimbabwe. 

Under the act, foreign journalists 

would be allowed to work in Zimbabwe 

for a “short period”. The amendments 

also made it possible for foreigners 

to invest in the media industry, 

though the majority shareholders must 

be resident Zimbabweans. 

The Minister of Information had 

been granted enormous powers to cancel 

registration licences and to launch 

investigations into the operations of 

media houses and individuals without 

the involvement of the police and/or 

the judiciary. 

Not withstanding the amendments 

that were made, the act remains restrictive 

and undemocratic. Of major concern 

is the fact that the commission 

would be appointed by one person, that 

is the Minister. The Commission is also 

granted enormous powers that can be 

subject to abuse. These include the 

right to demand qualifications before 

accrediting journalists and summoning 

journalists to attend hearings for 

breaching any of the regulations. 

Journalists in Zimbabwe, especially 

from the independent media, agree that 

a constitutional challenge to the law is 

necessary as this law threatens their 

profession. Combined with the Public 

Order and Security Act, the media law 

will present the most potent threat to 

the operations of Zimbabwe’s independent 

media and journalists. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-19 

PERSON(S): Newspaper vendors, 

The Daily News 

VIOLATION(S): Beaten, censored 

More than 100 copies of “The Daily 

News” were torn up and the newspaper’s 

vendors were harassed in an attack 

by ruling Zimbabwe African National 

Union Patriotic Front (ZANU- 

PF) party youth. The incident occurred 


largest city, on March 13, 2002. 

“The Daily News” is an independent 

daily newspaper in Zimbabwe. 

Vendors were accused of supporting 

the opposition Movement for 



2002 

Democratic Change (MDC) party. The 

youths threatened the vendors with 

“eviction from the streets.” 

Similarly, on Friday March 8, more 

than 150 copies of “The Daily News” 

newspaper were torn up by the youths 

in the high-density suburb of 

Lobengula and Herbert Chitepo 

streets, in the city centre. 

A vendor reported that his newspapers 

and daily takings were taken from 

him after he was accused of “insubordination”. 

The “Daily News” reports 

that no arrests were made and the police 

refused to comment. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-03-21 



Zimbabwe’s Minister of Information 

and Publicity Jonathan Moyo has said 

that the newly enacted Access to Information 


Act needs to be revisited so that foreign 

ownership of the media is totally 

banned in Zimbabwe. 

Moyo was addressing army officers 

at the Zimbabwe Military Staff College 

in the capital Harare on Wednesday 

March 20, 2002. He said that in 

passing the media law, Zimbabwe was 

just following what other countries 

have done. Moyo stated that the law 

was never meant for the elections, but 

was needed for “democracy” and the 

“good governance” of the country. 

Moyo also attacked the independent 

media calling the newspapers liars, 

“bent on promoting imperialist 

views” in Zimbabwe. “Unregulated 

freedom of expression can be a threat 

to the public, such as the ‘lies’ carried 


on a daily basis by the likes of ‘The 

Daily News’, which fan hatred and 

demonise institutions [such] as the judiciary,” 

the Minister stated. 

“The notion that freedom of information 

is a right for journalists only is 

false. It a right for you and me - for 

everyone,” he added. 

Moyo also heaped praises on the 

state-controlled media, which he called 

“professional” and defenders of “national 

interests.” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-26 

PERSON(S): Sikumbuzo Dube 


Poet Sikumbuzo Dube faces a oneyear 

prison sentence and a Z$20,000 

(approx. US$370, £250) fine for writing 

and reciting a poem ridiculing 

President Robert Mugabe. Ridiculing 

the president is a crime under the Public 

Order and Security Act. 

Dube, twenty-five years old, is one 

of thousands of illegal Zimbabwean 

migrants who have been deported from 

Botswana. During the week of March 

18, 2002, he was being held after repatriation 

at Plumtree Prison, on Zimbabwe’s 

western border, when warders 

overheard him reciting a composition 

entitled “Cry, the Beloved Country”. 

This is the first case of its kind. 

The Public Order and Security Act 

was signed into law by Mugabe shortly 

before the March presidential elections. 

The act bars criticism of the seventy-eight-year-old 

head of state and 

has empowered police to break up opposition 

briefings for diplomats and 

journalists. Prince Butshe-Dube, the 

Plumtree prosecutor, said the poem 

triggered a furore in the prison. Inmates

ZIMBABWE 


were divided into two camps, those 

who enjoyed the poem and those who 

felt offended by it. 

The title was taken from Alan 

Paton’s novel set in South Africa in the 

1940s, but the full text was not disclosed 

in court. Dube, who was remanded 

in custody for trial scheduled 

for April 3, told Jabulani Sibanda, the 

Plumtree magistrate, that he thought 

it was not a serious crime to ridicule 

the president as newspapers printed 

worse criticism than his poem and 

nothing was done to them. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-26 

PERSON(S): Munyaradzi 

Mupingo, Tongai Manomano 


On March 20, 2002, two vendors for 

“The Daily News” were assaulted and 

their newspapers were destroyed in the 

town of Rusape. On March 23, the 

newspaper reported that the attacks 

were carried out by fifteen ruling Zimbabwe 

African National Union Patriotic 

Front (ZANU-PF) party youths 

and war veterans in the town, 170 kilometres 

east of the capital, Harare. 

Twenty-year old vendor Tongai 

Manomano and twenty-eight-year old 

Munyaradzi Mupingo were attacked 

and then forced to walk to the ruling 

party’s offices in the town. “They 

asked us why we were selling the 

newspaper in an area [where the newspaper] 

was banned,” said Manomano. 

They were later taken to the war 

veterans’ office, where they were 

beaten with sticks and sjamboks 

(whips) under the soles of their feet and 

all over their bodies. Money from the 

sale of the newspapers was also taken. 

Supporters of the ruling ZANU-PF 

party have “banned” “The Daily 

News” in Rusape and other parts of 

the country. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-28 

INSTITUTION(S): The Book Café 


The Book Café, which was founded 

in 1995 with the purpose of promoting 

cultural activities and artists 

through discussions and workshops, 

has been banned by the police from 

holding any political discussion unless 

they seek clearance under the repressive 

Public Order and Security 

Act (POSA). 

“We have been holding these political 

discussions every Thursday and our 

speakers have included government 

officials,” said the director of The 

Book Café. 

The Book Café owners said they 

would comply with the order to seek 

clearance before holding their discussions, 

which they say are about the 

future and betterment of Zimbabwe. 

Since the enactment of POSA, police 

have issued orders that they have 

a right to sanction or refuse permission 

to any group suspected of being 

political, according to this new piece 

of legislation. Where necessary, plainclothes 

policemen may be present at 

the said meetings according to section 

25 of the act. 

“We no longer know what is freedom 

of expression, but to be frank, The 

Book Café was holding political discussions 

and workshops in which top 

ZANU-PF [Zimbabwe African National 

Union - Patriotic Front] officials 

like Professor Jonathan Moyo, Nathan 



2002 

Shamuyarira, Dumiso Dabengwa and 

Eddison Zvobgo were included. Those 

in, and seen as, the opposition were 

also included in the discussions,” said 

the café’s director. 

The banning of The Book Café discussions 

comes hard on the heels of 

the banning of a number of political 

and social gatherings by the police. 

This development is seen by MISA’s 

Zimbabwe chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe) 

as a serious infringement on the 

right of Zimbabweans to enjoy their 

constitutionally guaranteed freedom of 

expression and association. This development 

violates section 20 of the constitution, 

which clearly states that everyone 

has a right to freedom of speech 

and association. This, according to 

MISA-Zimbabwe, amounts to the declaration 

of an unofficial state of emergency 

in Zimbabwe. The POSA resembles 

in both form and content the 

Law and Order Maintenance Act 

(LOMA), which it replaced. Many sections 

of LOMA, which threatened freedom 

of speech, association and that of 

assembly, were struck down by the 

Supreme Court, leading the government 

to promulgate POSA. POSA is 

largely seen as the reincarnation of 

LOMA. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-03-28 



The government appointed Media 

Ethics Committee of Zimbabwe has 

presented a report in which it calls for 

further restrictions to be put on the 

operations of the media in Zimbabwe. 

The committee was appointed in 


September 2001 to look into the “level 

of professionalism” in Zimbabwean 

media. It has called for the government 

to stamp out what it called “racism and 

the pursuance of foreign interests” by 

the media. 

The committee, chaired by a Harare 

Polytechnic media lecturer, Tafataona 

Mahoso, said that its report must govern 

and inform the formation of a statutory 

media council to look into issues 

of ethics in Zimbabwean media. 

The report calls on the government 

to define a media policy that enhances 

people’s ethical values, culture and 

dignity. According to the report, the 

media should build upon the country’s 

history, experiences and the struggle 

for independence so as to enhance patriotism 

within the population. 

In a veiled reference to the independent 

media, the committee noted 

in its findings that foreign owned media 

in Zimbabwe remained “anti-African, 

anti-government and Euro-centric”. 

The report recommended that 

laws governing the operations of media 

practitioners and those protecting 

the privacy of everyone including public 

figures had to be implemented. 

This, the committee said, is in light of 

the growing polarisation of the media 

in Zimbabwe in recent years and also 

of the high number of cases involving 

defamation. 

The report added that a distinction 

between the invasion of privacy and 

the investigation of matters of public 

interest was needed. It also recommended 

that the media should work 

together with indigenous knowledge 

and strive to identify with, and project, 

people’s aspirations. The need for the 

use of indigenous languages was emphasised.

ZIMBABWE 


The report by the committee has, 

however, been received with scepticism 

and suspicion, especially by the 

independent media in Zimbabwe. 

The independent media, including 

MISA’s Zimbabwe chapter (MISA- 

Zimbabwe), dismissed the Media 

Ethics Committee soon after its appointment, 

as a front for the Department 

of Information and Publicity. 

The appointment of committee 

members was solely done by Minister 

of Information and Publicity 

Jonathan Moyo and no diverse representation 

of the Zimbabwean media 

was considered. The committee 

is largely seen as laying the ground 

for the set up of a statutory media 

council as provided for in the Access 


Act. 

The government, which came under 

fire for its lack of consultation 

on the act, is seen as using the report 

by the Media Ethics Committee to 

suggest that a process of “consultation” 

took place. The report, as 

largely expected, dovetails with the 

contents of the recently enacted Access 


Privacy Act and recent political 

rhetoric. 

Despite numerous complaints 

noted by civic organisations regarding 

the lack of professionalism in the 

state-owned media, the report is silent 

about this subject. 

The national broadcaster and the 

state-owned print media have come 

under fire for directly supporting the 

ruling party and instigating violence 

through the use of inflammatory and 

racist language. The report by the 

committee is silent on all these concerns. 

The report is largely seen as a useful 

tool for justifying the draconian 


of Privacy Act. This is so because the 

committee allegedly held public 

meetings at which ordinary citizens, 

the media, business, church, community 

leaders and women and youth 

groups gave their input on the nature 

of the media they would like to see 

in Zimbabwe. 

On July 25, 2001 MISA reported 

that the Permanent Secretary for the 


in the Office of the President 

and Cabinet, George Charamba, announced 

on Monday July 23 the appointment 

of a committee to look into 

issues affecting the level of professionalism 

in the media, as part of the 

department’s restructuring of the media 

industry. 

At the time, Charamba was quoted 

as saying that the committee would 

determine professionalism and ethical 

awareness in the media by looking 

at news gathering, processing and 

presentation skills. 

The committee would pay attention 

to the level of skills, news value 

and level of advocacy. 

“The terms of reference are the 

relationship with news sources and 

fairness to and respect for the reading 

public; market pressures and 

their impact on the integrity of journalism 

paying particular attention 

to advertorial power, ownership 

and funding,” Charamba said. 

Charamba elaborated, “…politics 

of polarisation within the media 

industry and any other matters the 

committee may consider relevant to 

the development of a sound media 

industry.” 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-03-28 

PERSON(S): Geoff Nyarota 


“The Daily News” editor-in-chief 

Geoff Nyarota is likely to face legal 

action this week if Jonathan Moyo, 

the Minister of State for Information 

and Publicity, goes ahead with his 

threat against him over a “false” story 

he allegedly published. 

This will be the first time the government 

will have implemented the 

controversial Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act against 

“The Daily News”, Zimbabwe’s only 

independent daily. 

Moyo accuses “The Daily News” of 

misrepresenting a story it reported on 

in its Friday March 22, 2002 edition. 

The story claimed that the joint African 

Caribbean Pacific-European Union 

Parliamentary Assembly (ACP- 

EU) passed a resolution calling for a 

fresh presidential election in Zimbabwe 

at a meeting held in Cape Town, 

South Africa, on March 21. In a letter 

written to Nyarota, the Minister asked 

the paper to make a retraction over the 

“deliberate falsehood” or face legal 

action in terms of Section 80(1) (a)(b), 

which deals with the abuse of journalistic 

privilege. Subsections (1) (a)(b) 

state: “A journalist shall be deemed to 

have abused his journalistic privilege 

and committed an offence if he falsifies 

or fabricates information and publishes 

falsehoods”. 

“Under the circumstances and in the 

belief that your false claim is as a result 

of ignorance and not political mischief, 

I am writing to ask you to publicly 

correct your falsehood and give 

the public correct information based 


on the proceedings of the ACP-EU 

Assembly meeting in Cape Town,” 

Moyo said in the letter. 

Nyarota received Moyo’s letter on 

March 26 and said that he would rather 

go to jail than retract a true story. “I 

would rather go to jail, if it pleases the 

Honourable Minister, than be forced 

by him to correct a story that is 100 

per cent correct,” Nyarota stated. 

The act stipulates that anyone who 

contravenes the three subsections shall 

be guilty of an offence and liable to a 

fine not exceeding 100 000 Zimbabwe 

dollars (approx. US$1 829) or to imprisonment 

for a period not exceeding 

two years. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-03 

PERSON(S): Peta Thornycroft 


On Tuesday April 2, 2002, Peta 

Thornycroft, the Zimbabwe correspondent 

for the British “Daily Telegraph”, 

was questioned on the status 

of her citizenship in the continuing 

saga following her arrest on 

Wednesday, March 27. 

Thornycroft was asked by police to 

report to the magistrate’s court in the 

eastern border town of Mutare on 

Tuesday April 2. On April 3, the journalist 

told MISA-Zimbabwe that the 

Mutare chief immigration officer 

asked her where her parents were born 

and whether she had renounced her 

British citizenship. “I told them that I 

renounced my British citizenship in 

December 2001,” said Thornycroft. 

She also said that all her travel documents 

were returned and that she was 

on her way to the capital, Harare. 

This development is largely seen as

ZIMBABWE 


an orchestrated move by the Zimbabwean 

authorities to persist with 

Thornycroft’s harassment. The allegation 

that she is a “foreign” citizen is 

likely to be trumped up in an effort to 

silence the reporter. 

The government of Zimbabwe 

promulgated a controversial citizenship 

law before the March presidential 

elections that demands that all Zimbabweans 

born of parents originally 

not from Zimbabwe renounce their 

“foreign citizenship”, in order for them 

to be able to vote and become full citizens 

of Zimbabwe. 

This law was largely seen as targeting 

the large farm workers’ community, 

many of them originally 

from Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique, 

and the white community. 

These groups are largely seen as 

sympathetic to the opposition, 

Movement for Democratic Change. 

Thousands of people born in Zimbabwe 

had their citizenship revoked 

and many were unable to vote on the 

basis of this law. 

By bringing the question of 

Thornycroft’s citizenship into this matter, 

Zimbabwean authorities seem determined 

to “find” a charge against the 

reporter, after having failed to formally 

charge her with any wrongdoing. 

The intelligence services, in collaboration 

with the police, arrested 

Thornycroft in Chimanimani on 

Wednesday March 27. She was released 

on Sunday March 31, after a 

high court judgement was sought for 

her release. 

The High Court ordered that she be 

released as the police had failed to formally 

charge her. The police can only 

go by way of summons if they are still 

interested in pursuing the matter. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-09 

PERSON(S): Calvin Dondo, 

Edwina Spicer, Newton Spicer 

VIOLATION(S): Detained, censored, 

beaten 

Edwina and Newton Spicer, of Spicer 

Productions, were arrested on Saturday 

April 6, 2002, while covering the 

National Constitutional Assembly 

(NCA) organised demonstration. 

They were released four hours after 

being detained. Photographer Calvin 

Dondo, of the Pan African News 

Agency, was also beaten up and arrested 

and had his camera seized by 

the police. 

Edwina Spicer told MISA-Zimbabwe 

that the police arrested them while 

they were in the process of video recording 

the demonstration. “An officer 

jumped out of the police vehicle, came 

over to us and demanded to know why 

we were taking pictures of the demonstration. 

He further demanded that 

we go to the Central Police Station and 

deployed two officers to our car to accompany 

us. I had been on the phone 

to fellow journalists at the time, so the 

news of our arrest spread fast,” said 

Spicer. 

At the Central Police Station, the 

three journalists were grouped together 

with arrested demonstrators. The police 

questioned them about accreditation. 

“We produced our Ministry of Information 

accreditation cards, due to 

expire on December 31, 2002. We 

were told that these would be cancelled 

by the Ministry on Monday morning 

[April] 9 as we had been ‘caught filming 

an illegal demonstration’ and that 

this was not allowed,” continued 



2002 

Spicer. 

The journalists were further questioned 

about the nature of their work. 

Spicer told MISA Zimbabwe that the 

police informed them that they were 

all under arrest and would be charged 

under the Public Order and Security 

Act (POSA). 

“Our cell phones were taken away 

from us. We were told that we were 

responsible for discrediting the country 

by ‘beaming bad pictures’ to the 

BBC and CNN, and that we should ‘go 

back to Britain’. We were not allowed 

to make a phone call to our lawyer who 

we knew was in the building but was 

being denied access to us,” Spicer 

noted. 

Spicer added that at around 11:30 

a.m. (local time) they were taken to the 

courtyard and made to sit on the floor. 

At that time, ten other people who had 

been arrested for demonstrating were 

also there. The numbers later swelled 

to twenty-two. “All except for Newton 

and I had been beaten with batons 

during the course of the arrests. Calvin 

Dondo was also beaten,” Spicer stated. 

“After two hours of being denied 

access to us, our lawyer, Ms Pat Lewin 

of Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans was allowed 

to see us. She was told after a 

considerable period that we were being 

charged under the Miscellaneous 

Offences Act, but again not under 

which section, not what our supposed 

crime had been. Ms Lewin pointed out 

to the officer that the law clearly states 

than an arrest can only be made if there 

is a specific charge, and that the charge 

has to be stated immediately. She was 

told to go away and to return at 3:30 

p.m. when she would be informed,” 

Spicer stated. 

At about 3:20 p.m., the journalists 


were taken back inside the police offices 

and given another lecture about 

“tarnishing the image of the country.” 

“Ms Lewin told us that we were to be 

released but that our cameras were 

being held so that they could be examined,” 

Spicer noted. 

The three individuals were finally 

released at 4:30 p.m. 

Spicer informed MISA Zimbabwe 

that her equipment was returned on 

Monday April 8. She also said that the 

police asked for a copy of the footage 

but she refused to hand it over. Dondo’s 

camera, however, was not returned. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-09 

PERSON(S): Patrick Jemwa, Zimbabwe 


(ZBC) crew 


A Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZBC) cameraman, Patrick 

Jemwa, was beaten by soldiers and 

seriously injured on Saturday April 6, 

2002. At the time, Jemwa was filming 

a march organised by the civic 

organisation, the National Constitutional 

Assembly (NCA), in Harare. 

Jemwa sustained serious injuries 

and was taken to the Avenues Clinic, 

where he received treatment before 

being discharged. When he appeared 

on the main ZBC TV news bulletin at 

8:00 p.m. (local time) that evening, 

Jemwa complained of a headache, 

bleeding and an aching jaw. His left 

eye was swollen. He said that the soldiers 

beat him up in spite of his pleas 

that he was a media person who was 

simply doing his job. 

The action was immediately condemned 

by an army spokesperson who

ZIMBABWE 


apologised to both Jemwa and the 

ZBC. In a statement, the Zimbabwe 

Defence Force (ZDF) spokesperson, 

Colonel Mbonisi Gatsheni, said such 

acts should not be tolerated. “Following 

the incident, the commander of the 

Defence Forces on behalf of the officers 

would like to unreservedly state 

that such events should never be condoned 

in the ZDF,” Gatsheni stated. 

In a related incident, a ZBC crew 

that had gone to Chitungwiza to cover 

the opposition Movement for Democratic 

Change (MDC) rally was attacked 

by MDC supporters on April 

7. 

The ZBC was accused of biased reporting 

by the MDC supporters. The 

ZBC reported that a member of the 

opposition executive, Sekia Holland, 

was heard saying that the crew deserved 

a beating. Holland said the 

MDC secretary for external affairs 

was heard on national television accusing 

the ZBC of misrepresenting 

her statements at the Commonwealth 

meeting held in Australia. The windscreen 

of the two reporters’ car was 

destroyed as party supporters tried to 

storm the car. The reporters were 

saved by some MDC leaders and were 

subsequently allowed to cover the 

rally. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-15 

PERSON(S): Dumisani Muleya 


Dumisani Muleya, chief reporter for 

the independent business weekly 

“Zimbabwe Independent”, was arrested 

at 3:00 p.m. (local time) on 

April 15, 2002 by the Criminal Investigations 

Department (CID) for having 

allegedly tarnished the image of 

the First Lady. 

In a April 12 “Zimbabwe Independent” 

story, Muleya wrote that First 

Lady Grace Mugabe’s brother was involved 

in a labour dispute in which 

he had solicited the help of his sister. 

It was reported in the story, entitled 

“First lady’s brother in bid to take over 

local firm”, that after failing to get 

their way, the workers, led by 

Mugabe’s brother Erasmus Marufu, 

turned to the First Lady for help. 

The fairly balanced story also 

quotes Lawrence Kamwi, Mugabe’s 

spokesperson, as saying that he could 

not remember the matter and that the 

First Lady recommended that the 

matter be taken to the relevant ministry. 

In the story, Marufu confirmed his 

relationship with Mugabe, as well as 

the fact that the workers had written a 

letter to the First Lady asking her to 

intervene on their behalf. 

“We wrote a letter but they didn’t 

give us a clear answer. They just replied 

saying we must go [to] the Ministry 

of Labour. We went there but 

nothing came out of it,” Marufu is reported 

to have said. 

“The story is true and maybe the 

police is saying that the image of the 

First Lady was tarnished,” said 

Barnabas Thlondlana, “Zimbabwe Independent” 

deputy editor-in-chief. 

The “Zimbabwe Independent” 

management has informed its lawyers, 

Atherstone and Cook, of the development. 

Lawyer Roselyn Zigomo of 

Atherstone and Cook will handle the 

case. 

Muleya faces charges of criminal 

defamation. 



2002 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-11 

PERSON(S): Pedzisayi Ruhanya 


On April 10, 2002, “The Daily News” 

chief reporter Pedzisayi Ruhanya was 

expelled from a press conference, on 

the orders of Registrar General 

Tobaiwa Mudede, who was addressing 

the media. 

Mudede had called the conference 

to dismiss a April 9 “The Daily News” 

front-page story headlined, “Mudede 

tape proves Mugabe lost Election”. 

The newspaper had reported that the 

total number of votes announced by 

Mudede in a live broadcast, as having 

been polled by all five contesting presidential 

election candidates, was 

700,000 votes less than the figure subsequently 

published in other media 

outlets. 

Upon being pressed to clarify the 

contradictions in his figures over election 

results of the recently held presidential 

poll, the registrar general replied 

by accusing “The Daily News” 

of lying. On April 10, “The Herald” 

newspaper reported that journalist 

Ruhanya suggested that the registrar 

general was a “pathological liar” who 

wanted to mislead the nation. 

During the press conference, 

Ruhanya insisted that Mudede explain 

the discrepancies between the election 

results that he announced through the 

national broadcaster, Zimbabwe 

Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), and 

results that were later reported in other 

media outlets. “Get out,” Mudede 

shouted at the journalist in response 

while thumping the table with his fist. 

It is reported that Mudede drew his 

chair back and marched towards 


Ruhanya while ordering his subordinates 

“to call the boys”. Ruhanya was 

thrown out from the conference by two 

security guards. However, two other 

journalists from “The Daily News” 

remained behind. 

At the press conference, Mudede 

announced that Morgan Tsvangirai’s 

figure had increased simultaneously by 

4002 votes. Tsvangirai is the leader of 

the opposition Movement for Democratic 

Change (MDC). The new figures 

were announced one month after 

the elections. According to “The Daily 

News”, ZBC also provided figures that 

were at variance with Mudede’s latest 

ones but consistent with those published 

in “The Daily News” on April 

9, and those announced by Mudede on 

13 March. 

“The Daily News” reports that, instead 

of explaining the confusion over 

the election results, Mudede shifted the 

focus and started to attack the newspaper 

of lying and publishing false information 

to satisfy “certain agendas.” 

“It’s just a story to justify certain agendas 

that may need to be justified,” 

Mudede stated in reference to the “The 

Daily News” report that had pointed 

out the discrepancies. “The final report 

was distributed to all the parties with 

the correct figures. It looks like ‘The 

Daily News’ is cooking up figures to 

justify their allegations (of rigging) 

against the registrar general,” Mudede 

said. 

“The Daily News” reported that 

Mudede asked journalists at the conference 

what action he should take 

against “The Daily News”. ZBC’s diplomatic 

reporter Judith Makwanya is 

said to have suggested “legal action.” 

Mudede also accused the government 

owned “The Herald” of publish-

ZIMBABWE 


ing incorrect information. “The Daily 

News” used some of the figures from 

earlier “The Herald” reports. 

Mudede could not be drawn into 

explaining where a government owned 

newspaper got its figures. “Go and ask 

‘The Herald’ where they got the figures,” 

Mudede retorted. “The Daily 

News” editor-in-chief Geoff Nyarota 

said that the newspaper stands by its 

story as published on 9 April. “We urge 

our readers to go through Mr. 

Mudede’s full statement as published 

here and then compare it with our story, 

to see if the registrar general has in any 

way addressed the legitimate concerns 

raised in the story,” Nyarota stated. 

“Why doesn’t ZBC show the tape 

again?” he asked. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-15 

PERSON(S): Geoff Nyarota 


Geoff Nyarota, editor-in-chief of 

Zimbabwe’s only independent daily 

“The Daily News”, was released at 

around 4:00 p.m. (local time) on 15 

April 2002 after being charged under 

Section 80 Subsection 1 (a) of the repressive 

Access to Information and 

Protection of Privacy Act. 

Nyarota was arrested at around 1:00 

p.m. on 15 April at his offices. He was 

picked up on allegations of publishing 

a false news item on the outcome of 

the controversial March 2002 presidential 

elections. He stands accused of 

having falsified information by alleging 

that Registrar General Tobaiwa 

Mudede announced contradicting results 

in the presidential elections in 

different media outlets. On 10 April, 

“The Daily News” carried a story entitled 

“Mudede Tape proves Mugabe 

lost election”. The story reported that 

the total number of votes announced 

by Mudede in a live broadcast as having 

been polled by all five presidential 

candidates is 700,000 votes less than 

the figure subsequently published in 

other media outlets. 


Zimbabwe) confirmed that Detective 

Inspector Makedenge recorded a 

“warned and cautioned” statement, 

which Nyarota signed. MISA-Zimbabwe 

also confirmed that Nyarota denied 

the charge. 

Nyarota is quoted as saying: “I deny 

this charge. The article is not false, it 

is based on an audio-visual tape recording 

of the registrar general as he announced 

the results of the presidential 

elections, broadcast live on radio and 

television on Wednesday 13 March 

2002. I reserve my constitutional right 

to make a full and detailed statement 

upon seeing the full particulars of the 

state’s case.” 

Section 80 of the Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act 

is entitled “Abuse of Journalistic Privilege”. 

Subsection 1 (a) of Section 80 

reads that “a journalist shall be deemed 

to have abused his journalistic privilege 

and committed an offence if he 

falsifies and fabricates information”. 

The article in question is not false as it 

is based on verified media recordings. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-04-16 



Dumisani Muleya, chief reporter of 



2002 

the “Zimbabwe Independent” newspaper, 

was released from police custody 

at 6:30 p.m. (local time) on April 

15, 2002. 

Muleya, who was arrested on April 

15 on charges of criminal defamation, 

was released after the police recorded 

a “warned and cautioned” statement 

from him. He was set to report to the 

Harare Central police station for finger 

printing on the morning of 16 April. 

Innocent Chagonda, who took over 

from lawyer Roselyn Zigomo, is representing 

Muleya. The two lawyers 

work for the Atherstone and Cook law 

firm. Muleya faces charges for having 

defamed First Lady Grace Mugabe in 

a April 12 “Zimbabwe Independent” 

story. 

In a story that appeared in the April 

12 edition of the “Zimbabwe Independent”, 

Muleya wrote that the First 

Lady’s brother had solicited the help 

of his sister to resolve a labour dispute 

in which he had become involved. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-16 

PERSON(S): Yugoslav international, 

Radio Dialogue 


Zimbabwe’s riot police raided an aspiring 

community radio station, “Radio 

Dialogue”, and arrested a Yugoslav 

international who is doing consultancy 

work for the station. “Radio 

Dialogue” is based in Zimbabwe’s 

second largest city, Bulawayo. 

In a message to MISA’s Zimbabwe 

chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe), Father 

Nigel Johnson, the co-ordinator of 

“Radio Dialogue”, said that disgruntled 

former “Radio Dialogue” managers, 

who had been suspended, brought 


in the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZBC), the police and the intelligence 

service to film the station’s 

activities. “The police were very nice 

in the end, once they discovered that 

we did not have any transmission 

equipment, only recording equipment,” 

said Father Johnson. According 

to Father Johnson, the intelligence 

officers took a few documents from the 

office. 

In a report that appeared on the ZBC 

main news bulletin on April 15, 2002, 

it was reported instead that two members 

of the ZBC news crew, Bulawayo 

bureau chief Makhosini Hlongwane 

and chief cameraperson Trust 

Mashoro, were manhandled by “Radio 

Dialogue” staff who threatened to 

throw them from the ninth floor of the 

building. The ZBC also reported that 

their staff was rescued by the riot police, 

which broke the door leading to 

the room where the two individuals 

had been locked in. This contradicts 

the report from Father Johnson who 

indicated that in fact the two suspended 

managers brought the ZBC and the 

intelligence officers onto the “Radio 

Dialogue” premises. 

The ZBC news bulletin referred to 

“Radio Dialogue” as a pirate radio station 

that is spreading lies about Zimbabwe 

and fanning ethnic hatred. The 

ZBC also reported that the Yugoslav 

consultant was arrested by police and 

will be charged with kidnapping the 

ZBC staff. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-17 



On Tuesday April 16, 2002, a second

ZIMBABWE 


charge of contravening Section 80, 

Subsection 1 (b) of the Access to Information 


Act was added to Dumisani Muleya’s 

case by the police. Muleya is the chief 

reporter of the “Zimbabwe Independent” 

newspaper. 

Section 80, Subsection 1 (b) of the 

act stipulates that a journalist will be 

deemed to have committed an offence 

and abused “journalistic privilege” if 

he “publishes falsehoods”. This charge 

was added to the criminal defamation 

charge that was preferred on Muleya 

on Monday April 15. 

Muleya is accused of having written 

falsehoods about First Lady Grace 

Mugabe in the April 12 edition of the 

“Zimbabwe Independent”. 

Muleya told MISA-Zimbabwe that 

when he visited the police station on 

April 16 as advised by the police for 

the purposes of fingerprinting, he was 

charged under the act a second time. 

Muleya added that the police were not 

violent and did not harass him. 

According to Muleya, his lawyer 

Innocent Chagonda, of the Atherstone 

and Cook law firm, questioned the 

merit of the accusations, especially on 

the grounds that the complainant is not 

known. It has not been established 

whether it was the First Lady who 

made a complaint to the police or if 

the case was filed by the Department 

of Information and Publicity. In a April 

13 “The Herald” article, the Department 

of Information and Publicity, 

headed by Information Minister 

Jonathan Moyo, threatened to take 

measures against Muleya for writing 

a false story about the First Lady. 

In a story that appeared in the April 

12 edition of the “Zimbabwe Independent”, 

Muleya wrote that the First 

Lady’s brother had solicited the help 

of his sister to resolve a labour dispute 

in which he had become involved. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-17 

PERSON(S): Iden Wetherell 


“Zimbabwe Independent” editor Iden 

Wetherell was arrested on Wednesday 

April 17 2002 at around 2:00 p.m. (local 

time). His arrest, the third arrest 

of independent journalists in three 

days, marks the first serious clampdown 

on the independent media by 

the government of Zimbabwe since 

the enactment of the draconian Access 


Privacy Act. 

Vincent Kahiya, news editor of the 

weekly business newspaper, told 


Zimbabwe) that the police called 

Wetherell at around 2:00 p.m. and instructed 

him to report to the central 

police station in the capital, Harare. 

Innocent Chagonda of the Atherstone 

and Cook law firm is representing 

Wetherell. 

According to Kahiya, Wetherell was 

arrested on allegations of having published 

a false story that First Lady 

Grace Mugabe was embroidered in a 

labour dispute in a company where her 

brother is an employee. The Department 

of Information and Publicity, 

headed by Information Minister 

Jonathan Moyo, dismissed the story as 

untrue. Dumisani Muleya, the story’s 

author, was arrested on charges of 

criminal defamation and contravention 

of Section 80, Subsection 1 (b) of the 




2002 

of Privacy Act. Chagonda informed 

MISA-Zimbabwe that the same 

charges would be preferred on 

Wetherell. 

At the time this alert was written, 

Wetherell was still at the police station 

where police had just finished recording 

a “warned and cautioned” 

statement from him. At 4:30 p.m., 

Chagonda told MISA-Zimbabwe that 

the police were fingerprinting 

Wetherell. “They are likely to release 

him today,” said Chagonda. 

Muleya, chief reporter of the “Zimbabwe 

Independent”, was arrested at 

3:00 p.m. on April 15 by the Criminal 

Investigations Department (CID) for 

having allegedly tarnished the image 

of the First Lady. 

In a April 12 “Zimbabwe Independent” 

story, Muleya wrote that the First 

Lady’s brother was involved in a labour 

dispute in which he solicited the 

help of his sister. Muleya was released 

from police custody at 6:30 p.m. on 

15 April but was told to return the following 

day for fingerprinting. On April 

16, he was additionally charged with 

contravening Section 80, Subsection 

1 (b) of the Access to Information and 

Protection of Privacy Act for allegedly 

“writing falsehoods” about the First 

Lady. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-30 



The Minister of Information and Publicity, 

Professor Jonathan Moyo, has 

warned government parastatals 

against advertising in “The Daily 

News”. Moyo alleges the newspaper 

has created a reputation of peddling 


lies. 

The minister made these remarks 

after “The Daily News” published an 

article on April 23 alleging that two 

young girls had witnessed the beheading 

of their mother by alleged Zimbabwe 

African National Union Patriotic 

Front (ZANU-PF) party supporters in 

the rural area of Magunje. The story 

was later picked up and published on 

the front page of the “Independent” in 

London, England. In a front page story 

on April 27, “The Daily News” apologised 

to the ruling party, ZANU-PF, 

and to the government after it was revealed 

that the victim’s husband might 

have misled the newspaper. 

Moyo said that the government 

could not allow advertisers to “subsidise” 

the “destruction” of Zimbabwe 

through outright lies published by 

“The Daily News”. He added that this 

incident was the worst example of 

what both the government and the public 

are concerned about. “What is particularly 

unacceptable and something 

which must now stop is the fact that 

there are some government-owned 

parastatals who advertise in a trash 

paper like ‘The Daily News’,” Moyo 

stated. 

The Minister said that the government 

could not continue to allow a situation 

whereby the taxpayers’ money 

is used to subsidise endless attacks on 

Zimbabwe. He added that if “the 

parastatals did not stop the rot on their 

own,” the government would ensure 

the law assists them. 

Moyo added that, as Minister responsible 

for information and publicity 

in the president’s office and cabinet, 

he now realises that the problem 

does not just concern the “The Daily 

News”. He lashed out at the owners of

ZIMBABWE 


“The Daily News”, among them Strive 

Masiyiwa and Nigel Chanakira. He 

further added that those who owned 

and backed “The Daily News” were 

working for a “common” purpose to 

discredit the country. He accused 

Andrew Meldrum and Basildon Peta, 

both correspondents for British papers 

in Zimbabwe, for flashing the story 

worldwide. 

Moyo promised to look at the Access 


Privacy Act to see if it is adequate to 

deal with “this rot”. He promised to 

amend the act should it prove inadequate, 

vowing that no media owner 

or advertiser would, in his view, be 

allowed to fund and subsidise the destruction 


“The Herald” reports that the police 

have intensified investigations inside 

and outside the country to track down 

the perpetrators who were behind the 

construction and dissemination of the 

story. The newspaper reports that the 

police are also investigating the opposition 


Change (MDC) party’s role in connection 

with the case. 

In 2001, the governments of Namibia 

and Botswana effected similar 

economic sanctions on privately 

owned newspapers. 

In May, Namibia’s President 

Nujoma ordered a total ban on the purchase 

of “The Namibian” newspaper 

by the government of the Republic of 

Namibia. The president’s directive was 

issued hot on the heels of an earlier 

cabinet decision to ban government 

line ministries from advertising in the 

newspaper on grounds that it maintained 

an “anti-government stance.” 

Also in May, the Botswana government 

slapped a ban on advertising in 

the “Botswana Guardian” and 

“MidWeek Sun” newspapers, because 

they were too critical of the country’s 

leaders. The government used this tactic 

to demonstrate its displeasure over 

“irresponsible reporting and the exceeding 

of editorial freedom.” 

However, in September, in what is 

regarded as a victory for media freedom 

and freedom of expression, the 

Botswana High Court declared the ban 

on advertising in two newspapers unconstitutional. 

Justice IBK Lesetedi 

said the advertising ban by the Botswana 

government on the newspapers 

violated the newspapers’ constitutional 

right to “freedom of expression”. 

“What the government was doing,” 

said the judge, “was telling the newspapers 

that if they wanted to continue 

to enjoy the benefit of receiving advertising 

from government [they] 

should conform to a reportage that falls 

within what it considers to be the parameters 

of editorial freedom”. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-04-30 



Moses Oguti, the editor-in-chief of the 

Botswana-based monthly magazine 

“Trans Kalahari”, was released on 

Tuesday April 23, 2002. His release 

comes 45 days after he was arrested 

in Mutare for allegedly entering Zimbabwe 

illegally through the Forbes 

Border Post (the border between Zimbabwe 

and Mozambique). 

Oguti, who is a Ugandan citizen, 

told “The Daily News” on April 29 that 

he suffered during his incarceration 

and is threatening to take legal action 

against immigration officials and the 



2002 

police for unlawful detention and loss 

of business. 

“The Daily News” reports that Oguti 

was unable to print the March and 

April issues of his magazine and 

doubts if he will be able to publish the 

May issue. 

The Immigration Department is said 

to have given Oguti three days to leave 

the country, which according to him is 

not enough as he is trying to locate his 

car, luggage and computer. 

The journalist claims that he was not 

in Zimbabwe to cover the March presidential 

elections but entered the country 

to investigate the possibility of 

printing his magazine in the country. 

Oguti is also the editor of “The Botswana 

Economic” and “The Southern 

African Economic”. 

Oguti was arrested on February 17 

for allegedly entering Zimbabwe illegally. 

Oguti’s co-accused, a driver 

from Mozambique, is still at large. The 

driver is said to have driven Oguti’s 

vehicle into Zimbabwe while Oguti 

himself is said to have entered Zimbabwe 

through an illegal entry point in 

the mountains. 

On February 26, police spokesperson 

Francis Mubvuta indicated that 

Oguti would be charged with “entry 

by evasion” and would also be declared 

a prohibited immigrant. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-06 

PERSON(S): Sports writers in 

Zimbabwe 



Ignatius Pamire, the Interim Secretary 

of Zimbabwe’s leading football team, 

Dynamos, threatened to kill sports 

writers for allegedly writing negatively 

about his administration, according 

to reports carried in “The 

Herald” and “The Daily News” on 

May 2, 2002. 

Pamire warned sports writers who 

were attending a sports function in the 

capital, Harare, that they must report 

positively on him and his team or risk 

being killed. Pamire said that he gave 

the reporters such a strong warning 

because they “deserved it”. Pamire 

specifically targeted “The Herald” 

sports editor Robson Sharuko and senior 

reporter Petros Kausiyo, and “The 

Daily News” sports reporter Simba 

Rushwaya. 

Phillip Mugadza, the team’s chairperson, 

later apologized to the reporters. 

“I spoke to Pamire and he said you 

are inciting Dynamos fans to beat him 

up,” said Mugadza. Dynamos has experienced 

a spate of losses which have 

turned the team’s fans against the leadership. 

“On behalf of the Dynamos 

football club, I want to make it clear 

that the club does not condone violence 

or the harassment of journalists. Dynamos 

is a club which will be there 

forever but clubs come and go,” read 

the apology from Mugadza. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-06 

PERSON(S): Andrew Meldrum, 

Collin Chiwanza, Lloyd Mudiwa 


Three journalists were released on 

May 2, 2002. Lloyd Mudiwa, Collin 

Chiwanza and Andrew Meldrum 

were released after each being granted 

bail of US$36. 

The arrests of the journalists followed 

the publishing of an article on

ZIMBABWE 


23 April in which “The Daily News” 

reported that two young girls had witnessed 

the beheading of their mother 

by alleged Zimbabwe African National 

Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) supporters 

in the rural area of Magunje. 

On May 2, Provincial Magistrate 

Lilian Kudya ordered the journalists’ 

release. On May 3, Mudiwa and 

Chiwanza appeared in court for an initial 

remand. The Magistrates Court 

also heard an application by 

Meldrum’s lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa of 

Kantor and Immerman, to have the 

court dismiss the allegations against 

her client. Mtetwa sought a refusal of 

remand, arguing that there was no reasonable 

suspicion that her client had 

committed an offence. She also said 

that the “London Guardian” newspaper, 

for which the state alleges 

Meldrum writes, does not exist. 

The three journalists were arrested 

on allegations of having written a false 

story in which it was reported that a 

supporter of the opposition party had 

been hacked to death by ruling party 

militants. They were charged under 


and Protection of Privacy Act for 

allegedly abusing journalistic privilege 

by writing falsehoods. 

Mtetwa rebuked police officers for 

denying the journalists access to their 

lawyers. She went on to say that the 

section under which her client was 

charged infringes on the Bill of Rights, 

as provided for in the Zimbabwean 

constitution. She has since asked that 

the magistrate refer the matter to the 

Supreme Court for determination. 

“This section is unconstitutional. The 

section referred to is unreasonable and 

places unnecessary restrictions on the 

practice of journalism,” Mtetwa said. 

She also complained about the selective 

application of the law by the 

state and said she would produce evidence 

to the court of complaints to the 

police of falsehoods published in a local 

daily. The police have not investigated 

the complaints, she told the 

court. Mtetwa said the Access to Information 


Act was being used to persecute journalists 

from the private media. 

In response, senior public prosecutor 

Thabani Mpofu said that the act did 

not infringe on anyone’s rights but was 

there to deal with those who published 

falsehoods. Mpofu called Mtetwa’s 

application “frivolous and vexatious.” 

In a front-page story on April 27, 

“The Daily News” apologised to the 

ruling ZANU-PF party and to the government 

after it was revealed that the 

husband of the victim might have misled 

the paper. 

Zimbabwe’s Minister of Information 

and Publicity Jonathan Moyo has 

since warned government-run companies 

against advertising in “The Daily 

News”, which he alleges has created a 

reputation of peddling lies. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-10 

INSTITUTION(S): Joy TV, BBC 


The Zimbabwean government is reported 

to have instructed Joy Television 

(Joy TV) to stop broadcasting 

BBC news on its programmes 

Joy TV has since complied with the 

instruction and the 30-minute news 

bulletin that was shown everyday at 

21h00 (local time) is no longer being 

broadcast. Joy TV is a private television 

station that is leasing a channel 



2002 

from the state run Zimbabwe Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZBC). 

A Joy TV official, who talked to 

MISA’s Zimbabwean chapter (MISA- 

Zimbabwe) on condition of anonymity, 

said that the television station was 

instructed to censor the BBC news 

bulletins. However, the BBC policy 

says that their news bulletins must be 

shown as they are, and failing this the 

bulletins must not be shown at all. The 

official told MISA-Zimbabwe that the 

management chose to do away with the 

news rather than risk having the station’s 

lease agreement cancelled. 

The ban of the BBC news means 

that independent newspapers are the 

only source of alternative news in Zimbabwe. 

Moreover, Joy TV is not allowed 

to gather and disseminate local 

news. 

The government has also indicated 

that it is cancelling the lease agreement 

awarding Joy TV the channel because 

the agreement is in contravention of 

the Broadcasting Services Act. The 

cancellation will result in the ZBC 

being the sole broadcaster in Zimbabwe, 

as no other station has been licensed 

to date. 

On April 30, 2002, MISA reported 

that Joy TV would go off the air after 

May 31 when, according to the ZBC 

acting chief executive officer, the lease 

of its second channel to Joy TV will 

be cancelled. 

According to the ZBC, it is in a predicament 

as Section 18 of Zimbabwe’s 

Broadcasting Services Act prohibits 

the corporation from leasing out the 

second channel. 

The Act reads: Transfer of licenses 

prohibited “No licensee shall assign, 

cede, pledge, transfer or sell his license 

to any other person or surrender his 


programming duties to another entity 

outside his establishment. Any such 

assignment, cession pledge transfers 

sale or surrender shall be void.” 

Joy TV has since indicated its desire 

to obtain a licence to continue 

broadcasting in Zimbabwe. However, 

since the promulgation of the Broadcasting 

Services Act by the government 

in April 2001 no licenses have 

been issued to broadcasters. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-10 

PERSON(S): Urgunia Mauluka 


On Monday May 6, 2002, Urgunia 

Mauluka, a photojournalist for “The 

Daily News”, was assaulted at the 

High Court in the capital, Harare, as 

she attempted to photograph a suspect 

in a high profile corruption case. 

Mauluka was assaulted by James 

Makaya, who seized her camera and 

film. In a report made to the High 

Court police post, Mauluka said that 

she was about to take a picture of 

Makaya, who came out of the courtroom 

during a break in the proceedings. 

The photojournalist stated that 

Makaya grabbed her camera and when 

Mauluka held on to it she was kicked. 

When a feigned punch was thrown, 

Mauluka let go of the camera. The 

photojournalist sustained bruises on 

her elbow as a result of the kick and 

the scuffle. 

Makaya relinquished the camera 

after the intervention of Assistant Inspector 

Mlipe, the officer in charge at 

the High Court police post. However, 

Makaya refused to hand over the film, 

which he had removed from the camera.

ZIMBABWE 


After kicking Mauluka, Makaya 

went to look for Lloyd Mudiwa, “The 

Daily News” reporter who was covering 

the story. Pointing at the reporter, 

Makaya is reported to have said that 

he wanted “to deal with the people responsible 

for writing about him.” 

“Don’t start troubling me. I have been 

quiet all along but you are now beginning 

to get on my nerves,” said 

Makaya. 

Makaya is appearing in the High 

Court on allegations of having prejudiced 

the state-owned Zimbabwe National 

Oil Company of over Z$1 billion 

(approx. US$18,292,000). He was 

the company operations manager at the 

time the alleged offence is said to have 

been committed. The Zimbabwe government 

has blamed among others, the 

corruption at the company for the fuel 

problems that the country is facing. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-10 


Jan Raath, Peta Thornycroft 


Three foreign journalists have made 

an urgent application at the Supreme 

Court, challenging the constitutionality 

of certain sections of the Access 


Act. 

In papers filed at the Supreme Court, 

journalists Jan Raath, Andrew 

Meldrum and Peta Thornycroft ask the 

court to declare Sections 71 (1), 79 (2), 

79 (6), 80 and 83 of the act unconstitutional. 

The journalists argue that 

these sections contravene Section 20 

(1) of the Zimbabwe constitution, 

which guarantees freedom of expression, 

receiving and imparting information 

as a right. 

Alternatively, the journalists are asking 

the court to suspend provisions of 

Sections 79, 82, 83 and 84 (2) pending 

the establishment of the Media 

Commission provided for in Section 

20 of the act, or the promulgation of 

the prescribed qualifications for accreditation 

to practice as a journalist. 

In his application, Raath stated that 

according to the act only citizens or 

permanent residents of Zimbabwe will 

be entitled to be accredited as a matter 

of right. It will be entirely up to the 

Media Commission’s discretion to 

grant or refuse accreditation to journalists 

who are neither citizens nor 

permanent residents of Zimbabwe, he 

argued. “Even journalists who are citizens 

or permanent residents of Zimbabwe 

and are qualified are not entitled 

to accreditation as a matter of 

right,” read the argument. “The commission 

has an unfettered discretion as 

to whether or not to grant accreditation 

to journalists falling into that category 

as well,” said Raath in his founding 

affidavit. 

Raath noted that the act contemplates 

that for an individual to be accredited 

as a journalist, one must 

among other things possess the “prescribed 

qualifications”. However, no 

such “qualifications” are specified in 

the act itself. Raath further said that 

the Minister of Information and Publicity, 

who is supposed to prescribe 

such qualifications, had not done so 

more than a month after the act became 

law. 

Referring to Section 80, Raath argued 

that the new offence of “abuse 

of journalistic privilege” created by the 

act is unnecessary, unreasonable and 

an undue restriction on the practice of 



2002 

journalism. Raath added that the sections 

in question infringe his freedom 

of statement, as enshrined in Section 

20 of the constitution, and were inconsistent 

with freedom of association as 

guaranteed by Section 20 (1) of the 

constitution. Meldrum and 

Thornycroft made similar arguments 

in their founding affidavits. 

Raath is the Zimbabwe correspondent 

for the Times Group of Newspapers 

of London, South African Press 

Association, “Newsweek” and 

Deutsche Presse Agentur. Meldrum 

writes for the British newspaper the 

“Guardian”, while Thornycroft writes 

for the British newspaper “The Daily 

Telegraph”. 

The application cites Minister of 

State for Information and Publicity 

Jonathan Moyo as the first respondent 

and Attorney General Andrew 

Chigovera as the second respondent. 

Section 71 (1) states that the Media 

and Information Commission, whether 

on its own initiative or upon the investigation 

of a complaint made by a 

interested person against the mass 

media service, [may] suspend or cancel 

the registration certificate of a mass 

media service if it has reasonable 

grounds for believing that: “The registration 

certificate was issued in error 

or through fraud or there has been an 

misrepresentation or non disclosure of 

a material fact by the mass media 

owner concerned”; or “A mass media 

service concerned does not publish or 

go on air within 12 months from the 

date of registration”; or “The mass 

media service concerned has contravened 

sections 65, 75 and 89 of the 

Act”. 

Section 79 (2) states that: “Subject 

to Subsection 4, no journalist shall be 


accredited who is not a citizen of Zimbabwe 

or is not regarded as permanently 

resident in Zimbabwe by virtue 

of the Immigration Act”. 

Section 79 (6) states that: “Every 

news agency that operates in Zimbabwe, 

whether domiciled inside in or 

outside Zimbabwe, shall in respect of 

its local operations not employ or use 

the services of any journalist other than 

an accredited journalist who is a citizen 

of Zimbabwe, or is regarded as 

permanently resident in Zimbabwe by 

virtue of the Immigration Act”. 

Section 80 states that: “A journalist 

shall be deemed to have abused his 

journalist’s privilege and committed an 

offence if he falsifies or fabricates information, 

publishes falsehoods except 

where he is a freelance journalist, collects 

and disseminates information on 

behalf of a person other than the mass 

media service that employs him without 

the permission of his employer; 

contravenes any of the provisions of 

this Act”. 

Section 83 states that: “No person 

other than an accredited journalist shall 

practice as a journalist nor be employed 

as such, or in any manner holding 

himself out as, or pretend to be a 

journalist”. It also states that “no person 

who has ceased to be an accredited 

journalist as a result of the deletion 

of his name from the roll or who 

has been suspended from practicing as 

a journalist, shall, while his name is 

so deleted, or he is so suspended, continue 

to practice directly or indirectly 

as a journalist whether by himself or 

in partnership or association with any 

other person, nor shall he, except with 

the written consent of the Media and 

Information Commission, be employed 

in any capacity what’s so ever

ZIMBABWE 


connected with the journalistic profession”. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-10 



The state-owned daily newspaper 

“The Chronicle” has called for the 

government to ban Zimbabwe’s only 

private daily newspaper, “The Daily 

News”, for what it calls “abuse of 

journalistic privilege.” The call was 

made in the newspaper’s May 3, 2002 

edition, which ironically is celebrated 

internationally as World Press Freedom 

Day. 

In a front-page lead story, “The 

Chronicle”, which is based in 

Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest 

city, said the arrests of “irresponsible” 

journalists are insufficient. Quoting 

“analysts” Godfrey Chikowore, 

Norman Mlambo and Rino Zhuwarara 

of the University of Zimbabwe, the 

newspaper said that such newspapers 

as “The Daily News” should not be 

allowed to exist. “There should be high 

penalties for newspapers which seek 

to compromise efforts by the people 

of Zimbabwe to peacefully participate 

in national, regional and international 

development processes,” said 

Chikowore. 

Chikowore added that “The Daily 

News” had sought to subvert the reality 

of the political, economic and social 

situation in Zimbabwe. Zhuwarara 

said that “people are in a hurry to publish 

without verifying facts.” He also 

called “The Daily News” a “tabloid, 

which does not seek to develop but to 

destroy.” Zhuwarara is a member of 

the government-appointed Media Ethics 

Committee. 

“The Chronicle” went on to list alleged 

lies “The Daily News” has published. 

According to reports from the Media 

Monitoring Project in Zimbabwe 

(MMPZ), the state media has, specifically 

in the week of April 29 to May 5, 

been preoccupied with a controversial 

“Daily News” story and the arrest of 

its journalists. 

The journalists’ arrests follow the 

publication of a April 23 article in 

which “The Daily News” alleged that 

two young girls had witnessed the 

beheading of their mother by alleged 

Zimbabwe African National Union 

Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) supporters 

in the rural area of Magunje. Andrew 

Meldrum, a Zimbabwean permanent 

resident and correspondent for the British 

newspaper “The Guardian”, was 

arrested on May 2 over the same story, 

which was carried by “The Guardian”. 

In a April 27 front-page story, “The 

Daily News” apologised to the ruling 

party, ZANU-PF, and to the government 

after it was revealed that the husband 

of the victim had misled the 

newspaper. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-13 

INSTITUTION(S): Local and international 

media 


The May 12, 2002 edition of Zimbabwe’s 

state owned newspaper “The 

Sunday Mail” reported that the ruling 

Zimbabwe African National Unity 

Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party intends 

to sue all the media organisations 

that carried the story that was 

published by “The Daily News” al- 



2002 

leging that a Karoi woman was beheaded 

in the presence of her two 

young children. 

Hussein Ranchhod and Company, 

the lawyers representing ZANU-PF, 

confirmed that they had received the 

directive to take action against the accused 

organisations. The targeted media 

organisations include “The Daily 

News”, its reporters, and all the newspapers 

and broadcasting stations in 

South Africa, parts of the Commonwealth 

and the United States that carried 

the story. 

Jonathan Moyo, ZANU-PF’s deputy 

secretary for information and publicity 

(and also minister of state for information 

and publicity in the president’s 

office), said the party would be 

suing all media organisations that published 

the story without checking it 

first. 

“We are suing them because we 

want them to be held accountable for 

the lies they have been telling for the 

past two years. We will sue all the 

media organisations that carried the 

story, including the opposition party, 

the Movement for Democratic Change 

(MDC), which has confirmed it was 

the source of the story,” said Moyo. 

“We are sick and tired that the MDC, 

some journalists, “The Daily News” 

and certain media houses in the white 

Commonwealth, South Africa, 

America, Kenya and Nigeria [have] 

made it their daily business to 

demonise our party and we are not 

going to take it anymore,” Moyo 

added. 

Moyo went on to say, “The situation 

had reached an unacceptable level 

… where anybody real or imagined 

who dies are alleged to be an MDC 

supporter, official or member killed by 


ZANU-PF … the world will be forgiven 

to think that the people who die 

in Zimbabwe are MDC and that 

ZANU-PF people don’t die.” 

According to Moyo, the MDC 

works with certain non-governmental 

and human rights organisations and 

pays teachers across the country to 

write “fictitious” stories about alleged 

ZANU-PF violence in rural areas. 

These “fictitious” stories have appeared 

in “The Daily News” and have 

been beamed to the world by the international 

media. The so-called special 

correspondents that write such stories 

are teachers or foreign correspondents 

based in Harare. 

“The other reason we are suing these 

media organisations is that we want the 

world media to realize that neither the 

MDC nor ‘The Daily News’ are credible 

sources of news,” Moyo explained. 

He added that the reporters 

who wrote the false story and the MDC 

know that they “have taken the world 

for a ride to get international support.” 

Journalists Andrew Meldrum and 

Lloyd Mudiwa are being charged for 

“abusing journalistic privilege” under 

the Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Act over the same story. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-13 

PERSON(S): Brian Mangwende 


Brian Mangwende, a reporter with the 

private daily newspaper “The Daily 

News”, was arrested in the eastern 

border city of Mutare on Friday May 

10, 2002. Mangwende was detained 

for two hours on allegations of having 

written a false story over the victimisation 

of schoolteachers working

ZIMBABWE 


in Zimbabwe’s rural areas. 

Mangwende wrote that war veterans 

and ruling party (Zimbabwe African 

National Unity Patriotic Front, 

ZANU-PF) youths forced teachers 

throughout the country to pay “protection” 

fees. The story was based on a 

report compiled by the Progressive 

Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ), 

and also quoted the president of the 

union, Takavafira Zhou. PTUZ is a 

teachers’ trade union in Zimbabwe. 

Police officers from the Law and 

Order Section and the Criminal Investigations 

Department picked up 

Mangwende at 8:15 a.m. (local time) 

and held him for two hours. No charges 

were preferred on him. The journalist 

was questioned by a police officer 

identified as Detective Inspector 

Dhliwayo on the authenticity of his 

story. Innocent Gonese of Gonese and 

Ndlovu Legal Practitioners represented 

the journalist. “The police did 

not charge him. They said that they 

would get in touch with him when they 

need him. They did not record a statement 

from him so his detention was 

puzzling,” said Gonese. 

The story which led to 

Mangwende’s arrest quoted Zhou as 

saying that thousands of teachers have 

been paying, and continue to pay, “protection” 

fees to war veterans and 

ZANU-PF youths, while many have 

had their properties burned down or 

looted. PTUZ was quoted in the story 

as condemning what it termed “the 

brutalisation of teachers throughout the 

country”, even though the presidential 

elections are over. 

Teachers in Zimbabwe’s non-urban 

areas are reported to be victims of politically 

motivated violence as they are 

accused of being supporters of or sympathetic 

to the opposition. 

Mangwende, who is also the chairman 

of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists 

(ZUJ) in Manicaland Province, 

said that his arrest is mere harassment 

by the police. “They are intimidating 

journalists to hinder them from conducting 

their business professionally. 

This type of harassment should be condemned,” 

said Mangwende. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-17 

PERSON(S): Aaron Ufumeli, Assel 

Gwekerere 


On May 9, 2002, “The Daily News” 

reported that the Criminal Investigation 

Department (CID) briefly detained 

reporter Assel Gwekerere and 

Aaron Ufumeli, a photographer for 

the newspaper, on Tuesday May 7. 

The journalists were handcuffed by 

the police outside a city hotel in Harare 

while photographing a man suspected 

of being involved in a multimilliondollar 

scandal, according to “The Daily 

News”. It is alleged that the police had 

set a trap to apprehend the man. 

“The Daily News” reported that the 

police thought the two journalists were 

working in cahoots with the suspected 

man and therefore this led to their arrest. 

Ufumeli told MISA-Zimbabwe that 

the police thought they were working 

in cahoots with the suspected man because 

of their timely arrival at the scene 

of the incident and because coincidentally 

the vehicle they were using was 

just behind that of the conman. 

Ufumeli said the police refused to listen 

to them at the scene of the incident, 

when they identified themselves 



2002 

as journalists. “They said they would 

only entertain statements upon arrival 

at the police station,” Ufumeli said. 

Ufumeli and Gwekerere were handcuffed 

and shoved into a police vehicle 

together with the suspect. They 

were taken to Highlands Police Station 

where they were questioned separately 

and released later without any 

charges. 

Ufumeli was told to destroy the photographs 

he had taken at the scene of 

the incident as a condition for their 

release. Ufumeli told MISA-Zimbabwe 

that the detectives informed him 

that they did not want their pictures to 

appear in “The Daily News”. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-17 

PERSON(S): Bornwell Chakaodza, 

Farai Mutsaka, Fungai Kanyuchi 


On May 16, 2002, Bornwell 

Chakaodza, the editor of the independent 

Sunday newspaper “The Standard”, 

and journalists Farai Mutsaka and 

Fungai Kanyuchi of the same newspaper 

were arrested on allegations of 

having written “falsehoods”. 

The three individuals were arrested 

at around 1:00 p.m. (local time) by the 

Criminal Investigations Department 

for allegedly writing falsehoods about 

the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP). 

They were detained at Harare central 

police station. 

In an article entitled “Police in sex 

for freedom deals?” which appeared 

in the 12 May edition of “The Standard”, 

entertainment editor Kanyuchi 

wrote that ZRP officers were having 

sexual relations with commercial sex 


workers as a condition for their release. 

Kanyuchi quoted commercial sex 

workers who said the police were involved 

in such behaviour. “These revelations 

follow an investigation into 

the operations of some of the city’s 

ladies of the night who say they are 

part of a ‘sacred cow network’ with the 

police officers, which sees them providing 

sex in exchange for freedom 

from arrest,” Kanyuchi wrote in the 

story. The story quotes Sergeant 

Mhondoro of Avondale police station 

denying the allegations. 

Mutsaka was arrested over a lead 

and first page story in the same newspaper 

that stated that the Zimbabwean 

government has acquired an assortment 

of anti-riot gear and military 

hardware from Israel. The story entitled 

“Deadly riot gear arrives” includes 

a picture of one of the riot vehicles the 

police has acquired. The reporter contacted 

Home Affairs Minister John 

Nkomo who refused to comment on 

the basis that he was at a funeral. 

“The Standard” management has 

informed its lawyers Atherstone and 

Cook of the development. Linda Cook 

is representing the three journalists. 

In a statement to MISA’s Zimbabwe 

chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe), Cook said 

that the three journalists are being 

charged under the Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act, 

Section 80 (1) Subsection 1 (a and b). 

Section 80 is entitled “abuse of journalistic 

privilege” and reads: “A journalist 

shall be deemed to have abused 

his journalistic privilege and committed 

an offence if he does the following 

a) Falsifies and fabricates information, 

b) Publishes falsehoods”. Subsection 

2 reads: “A person guilty of the offence 

shall be liable to a fine not exceeding

ZIMBABWE 


one hundred thousand dollars or to 

imprisonment for a period not exceeding 

two years”. 

On May 16, Cook told MISA-Zimbabwe 

that “warned and cautioned” 

statements had been recorded from the 

journalists and that she was still trying 

to establish whether the police were 

going keep them for the night. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-05-17 


Jan Raath, Peta Thornycroft 


The Supreme Court has thrown out 

an urgent application by three journalists 

seeking the determination of 

their matter in which they are challenging 

the constitutionality of some 

clauses of the Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act. 

On Thursday May 16, 2002, the 

court ruled that journalists Jan Raath, 

Andrew Meldrum and Peta 

Thornycroft must follow the normal 

procedure, as there are no sufficient 

grounds to warrant the case being dealt 

with as an urgent matter. Beatrice 

Mtetwa, the journalists’ lawyer, was 

informed in a letter from the Supreme 

Court Registrar that their urgent application 

was placed before a judge in the 

chambers who said the matter was not 

urgent and instructed the applicants to 

follow the normal procedure. 

The three journalists are questioning 

the constitutionality of certain sections 

of the act and want them repealed. 

The act mentions the establishment of 

a Media and Information Commission 

that will be responsible for the accreditation 

of journalists among other 

things. The commission has still not 

been set up as the act came into effect 

in March. 

“As a result, the applicants have not 

been able to apply to the commission 

if they wish to do so. In my professional 

view, it is imperative that the 

application and constitutionality, or 

otherwise, of the impugned sections be 

determined as soon as possible but in 

any event before 16 June 2002 as the 

applicants’ guaranteed constitutional 

rights will be clearly affected,” said the 

journalists’ lawyer. 

Reportedly, as of June 16 it will be 

unlawful and a criminal offence to 

practice as a journalist without accreditation 

from the commission. At the 

same time, however, the act has a transitional 

provision which states that any 

journalist who was accredited before 

the act’s coming into operation shall 

be deemed to be accredited for the remainder 

of the year. 

Minister of State for Information 

and Publicity Jonathan Moyo said in 

his opposing papers that it was incorrect 

to state that the journalists would 

be stripped of their rights on that date. 

“Any journalist who was accredited 

before 15 March 2002 shall remain 

accredited for the remainder of the year 

2002. It is therefore denied that any 

journalist who is not accredited by 16 

June 2002, risks arrest unless this matter 

is heard urgently. The applicants’ 

rights will not be affected until 31 

December 2002, when their press 

cards expire,” Moyo said. 

The Minister added that regulations 

relating to registration and accreditation 

of journalists were in the process 

of being drafted. “I am therefore firm 

in my belief that applicants’ rights are 

not in immediate question or danger. 

In the circumstances, I maintain there’s 



2002 

no urgency in this matter and respectfully 

submit that it should be dealt with 

in accordance with the rules of this 

honourable court but not on an urgent 

basis,” Moyo said. 

In papers filed at the Supreme Court, 

Raath, Meldrum and Thornycroft 

asked the court to declare Sections 71 

(1), 79 (2), 79 (6), 80 and 83 of the 


of Privacy Act unconstitutional. The 

journalists argued these sections contravene 

Section 20 (1) of the Zimbabwe 

constitution, which guarantees 

freedom of expression, receiving and 

imparting information as a right. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-05-21 


Farai Mutsaka, Fungai Kanyuchi 

VIOLATION(S): Detained (released 

on bail) 


On Friday May 17, 2002, three journalists 

arrested on May 16 for allegedly 

writing “falsehoods” were released 

on bail. They were detained for 

one night at the Harare Central Police 

Station. 

“The Standard” editor Bornwell 

Chakaodza, entertainment editor 

Fungayi Kanyuchi and senior reporter 

Farai Mutsaka were released on bail 

of Z$10,000 (approx. US$183) each 

by Harare magistrate Joyce Negonde. 

Kanyuchi told MISA-Zimbabwe 

that he and his colleagues were released 

at around 1:00 p.m. (local time) 

and ordered to report to the Law and 

Order Section once every two weeks 

until 3 June when the case is to be tried. 

The journalists’ lawyer, Roseline 

Zigomo of Atherstone and Cook, said 

that the state’s case is that the journalists 

wrote “falsehoods” and did not 

verify facts about the acquisition of 

anti-riot gear and “sex for freedom” 

deals between police and prostitutes. 

Kanyuchi stated, “This is a plot by the 

police to intimidate us since our stories 

are factually correct.” 

Commenting on the arrests in the 

May 19 edition of “The Standard”, 

Chakaodza said that the police was 

deliberately targeting private media 

journalists while leaving the state media 

alone. “I do not know when I ever 

saw such a conglomeration of lies peddled 

in the so-called public media and 

Moyo has done nothing about it,” said 

Chakaodza. “We have a minister who 

has become too big for his ministerial 

boots and is day in and day out literally 

destroying Zimbabwe. But Moyo 

must know that nothing endures forever. 

Everything perishes in time and 

Moyo’s time is not that far off. Why 

he is at war with journalists and the 

society as a whole boggles the mind,” 

said Chakaodza. The act under which 

the journalists are being charged seeks 

to criminalise journalists and makes 

them liable to pay heavy fines or face 

two years in jail for publishing “falsehoods.” 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-05-22 

PERSON(S): Geoffrey Nyarota 


Geoffrey Nyarota, editor-in-chief of 

the private daily newspaper “The 

Daily News”, was arrested on Monday 

May 20, 2002 on allegations of 

publishing “falsehoods” and thereby 

breaching provisions of the Access to 

Information and Protection of Privacy

ZIMBABWE 


Act. 

Nyarota was arrested by police officers 

at around 10:00 a.m. (local time) 

at the offices of “The Daily News”. 

He was released five hours later. The 

editor was arrested in connection with 

a story published in the April 23 edition 

of “The Daily News” that said 

two young girls had witnessed the decapitation 

of their mother by alleged 

supporters of the ruling Zimbabwe African 

National Union Patriotic Front 

(ZANU-PF) party in Magunje, province 

of Mashonaland West. 

Nyarota’s lawyer, Lawrence 

Chibwe of Stumbles and Rowe, told 

MISA-Zimbabwe that the editor was 

arrested and charged under Section 80 

(1b) of the Access to Information and 

Protection of Privacy Act, for authorising 

the publication of “falsehoods” 

without verifying the facts. 

Chibwe was not sure when Nyarota 

would be tried but said the police were 

going to proceed by way of summons 

once they had completed their investigation. 

The arrests of journalists Nyarota, 

Lloyd Mudiwa, Collin Chiwanza and 

Andrew Meldrum, a correspondent 

for the British newspaper “The Guardian”, 

followed the publication of a 23 

April article in “The Daily News”. 

A magistrate court in Harare ruled 

on May 7 that Mudiwa and Meldrum 

have a case to answer. The two journalists 

were remanded out of custody 

to May 22. Charges against Chiwanza 

were dropped. 



ruling party and to the government, 

after it was revealed that the husband 

of the victim had misled the newspaper. 

The apology is in line with the requirements 

of the Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act, 

which states that a publication must 

issue a retraction and apology in the 

event of its story being proven wrong. 

However, the police went on to arrest 

several journalists despite the apology. 

The journalists have also argued that 

they had not intended to lie but rather 

were genuinely misled. 

The new media law places stringent 

measures on the media. If convicted, 

journalists face a fine of Z$100,000 

(approx. US$1,800), up to two years 

in jail, or both. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-22 

PERSON(S): Geoffrey Nyarota, 

Mark Chavunduka 


Zimbabwe’s police spokesperson, 

Assistant Police Commissioner 

Wayne Bvudzijena, has initiated legal 

proceedings against and is seeking 

damages from “The Standard” 

and “The Daily News” over what he 

alleges to be defamatory articles 

about him that were published in the 

two private newspapers. 

Bvudzijena is also suing “The Daily 

News” editor Geoffrey Nyarota and 

“The Standard” editor Mark 

Chavunduka. 

The police’s chief public relations 

officer is alleging that the newspapers 

wrote that he once served in the militia 

of Bishop Abel Muzorewa during 

the colonial era. Muzorewa was opposed 

to the ruling party and present 

government, under which Bvudzijena 

is serving. 

Bvudzijena’s lawyer, Jasper 



2002 

Musimbe of Musimbe and Associates, 

filed a Z$1.7 million (approx. 

US$31,000) lawsuit against the independent 

papers. Z$900,000 (approx. 

US$16,500) is being claimed from 

“The Daily News” and Z$800,000 

(approx. US$14,600) from “The 

Standard”. Musimbe said he received 

instructions to that effect and that 

summons had been issued to the defendants. 

“The Standard” first carried the 

story with a headline entitled “Police 

Chief Served in Rhodesian Army”, in 

which it was said that Bvudzijena 

served as a quartermaster in Bishop 

Muzorewa’s “Pfumo Revanhu militia” 

between 1978 and 1980. “The 

Daily News” reproduced the story the 

next day, February 24 2002, quoting 

from “The Standard”, under a headline 

entitled “Bvudzijena’s hidden 

past exposed”. Both stories included 

pictures of Bvudzijena. 

The lawsuit states that the stories 

were malicious, defamatory and bent 

on tarnishing Bvudzijena’s image. 

The assistant police commissioner 

further argues that the newspapers alleged 

that as assistant commissioner 

and head of the Zimbabwe Republic 

Police Press and Public Relations Section, 

he abused his office and public 

resources under his control. He also 

said that the articles deemed him to 

be unprofessional in conducting his 

duties and that he was incapable of 

holding such an office. 

“The headlines in both papers and 

‘The Daily News’ picture caption 

were defamatory in that they suggested 

that he was a murderer and 

committed horrible unlawful and/or 

criminal acts or atrocities,” read part 

of the lawyers’ heads of argument. 


ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-30 


Fungayi Kanyuchi 


Bornwell Chakaodza and Fungayi 

Kanyuchi, editor and Entertainment 

editor, respectively, of the weekly 

English-language newspaper “The 

Standard”, were arrested on Tuesday 

May 28, 2002 on allegations of having 

written falsehoods. 

The two journalists were arrested in 

connection with an article that appeared 

in the newspaper on May 26, 

which criticised the manner in which 

the Zimbabwe Republic Police handled 

journalists. The article was titled 

“The private media’s burden”. 

In the article, Kanyuchi pointed out 

that the police enjoy harassing journalists, 

take orders from “above” and follow 

directives that they do not even 

understand themselves. 

The story was partly a narration of 

his experience in police cells when he 

was arrested for allegedly writing 

falsehoods in contravention of Section 

80 of the Access to Information and 

Protection of Privacy Act. 

In the story, Kanyuchi said that the 

police hauled him into cells with blood 

stained walls and floors and put him 

and colleagues in a filthy six-sleeper 

cell with 21 other arrestees. The journalists 

signed warned and cautioned 

statements in the presence of their lawyer, 

Linda Cook of Atherston and 

Cook. They were released immediately 

afterwards. 

In a telephone interview with 

MISA-Zimbabwe, Kanyuchi said the 

police were out to harass the independ-

ZIMBABWE 


ent media. “These arrests reflect the 

low levels to which the police have 

sunk. There are real criminals out there 

but the police are now bent on targeting 

the independent media. This is a 

misdirection of efforts which is wasteful,” 

he said. 

“This is sheer harassment by the 

police and it has become extremely 

irritating, especially knowing that there 

is no case to answer. We are just professionals 

going about our daily business,” 

Chakaodza told MISA-Zimbabwe. 

On May 23, Chakaodza and senior 

reporter Farai Mutsaka were arrested 

and charged with having written a false 

story on the “impeding” personnel 

changes at the state-run newspaper 

company, Zimpapers, and the national 

broadcaster, Zimbabwe Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZBC). They were briefly 

detained at the Harare Central Police 

Station, where they were questioned 

and released after the police recorded 

a warned and cautioned statement. An 

article in the “The Standard”’s May 12 

issue reported that Information Minister 

Jonathan Moyo was contemplating 

making editorial changes at 

Zimpapers and the ZBC. The story alleged 

that new appointments would be 

made according to Moyo’s preferences. 

Moyo dismissed the story as 

false the following day and accused the 

newspaper of deliberately lying. The 

two journalists were charged under 



UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-05-31 


Lloyd Mudiwa 

VIOLATION(S):Detained, legislation 

On Thursday May 30, 2002, a magistrate’s 

court ruled that Lloyd 

Mudiwa, a reporter from the private 

daily newspaper “The Daily News”, 

and Andrew Meldrum, a foreign correspondent 

for the British newspaper 

“The Guardian”, must be tried on allegations 

of having written “falsehoods”. 

Both journalists are being 

charged under the Access to Information 


Harare Magistrate Joyce Negonde 

said Meldrum, a permanent resident of 

Zimbabwe, would stand trial on June 

12. Mudiwa’s trial date is set for June 

20. 

The case against Meldrum and 

Mudiwa originated from a story run 

in “The Daily News” and “The Guardian” 

about allegations that vigilante 

supporters of the ruling Zimbabwe 

African National Union Patriotic Front 

(ZANU-PF) party had beheaded a 

woman. “The Daily News” later apologised 

to the ruling party after the story 

proved to be false. 

Neither journalist spoke after the 30 

May hearing. Their lawyer Beatrice 

Mtetwa said, “We are happy the state 

has finally set a date and we hope we 

can prove our case that the state is being 

vindictive with these prosecutions.” 

Journalists Mudiwa, Meldrum and 

Collin Chiwanza were arrested following 

the publication of an article on 

April 23 in which “The Daily News” 

alleged that two young girls had witnessed 


by alleged ZANU-PF supporters in the 

rural area of Magunje. 

On May 7, a magistrate court in 

Harare ruled that Mudiwa and 

Meldrum would have to stand trial. 



2002 

The two journalists were remanded out 

of custody until May 22. 



ruling party and to the government after 

it was revealed that the husband of 

the victim had misled the newspaper. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-05-31 

INSTITUTION(S): National Development 

Association (NDA) 


The Zimbabwe High Court has ordered 

the Zimbabwe Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZBC) to start airing the 

banned programme Talk to the Nation 

within five days. The ZBC banned the 

programme in July 2001. Talk to the 

Nation is sponsored by the National 

Development Association (NDA). 

High Court Judge Justice Paradza 

said the matter was simply a contractual 

dispute, and ruled that the ZBC 

unlawfully terminated the programme 

in violation of the contract. “This matter 

to me is a simple and straightforward 

contractual dispute. I am satisfied 

that the ZBC unlawfully terminated 

the contract, so the NDA is 

granted relief,” Justice Paradza said in 

his judgment. 

NDA’s programme was banned on 

June 4 2001. The ZBC and NDA had 

signed a contract on March 24, 2001. 

The judgment specifies that the remainder 

of NDA’s 26 programmes are 

to be aired over the next 23 consecutive 

weeks, starting on Thursday June 

6, 2002 at 9:00 p.m. (local time). The 

ZBC was ordered to make available 

the personnel, equipment and studio 

facilities that are necessary for the 

broadcasting of the programme. 


Justice Paradza said the terms used 

to ban the NDA’s programme were 

unlawful and the ZBC had failed to 

substantiate its arguments to the court. 

Advocate Adam Kara, representing 

Information and Publicity Minister 

Jonathan Moyo and the ZBC, said the 

programme was cancelled on policy 

grounds and was lawful in terms of the 

ZBC Commercialisation Act. He further 

said that the cancellation of the 

programme had not prejudiced the 

NDA, which could not claim airtime. 

Kara also argued that since the programme 

was a live production, it was 

extremely difficult to edit, became a 

“free for all,” and caused unnecessary 

alarm to some viewers. He further argued 

that since the ZBC had full editorial 

control and production of programmes, 

the corporation was entitled 

to withdraw the production. Kara had 

also argued that Moyo be removed as 

a respondent in the matter, arguing that 

the Minister was not involved in the 

ZBC’s day-to-day operations. 

However, the NDA’s lawyer, Advocate 

Pearson Nherere, argued that the 

NDA had not breached the agreement 

it entered into with the ZBC. He added 

that the reasons given for the cancellation 

were unjustifiable in terms of the 

contract entered into. He further argued 

that Minister Moyo was behind the 

banning of the programme and was 

therefore rightfully cited as a respondent. 

Nherere also stated that by cancelling 

the programme, the ZBC was 

denying members of the public their 

constitutional right to freedom of expression, 

since the ZBC is a public institution. 

The court heard that Munyaradzi 

Hwengwere, then the principal press 

secretary in the Department of Infor-

ZIMBABWE 


mation, had said the decision to ban 

the programme was not made by the 

government minister but by the ZBC 

board, although the government supported 

the move. Hwengwere is now 

the ZBC’s chief executive officer. 

In a supporting affidavit, NDA 

Chairperson Mutumwa Mawere said 

NDA Coordinator Kindness Paradza 

advised him on June 1, 2001 that 

Hwengwere had expressed some sentiments 

over the programme. To further 

prove that it was Moyo who ordered 

that the programme be banned, 

Mawere said he called the Minister to 

find out if there was any problem with 

the programme, to which Moyo replied 

that the programme could not continue 

in its present form. 

“I called Moyo, who was then in 

South Africa, to find out from him 

whether there was indeed any problem 

with the show. Moyo confirmed the 

sentiments expressed by Hwengwere. 

He essentially stated to me that the 

programme could not be allowed to 

continue in its present form,” said 

Mawere. “Moyo further advised me 

that his ministry could not allow a situation 

where the ZBC surrenders ownership 

of a live programme to a civic 

organisation or such other outside person,” 

said Mawere. 

Mawere went on to say that he later 

received a call from then ZBC director 

general Luke Munyawarara, who 

said he had spoken to Moyo over the 

programme and would be further consulting 

Moyo over the issue. Three 

days later, Mawere received a letter 

cancelling the programme on unclear 

policy grounds. 

It was generally believed that Moyo 

was angered by the appearance of 

Tapiwa Mashakada, an opposition 

Movement for Democratic Change 

Member of Parliament, on the programme, 

in which he outclassed the 

ruling party’s Member of Parliament, 

David Chapfika, in explaining Zimbabwe’s 

economic problems and possible 

solutions. 

The judge ruled that Moyo, who facilitated 

the ban of the programme, 

must pay part of the legal costs of the 

trial, together with the ZBC. The ZBC 

and Moyo have since expressed their 

intention to appeal the judgment. 

On June 6, 2001, ZBC Chairperson 

Gideon Gono denied that the banning 

of the live phone in programme Talk 

to the Nation was based on political 

grounds. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-06-04 

INSTITUTION(S): Joy TV 


The privately-owned broadcasting 

station Joy Television (Joy TV) closed 

down on May 31, 2002. The closure 

means that Zimbabwe’s experiment 

with diversifying broadcasting has 

failed. 

Joy TV closed down after its lease 

agreement with the Zimbabwe Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZBC) was cancelled 

on the grounds that the agreement 

violated the 2001 Broadcasting 

Services Act. Joy TV was leasing TV2, 

a second station owned by ZBC. 

Joy TV’s closure means that the 

state-controlled ZBC is now the sole 

broadcaster. Although the 2001 act 

purportedly regulates the entry of other 

players into the industry, no private 

station has yet been licensed to date. 

The ZBC maintains its monopoly. 

Joy TV’s short life was plagued by 



2002 

numerous challenges, including direct 

interference from the government. For 

example, the station was ordered to 

drop the BBC news bulletin from its 

daily broadcast. Joy TV was also restricted 

from airing local news with the 

exception of musicals and apolitical 

documentaries. The ZBC’s control of 

Joy TV is largely responsible for the 

station’s inability to survive. 

Joy TV’s closure means that there 

is an increased need for new players 

to enter the broadcasting industry. The 

government has largely ignored calls 

to amend the Broadcasting Services 

Act, which virtually makes it impossible 

for private players to enter the 

industry. No foreign investment is allowed 

into the industry and potential 

broadcasters are required to adhere to 

strict content guidelines. 

The acting chief executive officer of 

the ZBC, Jennifer Tanyanyiwa, said in 

a statement on April 22 that the act 

prohibits the corporation from leasing 

out its second channel. The ZBC began 

leasing TV2 to Joy TV in July 

1997. Joy TV, owned by Flame Lily 

Broadcasting Limited, was permitted 

to broadcast daily from 5:00 p.m. to 

10:00 p.m. (local time). 

MISA reported on May 2 that Joy 

TV was seeking to extend its lease. Joy 

TV hoped that the Broadcasting Authority 

of Zimbabwe (BAZ) and ZBC 

management would recognise that a 

large investment had been made. The 

application also pointed out that Joy 

TV signed contracts with advertisers 

until the end of 2002 and that it had 

loyal viewers and workers who had to 

be considered. 

“The Daily News” has since alleged 

that the ZBC’s announcement to shut 

down Joy TV coincides with reports 


that the new government-owned Zimbabwe 

Inter-Africa News Agency 

(Ziana) is set to operate a 24-hour television 

channel on TV2. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-05 

PERSON(S): Iden Wetherell 


Iden Wetherell, editor of the “Zimbabwe 

Independent” weekly, was questioned 

by police on May 30, 2002. 

The police questioned Wetherell 

about a picture that was published in 

the newspaper’s May 17 issue of a 

semi-naked Amazonian man wearing 

traditional clothes. Wetherell was subsequently 

charged under the Censorship 

Act for publishing pictures containing 

nudity. 

Wetherell’s lawyer, Linda Cook, 

said that the charges against her client 

are unsustainable since no consent was 

given by the attorney general’s office 

as required by the act. She also said 

that the concerned picture is not obscene 

at all and if police insist on pursuing 

the matter they would have to 

proceed by way of summons. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-04 



Minister of State for Information and 

Publicity Jonathan Moyo has appointed 

a Media Commission to regulate 

the operations of the industry, as 

provided for in the Access to Information 


The commission, made up of govern-

ZIMBABWE 


ment supporters, will police “wayward” 

journalists. 

Tafataona Mahoso, the chairperson 

of the commission, is a media lecturer 

at Harare Polytechnic. The other 

members are Rino Zhuwarara, 

Sephath Mlambo, Pascal 

Mukondiwa, Jonathan Maphenduka 

and Alpinos Makoni. 

Women’s groups have expressed 

shock at the glaring gender imbalance 

in the commission. The Zimbabwe 

Women’s Resource Center and 

Network (ZWRCN) and MISA-Zimbabwe 

have launched a joint campaign 

to have the composition of the 

commission changed. A petition addressing 

gender imbalance and the 

questionable credibility of some 

commission members will be presented 

to Moyo. 

Concerns raised include that many 

of the commissioners, including the 

chairperson, are supporters of the ruling 

party. Also, sources within the industry 

and journalists’ unions said 

they were not consulted regarding the 

appointments. Union leaders told 

MISA-Zimbabwe that they had not 

nominated any of the members appointed 

by Moyo. 

Moyo may have breached the law 

by not consulting the industry and 

journalists’ unions. Section 40, Subsection 

(2) of the Act clearly states 

that, “The Board shall consists of no 

fewer than five members and not 

more than seven members (at least 

three of whom shall be nominated by 

an association of journalists and an 

association of media houses) appointed 

by the Minister after consultation 

with the President and in accordance 

with any directions that the 

President may give him.” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-19 



The government has announced a new 

law requiring that owners of media 

outlets and journalists pay exorbitant 

fees in order to operate and work in 

Zimbabwe. The new fees were announced 

as an amendment to the Access 


Privacy Act that was passed in February 

2002. 

The new law stipulates that domestic 

media must pay an application fee 

of Z$20,000 (approx. US$360) and a 

registration fee of Z$500,000 (approx. 

US$9,000). Foreign media will be 

charged an application fee of Z$2,000 

(approx. US$36) and a registration fee 

of US$10,000. 

Zimbabwean correspondents for 

foreign media are required to pay an 

application fee of US$50 and an accreditation 

fee of US$1,000. Foreign 

journalists will be charged US$600 for 

temporary accreditation. Local journalists 

will be required to pay an application 

fee of Z$1,000 (approx. 

US$18) and an accreditation fee of 

Z$5,000 (approx. US$90). 

Until now, the government has only 

charged nominal fees to accredit journalists 

for special events. The government 

stated that media already registered 

under the Companies Act and 

journalists with existing press cards 

will be allowed to continue their work 

until the new applications are processed. 

In addition, the new law requires 

media to disclose their financial status 

and pay an annual levy of half of one 



2002 

percent of their annual gross profit. The 

levy will be funneled into a government 

media fund. 

A newly appointed government media 

and information commission has 

the power to refuse to register a media 

organisation or accredit a journalist, 

provided that they state a reason for 

their decision. 

Journalists’ unions and critics point 

out that the fees are exorbitant and 

curtail press freedom. Journalists 

working for foreign media in Zimbabwe 

have gone to the country’s highest 

court to challenge the law. The Foreign 

Correspondents Association of 

Zimbabwe has labelled some sections 

of the Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Act as unconstitutional. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-06-18 

PERSON(S): Guthrie Munyuki, 

Shadreck Mukwecheni, Urginia 

Mauluka 

VIOLATION(S): Detained, beaten, 

censored 


Three employees of the newspaper 

“The Daily News” who were arrested 

on June 16, 2002 were released on 

bail of 3,000 Zimbabwe dollars (about 

US$55) each on June 18. 

Reporter Guthrie Munyuki, photographer 

Urginia Mauluka and driver 

Shadreck Mukwecheni were arrested 

while covering an opposition gathering 

that was brutally disbanded by the 

local police. The three media workers 

were also beaten up by the police. 

Munyuki sustained a fracture to his 

right wrist and Mauluka’s elbow was 

swollen, according to a doctor who 

was granted access to the three staffers 

from “The Daily News” on June 

16. The police have since denied medical 

attention to the three media workers 

and to the many opposition Movement 

for Democratic Change (MDC) 

party supporters, who were also arrested 

on June 16. 

At the time of the arrests, the police 

seized Mauluka’s camera, threw it to 

the ground and broke it. The three 

media workers were forced to lie on 

the ground, after which the police took 

turns beating them up with baton sticks 

and rifle buts. Approximately 84 MDC 

supporters were also arrested in the 

incident and are currently languishing 

in police cells. 

Speaking on his mobile phone from 

his cell at Harare Central police station 

on 16 June, where he and what he 

estimated to be 44 other men and 40 

women were being held, Munyuki said 

a doctor was called in to examine 

MDC supporter Stuart Mukoyi, who 

was lying motionless on the cold cement 

floor with no blanket. The doctor 

also examined Munyuki in the cells. 

That same day, at 8:45 p.m. (local 

time), Munyuki told MISA, “The doctor 

examined me ten minutes ago and 

has just left. He said I sustained a fracture 

above my right wrist. The whole 

arm is now swollen and very painful. 

I cannot move my fingers. After they 

arrested us, the riot police ordered 

Urginia, Mukwecheni and myself to 

lie face down. They assaulted us on 

the buttocks with rifle butts and batons. 

I counted six officers who assaulted 

me. The same was happening to 

Urginia and Mukwecheni. I tried to 

block one blow with my arm and received 

a heavy blow above the wrist.” 

Munyuki said Mukoyi had sustained 

more serious injuries and had been ly-

ZIMBABWE 


ing motionless in the cell. “He is 

stretched [out] on the cold floor and 

cannot talk, walk or even sit. The doctor 

said he was concerned about him 

and has gone to see the police officers 

about him,” Munyuki reported. 

The doctor, who preferred to remain 

anonymous, later spoke to “The Daily 

News” that same night. He confirmed 

that Munyuki had sustained a fracture 

and said Mukoyi was in bad condition 

and was starting to have convulsions. 

“I suspect Mukoyi sustained serious 

abdominal injuries consistent with severe 

beating. He is now having convulsions,” 

the doctor said. 

Munyuki said that apart from 

Mukoyi and himself, it appeared that 

five other people had been injured, including 

a woman who allegedly sustained 

a broken leg. He confirmed that 

the woman had been released. 

The trouble started when the riot 

police descended on the rally organised 

by the MDC in Harare’s Africa 

Unity Square and at the MDC offices 

on Mbuya Nehanda Street, in the city 

centre. A total of 60 people, including 

the journalists, were arrested at the 

MDC offices, while 25 others were 

rounded up in the square. Eyewitnesses 

said the police drove a Puma vehicle 

into a crowd of about 2,000 persons 

gathered outside the MDC offices, 

causing people to flee in all directions. 

They said armed riot police arrived at 

the MDC offices 20 minutes after the 

rally started and used brute force to 

break it up. MDC spokesman 

Learnmore Jongwe said the police 

fired shots into the air to disrupt the 

rally, before arresting people, “most of 

whom were just passers-by caught in 

the crossfire.” A security guard on duty 

in the area said he counted five 

gunshots. Munyuki, Mauluka and 

Mukwecheni, who arrived on the scene 

after the rally had been dispersed, were 

arrested at 1:15 p.m. 

The police said they had known 

journalists from “The Daily News” 

would come to cover the rally because, 

“your newspaper always acts in cahoots 

with the MDC. You always lie 

about the police. After this, you can 

write about real police brutality,” 

Mauluka reported. 

Mauluka said the police had recorded 

the details of the arrested men 

and women but had not formally 

charged them. “They merely herded us 

into the cells,” he said. “They did not 

even search us or ask us to remove our 

shoes, as normally happens.” Munyuki 

had his mobile phone on him that night 

and was thus able to communicate with 

his office. 

A police officer said the detained 

people would be charged under Section 

31 (c) of the Public Order and 

Security Act (POSA). The section 

states, “Any person who, at a public 

gathering behaves in a threatening, 

abusive or insulting manner intending 

to prevent the transaction of the business 

for which the gathering is called 

together, shall be guilty of an offence 

and liable to a fine not exceeding 

$50,000, or two years in jail, or both”. 

The police spokesperson, Assistant 

Police Commissioner Wayne 

Bvudzijena, said the police stopped the 

rally because MDC activists had gone 

around the city beating people up and 

trying to provoke trouble. “We had told 

the organisers they could not hold their 

rally at the Harare Gardens because 

that venue and the atmosphere in the 

city are not conducive for political 

gatherings,” he told Reuters news 



2002 

agency. “We based our decision on 

POSA but we had agreed that they 

could hold their rally at their offices. 

We intervened when their people went 

around trying to provoke a situation.” 

Lawrence Chibwe, the lawyer for 

the three staffers from “The Daily 

News”, said that his pleas to have the 

three surrender to him so that a private 

doctor could attend to them has 

fallen on deaf ears. The police insisted 

that a government doctor would attend 

to them. “Munyuki, Mauluka and 

Mukwecheni are a sorry sight. They 

are actually in a state of shock. The 

police refused to take them to hospital 

despite my pleas,” said Chibwe. 

Under the Public Order and Security 

Act, the police can hold “prisoners” 

for seven days without charge. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-07-03 

PERSON(S): Chris Gande 


Chris Gande, a reporter for “The 

Daily News”, was thrown out of a 

courtroom during court proceedings 

by a prison official, “The Daily 

News” reported on June 28, 2002. 

Gande, who is based in the city of 

Bulawayo, was covering court proceedings 

in which two prison officials 

were being charged with contempt of 

court for defying court orders to release 

two prisoners who had been granted 

bail. However, a reporter from the government 

controlled “Chronicle” was 

allowed to cover the case. 

“Mr. Gande, I have been ordered to 

ask you to leave this court,” said the 

official, without disclosing who had 

given the order, “The Daily News” 

reported. 


MISA-Zimbabwe notes that no reasons 

were given as to why the reporter 

was ejected from the courtroom. 

Courtrooms are accessible to members 

of the public and journalists under 

Zimbabwean law. Though guided by 

dress codes and expected behaviour 

standards, no one can be barred from 

attending court proceedings. 

A press gallery is available to journalists, 

who are allowed to cover court 

proceedings and make these deliberations 

public. The prison official’s action 

violates Gande’s rights as a journalist 

and citizen of Zimbabwe. 

Efforts by MISA-Zimbabwe to get 

a comment from Zimbabwe Prisons 

Service Public Relations Officer Frank 

Meki were unsuccessful as he was said 

to be out of the office. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-07-05 

PERSON(S): Chris Gande 


On July 4, 2002, Chris Gande, a reporter 

for the “Daily News” in 

Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest 

city, was charged under Section 

80, subsection 1(b), of the Access to 


Act, for allegedly “writing falsehoods”. 

Gande is accused of writing a false 

story in the June 9 edition of the “Daily 

News”. In the story, Gande states that 

Thandiwe Nkomo, the daughter of the 

late Zimbabwean vice president 

Joshua Nkomo, had told the newspaper 

that the Nkomo family had not 

been invited to a state gala that was 

being held in Nkomo’s memory in the 

eastern border town of Mutare. The 

story also said that the late vice presi-

ZIMBABWE 


dent’s wife was flown to Mutare in a 

military helicopter at the last minute. 

The government, via the Department 

of Information and Publicity, denied 

the story and accused the reporter of 

lying. 

On July 3, police from the Law and 

Order department visited the “Daily 

News” offices in Bulawayo and left a 

message for Gande to report to the 

police station. Gande, however, arranged 

with his lawyer, Panganayi 

Hare, for an appointment to be made 

with the police for 4 July. Gande went 

to the police station on July 4, where 

he was forced to sign a “warned and 

cautioned” statement. In the statement, 

he stated that he stood by his story and 

had merely written what Thandiwe 

Nkomo had told him. The police must 

proceed by way of summons if they 

insist on taking Gande to court. 

The Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Act has been used 

more than 14 times to arrest journalists 

in Zimbabwe. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-08-23 

INSTITUTION(S): National Development 

Association Assembly 

(NDA) 


The Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZBC) has appealed against a 

High Court ruling which compelled 

it to restore the National Development 

Association Assembly (NDA) programme 

that it terminated in 2001. 

The NDA won a High Court judgment 

on 29 May, 2002 in which the 

ZBC was ordered to reinstate the programme 

“Talk to the Nation” within 

five days. However, the ZBC has appealed 

against the ruling and is seeking 

the court’s dismissal of the NDA’s 

application. ZBC lawyers argue that 

High Court Justice Benjamin Paradza 

erred in finding that the ZBC had unlawfully 

terminated its contract with 

the NDA. They claim that the judge 

made a mistake in judging that since 

the state-run broadcasting station had 

illegally switched off the NDA programme, 

it followed that it should restore 

it. 

“The learned judge erred in failing 

to take cognisance of the impossibility 

of the specific performance (restoration) 

in this instance,” said the ZBC 

lawyers, adding, “The learned judge 

also erred in finding that the second 

respondent, Information Minister 

Jonathan Moyo, was properly cited 

and joined in this matter.” 

Moyo was drawn in the matter after 

the NDA named him as the person 

behind the termination of its programme. 

On May 29 Justice Paradza ruled 

that the matter was simply a contractual 

dispute and that the ZBC had unlawfully 

terminated the programme, in 

violation of the contract. The NDA’s 

programme was banned on June 4, 

2001. The ZBC and NDA had signed 

a contract on March 24, 2001. 

Justice Paradza said the terms used 

to ban the NDA’s programmes were 

unlawful and the ZBC had failed to 

substantiate its arguments to the court. 

Advocate Adam Kara, representing 

Minister Moyo and the ZBC, said the 

cancellation was on policy grounds 

and lawful in terms of the ZBC Commercialisation 

Act. 

However, the NDA’s lawyer, Advocate 

Pearson Nherere, argued that the 

NDA had not breached the agreement 



2002 

it had entered into with the ZBC. 

Nherere added that the reasons given 

for the cancellation were unjustifiable 

in terms of the contract. He further argued 

that Minister Moyo was behind 

the banning of the programme and was 

therefore rightfully cited as a respondent. 

He stated that by cancelling the 

programme, the ZBC was denying 

members of the public their constitutional 

right to freedom of expression, 

taking into account that the ZBC is a 

public institution. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-08-23 

PERSON(S): Peta Thornycroft, 

Precious Shumba 


On August 14, 2002, two Zimbabwean 

journalists, Precious Shumba 

and Peta Thornycroft, were held hostage 

for about five hours, together 

with a commercial farmer they were 

interviewing at a farm located 26 kilometres 

west of the capital, Harare. 

The August 15 edition of “The Daily 

News” reported that Shumba, a reporter 

with “The Daily News”, and 

Thornycroft, a correspondent for the 

London-based “Daily Telegraph”, together 

with commercial farmer 

Christopher Hinde, were trapped in 

Hinde’s house as a group of about 120 

ruling party supporters demanded that 

the reporters be handed over to them. 

“The Daily News” reported that the 

mob alleged that Shumba and 

Thornycroft should have asked for 

permission from their superiors before 

interviewing the besieged farmer. The 

group demanded that the reporters be 

handed over to their “central committee”, 

which was to “deal with them.” 


A driver from “The Daily News”, who 

was not in the house, was assaulted by 

the ruling party supporters. He was 

later saved by the mob’s “superiors”, 

who restrained their colleagues, leading 

to the release of the two journalists. 

The two reporters were warned 

against returning to the farm. 

In the confusion following the detention 

and release of the journalists, 

Thornycroft lost her camera, valued at 

US$1,000. “The Daily News” reported 

that although the police were alerted 

of the journalists’ detention, they did 

not react, despite promises that they 

were “on their way.” 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-08-29 

INSTITUTION(S): Voice of The 

People (VOP) 


The offices of the aspiring community 

radio station The Voice of The 

People (VOP) were bombed on August 

29, 2002 at around 1:00 a.m. (local 

time). 

The radio station was bombed by 

three men who went to the station’s 

premises in Milton Park, a Harare suburb, 

and threw a bomb inside the building. 

The whole building was razed to 

the ground and everything inside was 

destroyed. MISA-Zimbabwe was informed 

by the VOP security guard that 

three men approached him at 1:00 a.m. 

and told him in the vernacular (Shona) 

language that he “must step aside lest 

he dies for something that he is not 

involved in.” According to the guard, 

the three men had come by foot and 

may have parked their car at a distance 

from the station’s premises. The guard 

also told MISA-Zimbabwe that the

ZIMBABWE 


police came to the premises at around 

2:00 a.m., after being informed of the 

bombing. 

VOP coordinator John Masuku said 

that his secretary phoned him at around 

8:00 a.m., as he was preparing to go to 

work. Masuku told MISA-Zimbabwe 

that there was nothing suspicious when 

station employees left the office on 

August 28, and that no one had threatened 

them. Masuku added that he was 

in the process of contacting the station’s 

lawyer and was not in a position 

to give further comments. 

The radio station, which had not yet 

been licenced, was not broadcasting in 

Zimbabwe. Instead it was recording its 

programmes, which were being broadcast 

on short-wave from outside Zimbabwe. 

The bombing of VOP radio station 

comes against a background of an 

acrimonious relationship between the 

authorities and the station. The government 

had accused VOP of “tarnishing 

the country’s image” through its 

reporting. Police raided the radio station 

on July 4. Accompanied by officers 

from the Broadcasting Authority of 

Zimbabwe (BAZ) and armed with a 

search warrant, they raided the station 

in search of a transmitter and other 

broadcasting equipment. After failing 

to find the transmitter, the police confiscated 

133 tapes and files from the 

office. Masuku informed MISA-Zimbabwe 

that the tapes and files that the 

police had taken had since been returned. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-09-10 

PERSON(S) Griffin Shea 


Agence France Presse (AFP) foreign 

correspondent Griffin Shea’s application 

for the renewal of his work permit 

was turned down by the Zimbabwean 

government, MISA-Zimbabwe 

has confirmed. 

Shea told MISA-Zimbabwe that, on 

September 7, 2002, he received a letter 

from the Department of Information 

and Publicity informing him that 

his application had been turned down. 

The journalist noted that he would be 

going to Johannesburg, South Africa, 

and might return depending on the 

outcome of the court cases filed by the 

Zimbabwe Foreign Correspondents 

Association (ZFCA) against repressive 

clauses in the Access to Information 


Shea pointed out that, in June, Minister 

of Information and Publicity 

Jonathan Moyo had indicated to the 

AFP that he would probably not allow 

any foreign journalists to work in Zimbabwe. 

“The letter did not come as a 

surprise,” said Shea. 

Shea told MISA-Zimbabwe that a 


official, Edward Mamutse, had 

told him that the decision about which 

foreign journalists can work in Zimbabwe 

rests with the department and 

not the Media Commission. 

When asked to comment, Mamutse 

told MISA-Zimbabwe that no one had 

come forward yet from foreign correspondents’ 

organisations in order to be 

registered. “Foreign correspondents 

have to register their organisation first 

before they are registered themselves,” 

said Mamutse. 

Andrew Meldrum, ZFCA chairperson, 

stated that they are unsure about 

what is happening with the registration 

of foreign correspondents. “We 

have told our members to make indi- 



2002 

vidual decisions on whether to register 

or not,” said Meldrum. 

Meldrum told MISA-Zimbabwe 

that the number of foreign correspondents 

based in Zimbabwe has gone 

down, and some have already been 

given until December to wind up their 

business and leave. 


official Mamutse promised to 

clarify the issue with MISA-Zimbabwe 

on September 10. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-09-12 

PERSON(S) Griffin Shea 



Griffin Shea, a correspondent for 

Agence France Presse (AFP), is set to 

leave Zimbabwe on September 14, 

2002, following the non-renewal of his 

work permit by the Zimbabwean government. 

Shea, who has been in Zimbabwe 

for two years, was told to leave 

after the expiry of his work permit. 

Information and Publicity Minister 

Jonathan Moyo has closed all doors to 

the possibility of Shea remaining in 

Zimbabwe. The Minister dismissed 

calls for the renewal of Shea’s work 

permit, arguing that no foreign journalists 

can hold a permanent work permit. 

“We are not a banana republic wanting 

to please foreign journalists. We 

are a constitutional democracy underpinned 

by the rule of law,” said Moyo. 

“We are very proud that we are one 

of the countries that have trained an 

impressive professional cadre of journalists 

and they need work. Shea is an 

American and he can go and work 

there,” fumed Moyo. 

Moyo dismissed calls for the renewal 

of the work permit as a show of 

contempt for Zimbabwean laws. “In 

this case the law is very clear. No foreigner 

should be resident here as a journalist. 

We have made it clear that they 

can only be here for a limited period; 

in fact, the limited period is thirty 

days,” said Moyo. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-15 

INSTITUTION(S) The Daily News 


On October 9, 2002, the privatelyowned 

national daily newspaper “The 

Daily News” reported that a group of 

youths from the National Youth Service 

programme destroyed 450 copies 

of the paper in the eastern border town 

of Mutare. The confiscated copies are 

valued at US$500 at the official exchange 

rate. 

The youths took the newspapers to 

the offices of Provincial Governor 

Oppah Muchinguri. Martin Zimudyi, 

“The Daily News”’s sales and distribution 

representative in Mutare, said 

the youths were angered by the daily’s 

headline story, which reported that 

President Mugabe had angrily left a 

Southern African Development Community 

(SADC) summit after being 

snubbed by his colleagues. 

Zimudyi confirmed that no one was 

injured in the incident. The matter was 

reported to the police. The newspaper 

further reported that efforts to get a 

comment from the governor’s office 

were fruitless. MISA was also unable 

to get an official comment from the 

office of the Provincial Governor. 

The Zimbabwean government 

launched the National Youth Service 

programme in 2001, purportedly to

ZIMBABWE 


inculcate patriotism and teach Zimbabwe’s 

history to youths. The youths, 

generally known as “the Taliban” or 

“Green Bombers”, because of their 

olive green military uniform, have 

been accused of committing violent 

acts against members of the opposition. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-16 

INSTITUTION(S) The media in 

Zimbabwe 


On October 11, 2002, the Zimbabwean 

government announced its intention 

to present to Parliament a bill 

to amend the Access to Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act 

(AIPPA). The amendments are meant 

to plug what the government calls 

“loopholes” in the media law. However, 

the bill will result in more powers 

being accorded to the Mass Media 

Commission (referred to in the 

AIPPA as the Media and Information 

Commission). MISA believes that 

many of the so-called loopholes do 

not offer a reprieve to media houses 

and journalists. 

The Mass Media Commission was 

created under the AIPPA. Its functions 

and powers are, inter alia: 

* To receive and act upon comments 

from the public about the administration 

and performance of the media in 

Zimbabwe; 

* To conduct investigations and audits 

to ensure compliance with any 

provision of the bill; 

* To receive and evaluate for registration 

and consider applications for 

registration from journalists; 

* To accredit journalists; 

* To enforce professional and ethical 

standards in the media; 

* To authorise the collection of personal 

information from sources other 

than the person to whom the information 

relates; 

* To monitor the media and raise 

public awareness of the media; 

* To register mass media in Zimbabwe; 

* To investigate and resolve complaints; 

* To perform any powers or function 

that the minister may, from time 

to time, prescribe as a power and function 

of the Commission. 

The bill is set to amend definitions 

of certain important terms that relate 

to information and the protection of 

“privacy” and the registration of mass 

media houses. 

Following is a breakdown of the different 

sections of the bill and the implications 

of the amendments: 

Clause 6 of the bill seeks to substitute 

Section 35 of the principal Act by 

framing the offence of “deliberately 

falsifying personal information” in a 

less “ambiguous way”. It will replace 

the reference to a specific maximum 

fine by a “level” of a fine in accordance 

with the Criminal Penalties Act 

of 2001. 

According to the amendment, any 

person who supplies any information, 

which he/she knows to be false, or does 

not have reasonable grounds for believing 

it to be true, shall be guilty of 

an offence and liable to a fine, or imprisonment 

for a period not exceeding 

six months, or both. 

Clause 5 seeks to amend Section 28 

of the principal Act, on information to 

be disclosed if in the public interest, 

by combining into one provision the 



2002 

references to public order and security 

that are presently separated or duplicated 

in two provisions. 

Clause 3 seeks to replace Section 22 

of the principal Act so that issues of 

personal safety are not mixed with issues 

of national security. 

The Mass Media Commission’s 

general powers will be enhanced by 

Clause 8, which seeks to provide it 

with powers to hold inquiries and issue 

orders. Presently, those powers are 

only provided for in the context of requests 

for reviews of decisions by 

heads of public bodies to deny access 

to information. With respect to the 

powers of the Commission to hold inquiries, 

it is provided in the same 

clause that the Commission may dispense 

with the formality of any inquiry 

where it considers that no substantial 

disputes of law or fact are required to 

be determined. 

A mass media service shall, if ordered 

to do so by the Commission, 

publish free of charge on the front page 

or centre spread, the full particulars or 

a summary approved by the Commission 

of a decision of a court or the 

Commission pertaining to its mass 

media service. If it is an electronic 

mass media, it must broadcast the decisions 

on three different occasions 

during prime time. 

Clause 10 seeks to substitute Section 

64 of the Act by new provisions, 

which frame the offence of “abuse of 

freedom of expression” in a manner 

that avoids any apparent conflict with 

the constitutional freedom of expression. 

It seeks to replace the reference 

to a specific maximum fine by a 

“level”, in accordance with the Criminal 

Penalties Amendment Act. 

The bill also seeks to exempt from 


registration mass media service 

founded by or under an act of Parliament 

and those services consisting of 

the activities of a person holding a license 

issued in terms of the Broadcasting 

Services Act. 

A representative of a foreign mass 

media service permitted to operate in 

Zimbabwe and publications of any 

enterprise, association, institution or 

any other person that are disseminated 

exclusively to members or employees 

are exempt from registration. In-house 

publications are not considered to be 

mass media services and are exempted 

from registration unless it is seen that 

they circulate their products to the general 

public. 

Clause 11 seeks to give permission 

to existing foreign mass media house 

owners to continue owning local mass 

media services to the extent of their 

ownership interest held on 31 January, 

2002. Any person who, at the date of 

commencement of the proposed law, 

does not qualify to be a mass media 

owner or to own shares in a mass media 

service in terms of Section 6 of the 

principal Act shall, within three 

months of the commencement of the 

proposed law, dispose of his controlling 

interest or shares, as the case may 

be, to a person who is qualified. 

The bill also seeks to amend Section 

69 of the principal Act by providing 

for a right to appeal to the Administrative 

Court a decision by the Mass 

Media Commission to refuse to register 

a mass media service. It also seeks 

to amend the Act’s Section 78, by supplying 

a definition of a “journalistic 

privilege” and clarifying the journalist’s 

rights in relation to any editing of 

his/her work that he/she considers to 

be distortive.

ZIMBABWE 


Clause 26 permits journalists who 

were accredited before the commencement 

of the principal Act to continue 

to be accredited until the end of 2002. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-10-21 

INSTITUTION(S) The media in 

Zimbabwe 


* On October 11, 2002, the Zimbabwean 

government announced its intention 

to take to parliament a Bill to 

amend the AIPPA. The amendments 

are meant to plug what the government 

calls “loopholes” in the media 

law. The Bill will, however, result in 

more powers being accorded to the 

Mass Media Commission. Many of 

the so-called “loopholes” amount to 

nothing in offering a reprieve to media 

houses and journalists. 

The proposed amendments to the 


Act (AIPPA) will result in the Media 

and Information Commission being 

firmly put in the hands of the Minister 

of Information and the strengthening 

of its repressive clauses. 

Clause 7 of the amendment Bill, to 

be taken to Parliament, will repeal 

clause 40 in the original Act, which 

stipulates that journalists’ associations 

and organizations nominate three persons 

to sit on the Commission. The 

amendment repeals this clause and 

grants the Minister the right to nominate 

all commissioners. No criteria 

have been provided on how the Minister 

would make the appointments in 

a democratic and transparent manner. 

Adding to the powers already enjoyed 

by the Commission, Clause 8 of 

the amendment Bill seeks to grant it 

further powers to issue orders. This 

amendment seeks to replace Clause 56 

of the original Act. Clauses 58 “Commission 

orders”, Clause 59, “Duty to 

comply with orders”, Clause 60, “Offences 

and Penalties” and Clause 62, 

“Definitions of Regulations of Mass 

Media”, have all been repealed. These 

clauses have been replaced with the 

consolidated Clause 8 in the amendment 

Bill. Clause 15 also repeals 

Clause 73 of the original AIPPA on 

“Accrual Rights and Duties of a Mass 

Media service owner”. 

Clause 10 of the amendment Bill 

seeks to substitute Clause 64, “Abuse 

of freedom of expression”, of the principal 

Act. The proposed change will 

read that: 

“A person registered in terms of this 

part who makes use, by any means of 

a mass media services for the purposes 

of: 

(a) Intentionally or recklessly falsifying 

information 

(b) Maliciously or fraudulently fabricating 

information; or 

(c) Publishing any statement - 

(1) Knowing it to be false or without 

having reasonable grounds for believing 

it to be true: and 

(2) Recklessly or 

(d) Committing or facilitating the 

commission of a criminal offence”. 

Clause 18 of the amendment Bill 

seeks to amend Clause 78 on “Journalists 

Privilege” from: “Subject to this 

Act and any other law a journalist shall 

have the right...”, to read, “Subject to 

this Act and any other law a journalist 

shall have the following rights”. This 

intended amendment seeks to specify 

and qualify what the Act calls “Journalistic 

Privileges”. 

Clause 80 of the principal Act on 



2002 

“Abuse of Journalist Privilege” is proposed 

to be amended by Clause 20, to 

read: “A journalist who abuses his journalistic 

privilege by - 

(a) Intentionally or recklessly falsifying 


(b) Maliciously or fraudulently fabricating 


(c) Publishing any statement 

(1) Knowing it to be false or without 

having reasonable grounds for believing 

it to be true 

(2) Recklessly or with malicious or 

fraudulent intent, representing it as 

true”. 

The words “Intentionally or recklessly” 

and “maliciously and fraudulently” 

are the proposed additions. The 

Bill seeks to repeal Section (d) of 

Clause 80, which stipulates that a journalist 

would have committed a criminal 

offence if he/she “contravenes any 

part of this Act” (AIPPA). The original 

Section 80 imposed criminal liability 

even where the reputations and 

freedoms of other parties had not been 

threatened by the so-called “falsehoods” 

and “fabrications”. The amendment 

therefore seeks to place intention 

as a prerequisite to the application of 

this law. In other words, it must be 

demonstrated that someone’s reputation, 

freedoms, rights, etc. have been 

maligned, threatened by the publication 

of a “falsehood” or a “fabrication”. 

However, journalists can still fall 

foul to the proposed amendment of 

Clause 64, on “Abuse of Freedom of 

Expression”, which still provides for 

a broad interpretation. 

Whereas the principal Act stipulates 

that foreign journalists can be accredited 

for a “short period”, the amendment 

proposes that foreign journalists 

be accredited “for any period specified 


by the commission not exceeding 30 

days”. This proposal in the Bill will, 

in other words, mean that no foreign 

journalist can report from Zimbabwe 

for a period of more than 30 days. 

Clause 2 proposes to widen the definitions 

of mass media, media services 

and journalists. The dissemination of 

information has been widened to mean 

the sale, subscription, delivery, diffusion, 

or distribution of periodically 

printed publications, audio recorded, 

electronically distributed information 

or teletext programmes. This definition 

will include such information and dissemination 

mechanisms as websites 

and cell phone text messages. A mass 

media service is proposed to be defined 

as a mass medium service and to include 

any medium or media consisting 

in transmission, circulation or distribution 

of voice, visual, data or textual 

messages to an unlimited number 

of persons and includes an advertising 

agency, publisher, production house. 

This definition is a catchall, as any 

form of publication, even by civic society 

organizations, will be covered 

under that. 

The definition of a journalist as proposed 

under Clause 2 of the Bill would 

be “a person who gathers, collects, 

edits or prepares news, stories and 

materials for a mass media service, 

whether as an employee of the service 

or as a freelancer”. Mass media service 

would mean “any service that produces 

mass media products, whether 

or not it also disseminates them”. 

Clause 6 of the amendment Bill proposes 

to make it a criminal offence to 

“deliberately falsify information to a 

public body”. This information would 

have been gathered by any public body 

and specifically by the Media and In-

ZIMBABWE 


formation Commission. This clause, in 

a way, allows the Commission and 

public bodies to attain quasi-judicial 

powers. It must be noted that under 

Zimbabwean law, any judgments and 

determinations of any matter under 

criminal law are supposed to be administered 

by the judiciary (courts) and 

its affiliate bodies. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-24 

PERSON(S) Aaron Ufumeli, Henry 

Makiwa, Trust Maswela 


A crew from “The Daily News” covering 

a demonstration by secondary 

school students was detained in a 

Harare suburb on October 21, 2002. 

The three-person crew - reporter 

Henry Makiwa, photographer Aaron 

Ufumeli and driver Trust Maswela - 

was arrested for “inciting students to 

protest”. The three were arrested while 

covering a demonstration by secondary 

school students in the high-density 

Harare suburb of Mabvuku. The students 

were seeking the reinstatement 

of their dismissed teachers. 

The crew was taken to Mabvuku 

police station, where they were detained 

for over 90 minutes. The police 

confiscated a film that Ufumeli had 

taken of the students, who were later 

tear-gassed by the police. The crew 

was not charged. State media journalists, 

which included a Zimbabwe 

Broadcasting Corporation crew, were 

not interrupted in their coverage of the 

demonstration. 

Approximately 627 teachers were 

recently dismissed by the Zimbabwean 

government for allegedly staging an 

illegal strike. Raymond Majongwe, the 

secretary general of the Progressive 

Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ), 

which called the strike, was arrested 

during the week of 14 October and 

charged under the country’s draconian 

Public Order and Security Act for “invading 

the rights of others”, after he 

allegedly called on teachers to join the 

strike. He has since been released on 

bail. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-28 

PERSON(S) Abel Mutsakani, Sydney 

Masamvu 


Minister of Information and Publicity 

Jonathan Moyo and his permanent secretary, 

George Charamba, have 

launched a scathing attack against 

“The Financial Gazette” newspaper 

and private media journalists for what 

the two called “treasonous” and “antigovernment” 

reporting. Moyo and 

Charamba have warned that the government 

“will not brook any criticism” 

and that appropriate measures will be 

taken against “errant” journalists. 

In a statement, Moyo castigated a 

front-page article that appeared in the 

October 24, 2002 edition of “The Financial 

Gazette” as “unlawful” and 

“treasonous.” Moyo dismissed the 

story, entitled “Mbeki plots Mugabe’s 

exit”, as a “fabrication.” 

“The Financial Gazette” reported 

that South African President Thabo 

Mbeki was planning to hold consultations 

with Zimbabwean President 

Robert Mugabe and the opposition 

over the crisis in Zimbabwe. The story 

further stated that Mbeki wants the 

parties to reach a compromise that 

would see Mugabe leave office in 2005 



2002 


and the opposition withdrawing court 

cases it has filed against Mugabe’s 

“victory” in the March presidential 

elections. 

Moyo alleges that the story was 

planted in the newspaper by British 

intelligence operatives and was also 

meant to mislead voters in a 26 and 27 

October by-election in a rural constituency. 

The minister called the author of 

the story, “Financial Gazette” news 

editor Abel Mutsakani, a “sell out, 

whose association with opposition 

politics and anti- Zimbabwean conduct 

was self evident.” 

In another statement, Charamba 

took a swipe at the political editor of 

“The Financial Gazette”, Sydney 

Masamvu, for his opinion piece in 

which he likened the Zimbabwean regime 

to Al Qaeda. Charamba said the 

article “compromised a democratically 

elected government”, “[breached] the 

country’s laws” and was a 

“criminalisation of the country’s democracy.” 

The headline of the opinion article 

read, “Life under Mugabe’s ‘Al Qaeda’ 

regime”. Charamba said the government 

would “take appropriate measures” 

once it is through with “consultations.” 

He further threatened that 

“any players within the journalism fraternity 

who choose to interpret their 

roles outside the binding requirements, 

and who wish even to goad, provoke 

and demonise government for whatever 

reasons, would quite naturally 

draw a deserved response in fitting 

amounts.” 

Charamba accused Masamvu of 

seeking to incite the people to rise 

against Mugabe’s “legitimate” government 

in his article. 

“The Financial Gazette” is a business 

and political newspaper. The national 

weekly is reported to have a 

print-run of approximately 40 000 copies. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-28 

PERSON(S) Blessing Zulu, 

Pedzisai Ruhanya 


Blessing Zulu, a reporter with the 

“Zimbabwe Independent”, and 

Pedzisai Ruhanya, chief reporter of 

“The Daily News”, were threatened 

by police when they went to cover the 

funeral of an opposition Member of 

Parliament (MP), Learnmore Jongwe, 

in Harare. Jongwe died in remand 

prison on October 22, 2002. 

The two reporters were visiting the 

home of the deceased MP when 30 

police officers, led by one Inspector 

Dowa, of the Law and Order Section, 

arrived at the residence brandishing 

guns. A scuffle ensued between the 

police and youth activists from the 

opposition Movement for Democratic 

Change (MDC), as the officers forced 

their way into the house. 

When Zulu and Ruhanya approached 

Dowa for a comment on the 

purpose of the police’s visit, the inspector 

threatened to arrest and shoot the 

journalists if they wrote about the incident. 

“If you write anything about 

what has transpired here, I will not 

hesitate to arrest you and shoot you 

afterwards,” Dowa reportedly said. 

Simon Jongwe, the deceased MP’s 

younger brother, told the reporters that 

the purpose of the police’s visit was 

unclear. “Initially they said they 

wanted to search the house for two 

murder suspects,” Jongwe said.

ZIMBABWE 


Learnmore Jongwe was an MP for 

the opposition MDC. He represented 

the high-density Harare suburb of 

Kuwadzana. He was arrested in July 

for the alleged murder of his wife in a 

domestic dispute and died in remand 

prison on October 22. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-10-28 



Joseph Mwale, a member of Zimbabwe’s 

Central Intelligence Organization 

(CIO), has declared 

Chimanimani, a plantation and farming 

region in eastern Zimbabwe, off 

limits to the private media. The move 

has forced a private company, Radar 

Holdings, to cancel a planned media 

tour of plantations that were gutted 

by fire. 

Radar Holdings, which owns several 

plantations in the area, was planning 

an aerial media tour of its plantations, 

in order to demonstrate the extent 

of the damage that was done by a 

raging fire that occurred on 25 September, 

2002. Illegal settlers are believed 

to have set 14 000 hectares of 

pine and gum trees on fire as they prepared 

their pieces of land. 

Border Timbers Limited (BTL), the 

subsidiary company that manages the 

plantations, told the “Zimbabwe Independent” 

that the tour was cancelled 

for security reasons. 

“Mwale denied permission for the 

flight, on allegations that it would bring 

in private media reporters who would 

report negatively on the situation,” 

BTL Managing Director John 

Gadzikwa said. “He warned us that if 

the tour went ahead, it would do so at 

the risk of the passengers aboard. We 

had no option but to shelve the tour,” 

Gadzikwa explained. 

Mwale is a notorious CIO agent who 

was implicated in the 2000 murder of 

opposition activists Talent Mabika and 

Tichaona Chiminya. Although the 

High Court had earlier directed the 

Attorney General to indict Mwale, 

nothing has happened to date. 

Mwale was also instrumental in the 

arrest and detention of Peta 

Thornycroft, a correspondent for the 

British “Daily Telegraph”, in 

Chimanimani on March 27. 

BTL estimates its losses at approximately 

US$168 million in the fire that 

gutted the trees. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-10-30 

PERSON(S): Geoff Nyarota, Lloyd 

Mudiwa 


The Zimbabwean government has 

conceded that Section 80 of the Access 


Privacy Act (AIPPA) is unconstitutional, 

“The Daily News” reported on 

29 October 2002. The government introduced 

the 2002 Access to Information 


Amendment Bill in order to improve 

and correct certain anomalies and errors 

that have come to the Department 

of Information and Publicity’s attention 

since the AIPPA became law. 

Both Geoff Nyarota, editor-in-chief 

of “The Daily News”, and Lloyd 

Mudiwa, the newspaper’s municipal 

reporter, are being charged under Section 

80 of the AIPPA for allegedly 

abusing their journalistic privilege by 



2002 

publishing falsehoods. Despite the 

government’s admission that Section 

80 is unconstitutional, on 28 October, 

the Attorney General’s Office instructed 

that Nyarota and Mudiwa be 

further remanded until 27 February 

2003. Initially the state had undertaken 

to either provide them with a trial date 

or to remove them from formal remand 

when they last appeared at the Harare 

Magistrates’ Court on 23 July 2002. 

Fatima Maxwell, the senior public 

prosecutor for the Eastern Region, admitted 

she had not read the bill amending 

the AIPPA and noted that she had 

been instructed by her superiors to 

have the journalists’ case further remanded. 

Advocate Chris Andersen had successfully 

applied for the journalists’ 

case to be referred to the Supreme 

Court on 23 July, to test its constitutionality. 

Andersen argued that Section 

80 of the AIPPA failed to define journalistic 

privilege and falsehood, and 

did not specify that intent was a prerequisite 

for the offence. 

Clause 20 of the amendment bill 

seeks to substitute Section 80 because 

it is “ultra vires” the Zimbabwean 

Constitution. “The new provision proposes 

to frame the offence of ‘abuse 

of journalistic privilege’ in a manner 

that avoids any apparent conflict with 

the constitutional [guarantee of] freedom 

of expression,” the clause reads. 

The clause also seeks to reduce the 

maximum fine of Z$200,000 (approx. 

US$3,600) that can be imposed on a 

person convicted of the offence to 

Z$80,000 (approx. US$1,400). However, 

the maximum two-year jail term 

will remain. 

The proposed substitution reads: “A 

journalist who abuses his journalistic 


privilege by intentionally or recklessly 

falsifying information, or maliciously 

or fraudulently fabricating information, 

or publishing any statement 

knowing it to be false or without having 

reasonable grounds for believing 

it to be true and recklessly, or with 

malicious or fraudulent intent, representing 

it as a true statement, or committing 

or facilitating the commission 

of a criminal offence shall be guilty of 

an offence.” 

Nyarota and Mudiwa are among 

several journalists who were arrested 

following the publication of a April 23 

article in which “The Daily News” reported 

that two young girls had witnessed 


in the rural area of Magunje, allegedly 

by Zimbabwe African National Union- 

Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) supporters. 

In a April 27 front-page article, “The 

Daily News” apologised to the ruling 

ZANU-PF party and to the government 

after it was revealed that the victim’s 

husband may have misled the 

newspaper. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-11-20 



On November 18, 2002, Minister of 

Information and Publicity Jonathan 

Moyo verbally attacked the private 

media for what he called its “anti-nation” 

and “anti-government” reporting. 

Moyo, who was addressing army 

officers in Harare, said that the private 

media, especially “The Daily News” 

newspaper, was being used by Western 

powers to attack the government, 

the country’s values and traditions.

ZIMBABWE 


“They are opposed to the history of the 

nation, they are opposed to the values 

of the nation. They are anti-nation,” 

said Moyo. “This has put us in conflict 

with certain interests. It survives 

on sponsored criticism. It is a paper, 

which became the voice of farmers. It 

distorted the whole land issue saying 

the land issue was disorderly and that 

it was not done according to the rule 

of law,” said the minister. 

Moyo said “The Daily News” was 

obsessed with criticising the government 

and turned a blind eye to any 

wrongdoing or shortcomings of the 

British government. “They never ever, 

ever find any wrong with the British, 

never find any wrong with the white 

world who criticise the Zimbabwean 

leadership,” said Moyo. 

Moyo added that the government 

could not defend Zimbabwe’s sovereignty 

without laws such as the Access 


Privacy Act (AIPPA). He stated that 

the AIPPA had brought “sanity” into 

the media industry as some Zimbabwean 

journalists were being used in 

a conspiracy to topple the government. 

Moyo also outlined the government’s 

stance on the state-owned media. 

He said that, “They are allowed to 

make their own editorial decisions and 

if they are going to criticise the government 

they should criticise what they 

know. We see them not as a government 

media but a national media,” said 

Moyo. 

However, he pointed out that the 

reason why the government invested 

in the media at independence in 1980 

was to safeguard the media from colonial 

apartheid media institutions. 

“There was no way we could allow our 

national media to be controlled by 

apartheid media institutions,” he said. 

UPDATE 

DATE: 2002-11-25 


Journalists Association of Zimbabwe 

(IJAZ) 


On November 21, 2002, the Supreme 

Court reserved judgment in a case in 

which the Independent Journalists 

Association of Zimbabwe (IJAZ) is 

challenging certain clauses of the 


of Privacy Act (AIPPA). 

The full bench of the Supreme 

Court, which sat to hear the constitutional 

matter, said that it would need 

time to read the lawyers’ submissions. 

The court did not confirm when the 

judgment would be delivered. 

IJAZ is challenging the constitutionality 

of Sections 79, 80, 83 and 85 of 

the AIPPA. The journalists’ body contends 

that these sections, which prescribe 

compulsory registration of journalists 

and also spell out punitive 

measures for journalists who break a 

code of conduct and write falsehoods, 

are unconstitutional, as they violate 

freedom of expression. IJAZ cited Information 

and Publicity Minister 

Jonathan Moyo, Media and Information 

Commission (MIC) Chairperson 

Tafataona Mahoso and Attorney General 

Andrew Chigovera as the respondents. 

IJAZ, which is being represented by 

Sternford Moyo, argued that journalists 

are being forced to register with 

the MIC, yet the Minister will determine 

at a later stage who qualifies to 

practice as a journalist. Sternford 

Moyo added that journalists are being 



2002 

forced to register before they know the 

code of conduct that will guide them. 

“It is like being forced to enter a house 

without knowing whether you are going 

to be whipped or given food,” said 

Sternford Moyo. 

Sternford Moyo added that Section 

80, which deals with the publication 

of falsehoods, is excessively broad, to 

the extent of penalising stories such as 

“April Fools’ Day” jokes. 

In his interventions during the proceedings, 

Chief Justice Godfrey 

Chidyausiku asked state lawyer 

Johannes Tomana to explain and justify 

to the court why the Minister of 

State for Information and Publicity is 

given “so much power”. Tomana tried 

to trace the history of the law and link 

it with what he termed “irresponsible 

journalism”, to which the bench reminded 

him to relate what he was saying 

to the constitutionality of the law. 

“You are not relating to the constitutionality 

of the relevant sections,” 

said Justice Malaba. “There is [a] need 

to regulate, but it has to be regulation 

within the law. What you need to demonstrate 

to us is whether it has been 

done professionally,” said Chief Justice 

Chidyausiku. 

Chidyausiku challenged the state 

lawyers to justify why the law makes 

the publication of a falsehood a criminal 

offence when there is no complainant, 

as opposed to dealing with the 

matter as an ethical issue of misconduct. 

Tomana conceded that, where there 

was no complainant the law could not 

be said to be protecting the rights and 

reputations of persons and that the 

wording does not specifically mention 

the interests to be protected under the 

act. Justice Ziyambi noted that Section 


80 (1) of the act deems a journalist 

guilty of an offence as opposed to being 

innocent until proven guilty. 

On November 21, the Zimbabwe 

Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) reported 

that the government had expressed 

disappointment with the Attorney 

General for failing to draft the 

media law “correctly” and failing to 

defend the government in many cases 

that have come before the courts in 

recent months. However, it is widely 

believed that the Attorney General had 

little if any input into the media law. 

The Department of Information and 

Publicity was largely involved in this 

process. 

ALERT 

DATE: 2002-12-04 

INSTITUTION(S): Bornwell 

Chakaodza, Farai Mutsaka, 

Fungayi Kanyuchi 


On December 4, 2002, a major victory 

for press freedom in Zimbabwe 

was won when a Harare magistrate 

dropped charges against three journalists 

from “The Standard”. The three 

journalists were accused of publishing 

falsehoods under the draconian 


of Privacy Act (AIPPA). 

Editor Bornwell Chakaodza, senior 

reporter Farai Mutsaka and entertainment 

editor Fungayi Kanyuchi, all 

from “The Standard”, were arrested on 

May 16. Chakaodza and Mutsaka were 

charged for publishing a story revealing 

that the government had bought 

heavy anti-riot gear from Israeli arms 

manufacturer Beit Alfa Trailer. The 

government disputed the story despite 

confirmation from then Israeli foreign

ZIMBABWE 


minister Shimon Peres. 

Chakaodza, along with Kanyuchi, 

also faced charges over a story that 

highlighted “sex for freedom deals” 

involving members of the police force 

and prostitutes in Harare. The three 

journalists, who had been on conditional 

bail since May, applied to have 

the charges dropped if the state failed 

to set a trial date by December 4. 

In granting the application, Magistrate 

Garikayi Churu stated that the 

state could proceed by way of summons, 

if the need arose. 

Soon after leaving the Magistrates’ 

Court, Chakaodza stated, “There was 

never any case at all. 

It was just sheer political harassment 

and a waste of time and money for both 

ourselves, the police and the state.” 

“However, this represents yet another 

major defeat for [Information 

Minister] Jonathan Moyo and very 

soon he will have nowhere to run. It 

also marks yet another milestone in 

our quest to emancipate the Zimbabwean 

media from the jaws of oppression,” 

he noted with delight. 

Earlier this year, the government 

enacted the AIPPA, which requires all 

journalists and media houses to be licenced 

by the Information Minister. 

The law also criminalises journalism 

by stating that anyone who publishes 

a story which is deemed to be inaccurate 

by the government could face 

imprisonment. 

Since its inception, the law has been 

used to victimise journalists from the 

independent media. Thus far, 12 independent 

media journalists have 

been arrested under the AIPPA. 

The Independent Journalists Association 

of Zimbabwe (IJAZ) is challenging 

the constitutionality of the 

AIPPA in the Supreme Court. 



Selected press statements issued by the MISA 

Secretariat and chapters during 2002 

INTERNATIONAL STATEMENTS • PRESS RELEASES • LETTERS OF APPEAL 

Letter of Appeal 

January 18, 2002 

TOPIC: Deteriorating press freedom situation in Zimbabwe 

Mr Kofi Annan 

United Nations Secretary-General 

C/o Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General 

United Nations, S-378 

New York, NY 10017 

Dear Sir, 

It is with increasing trepidation that the Media Institute of Southern Africa 

(MISA) registers its condemnation of the recent passing by the Parliament of 

Zimbabwe of the Public Order and Security Bill. The Zimbabwe Government 

has also released the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill which 

is expected to be debated in Parliament soon. It is MISA’s contention that each 

of the Bills seeks to severely curtail the workings of the already beleaguered 

independent media in that country. MISA urges the United Nations to persuade 

the Zimbabwean Government to reverse the mentioned bills and calls for an 

urgent return to the rule of law in the country. 

MISA protests these Bills for the following reasons: 

• They impose excessive restrictions on the content of what the media may 

publish or broadcast; 

• They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government- controlled 

body; 

• They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products, 

including video and audio recordings, to obtain a registration certificate from a 

government-controlled body; 

• They specify that all foreign-dominated ownership of the media is prohibited 

and non-citizens are prohibited from working as journalists; and 

• They endow the authorities with excessive powers to prevent demonstrations. 

2002 

MISA issued no less than 33 alerts on different forms of media violations against 

the independent media in Zimbabwe during 2001. These violations ranged from 

a bomb attack on a news organisation, to the arrest and detention of individual 

journalists, verbal and physical attacks on journalists by both the government 



and its supporters and, possibly most worrying, a barrage of threats of violence 

and incarceration against news organisations and individual journalists that have 

served to psychologically cripple the news media. 

The threats uttered against the independent newspaper “The Daily News” on 

January 23, 2001, by members of the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic 

Front (ZANU-PF) as they marched through the street of Harare, did in no 

way prepare the Zimbabwean or international media fraternity for the bomb 

attack on the offices of that newspaper just five days later. 

Two days prior to the bomb attack, ZANU-PF supporters and members of the 

so-called war veterans publicly declared ‘war’ against “The Daily News” in 

two towns outside Harare for alleged “unpatriotic coverage” of national issues. 

The protesters pounced on newspaper vendors and confiscated copies of the 

newspaper, burning the copies in front of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation 

(ZBC) TV cameras. 

On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean Government expelled 

two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan Mercedes 

Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited immigrants 

never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set the scene for a 

gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign correspondents 

covering news events in Zimbabwe. 

On the legislative environment, the Zimbabwean Government on April 3, 2001, 

passed into law the controversial Broadcasting Services Bill 2001, as ZANU- 

PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee. 

The Committee declared some sections of the broadcasting regulations 

as unconstitutional but the Speaker of the House dismissed the report on a technicality. 

The Broadcasting Act, among others, hinders opposition parties from 

broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister of Information and 

Publicity excessive powers, while controlling any prospective independent broadcast 

stations. 

The human rights climate created by the ZANU-PF government in Zimbabwe 

leaves much to be desired and places in jeopardy any possibility of free and fair 

elections expected to take place on March 9 and 10 this year. In response to the 

media violations in August 2001, Asma Jahangir (Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, 

Summary or Arbitrary Executions) and Abid Hussein (Special Rapporteur 

on Freedom of Opinion and Expression) of the United Nations Commission 

on Human Rights expressed their extreme concern about reports of 

death threats against five Zimbabwean journalists who have “publicly denounced 

the repeated violations of press freedom in their country”. In a communication 

to the Zimbabwean Government on August 22, 2001, the Special Rapporteurs 

refer to allegations that these journalists appear on a hit list compiled by the 



Law and Order Section of the Police and the Central Intelligence Organisation. 

The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression then sent a 

request to the Zimbabwean Government to undertake an official visit to the 

country on September 25, 2001. On October 2, 2001, the ambassador of Zimbabwe 

in Geneva sent a reply indicating that he would forward the letter to the 

“relevant authorities in Harare” for feedback. To this day, no feedback to this 

request has been received. We request that your office secures the visit of the 

Special Rapporteur to Zimbabwe as already requested by his office. 

MISA would like to call on the United Nations to hold the Zimbabwe Government 

accountable to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19) 

which states that “everyone has the freedom of opinion and expression; this 

right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive 

and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”. 

Similarly, the UNESCO Windhoek Declaration of 1991 calls for the “establishment, 

maintenance, and fostering of an independent, pluralistic, and free 

press … essential to the development and maintenance of democracy in a nation, 

and for economic development”. Furthermore, the UN General Assembly 

Resolution 59 states that “freedom of information is a fundamental human right 

and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated”. 

MISA would further like to call on the United Nations to impress upon the 

Zimbabwean Government that the fundamental importance of the right to freedom 

of expression, including of the media, is central to the protection of equality 

and democracy. The respect for freedom of expression and information ensures 

that all citizens have access to information, a prerequisite to the forming 

of opinions and making of informed decisions. 

Yours sincerely 

Luckson A Chipare, Regional Director 

Signed on behalf of MISA by: 

Ann Cooper, Executive Director 

Committee to Protect Journalists 




2002 

The Right Honourable Don Mckinnon 

The Secretary General 

Commonwealth 

Marlborough House 



Pall Mall, 

London SW1Y 5HX 

Dear Sir, 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), notes that the Commonwealth 

Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) decided to include discussions on the situation 

in Zimbabwe at its next meeting on January 30, 2002. It is our hope that the 

CMAG will seek concrete ways of ensuring that the promises given by the 

Zimbabwe Government to the Commonwealth are realised. The Commonwealth 

should seek ways of verifying the veracity of official reports given by the government 

as our experience indicates that the situation on the ground is worsening 

as we draw closer to the March 2002 Presidential elections. 

MISA wishes to restate its earlier appeal, outlined in a letter to your office dated 

January 18, 2002. MISA then expressed its concern over the crises in Zimbabwe 

and appealed for urgent intervention in halting the rapidly deteriorating 

socio-political situation in Zimbabwe, which is a member of the Commonwealth. 

In our appeal, we made special reference to the passage of the infamous Public 

Order and Security Bill on January 10, 2002, and the imminent passage of the 

repressive Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill. 

The Zimbabwean Government has since seemingly given in to international 

pressure by introducing 36 amendments to the Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Bill which were released on January 22. As we write, consideration 

of the bill has been delayed to allow the Parliamentary Legal Committee 

more time to assess it. 

However, further analysis of the amendments show that they are purely cosmetic. 

Despite the amendments, journalists are still required to obtain licences 

and face a possible 2 years’ imprisonment for spreading ‘false news’. Extensive 

powers over the media and journalists continue to be wielded by the proposed 

Media and Information Commission, a body firmly under government control. 

Despite its title, the Bill does little to guarantee the public’s right to access 

information held by public authorities. The Bill does formally establish a right 

to access information held by public bodies, but this right is so limited by exclusions 

and exceptions that its practical impact is likely to be extremely limited. 

Most of the provisions in the Bill have nothing to do with access to information 

but instead impose a range of harsh restrictions on media freedom. Although 

the amendments do slightly mitigate these criticisms, our main concerns with 

the Bill remain and, in its current form, the Bill still represents a very serious 

breach of the right to freedom of expression and opinion. 

The seemingly government recapitulation on the Access to Information and 



Protection of Privacy Bill, was largely negated when President Mugabe signed 

into law the Public Order and Security Bill last week. If the Zimbabwe Government 

had been genuine in its intentions, the President would have sent back the 

bill to parliament rather than sign it into law. 

This Act gives the government sweeping powers to clamp down on the opposition 

and the media. Among others, it fines anyone who “undermines the 

authority of the president” or “engenders hostility towards him” through speech 

or publication. The new law also bans assemblies, including “spontaneous 

meetings”, held without police permission and restores a former law requiring 

people to carry identification at all times. Furthermore, this new Act appears 

to be more repressive than the 1960 Rhodesian Law and Order Maintenance 

Act (LOMA) which it has replaced. 

MISA is of the opinion that the Zimbabwean Government has yet to demonstrate 

an authentic attempt to honour the principles of democracy and good 

governance, as is desired by the Commonwealth. The Zimbabwean government 

continues its campaign of suppression of free speech, arrest and beatings 

of media practitioners and members of civil society. The sale of privately 

owned newspapers like the Daily News, The Financial Gazette, The Independent 

and The Standard has been banned by the government supported socalled 

war veterans in some parts of the country. 

One such way of verification of the situation existing on the ground in the 

country is through the immediate deployment of any observer mission. This 

observer mission should be adequately resourced to enable it to cover the 

whole country and to work independently of government. Its members should 

be allowed unfettered access to all parts of the country including occupied 

farms. The mission should be allowed to work in Zimbabwe before, during 

and after the presidential elections. The mission should also look into the 

interference of the operations of the media by the political parties and government 

agents. 

We wish to urge your good office to persuade President Robert Mugabe and 

his government immediately to allow the media, including foreign correspondence, 

to work in the country, covering the current campaign for the presidential 

elections and to continue reporting during and after the elections. It is our 

view that this would enable the complete coverage of the election process as 

expected in a democracy. 

2002 

We further call on you for support for a separate initiative to put together a 

Media Monitoring Team that will specifically monitor news coverage with an 

emphasis on the observation of standard journalism ethics such as impartiality, 

avoidance of inflammatory language, right of reply and verification of 

information before publishing. 



And again we restate our appeal to the Commonwealth to proactively participate 

in efforts aimed at promoting freedom of expression, opinion, information 

and association and restoring the rule of law in Zimbabwe and to add its voice 

to echoes from national, regional and international communities. 

Yours sincerely, 





The President 

Council of the European Union 

Jose Maria Aznar 

Honorable President of the European Council, 

The Media Institute of Southern African appeals to the European Union community 

to take immediate action to reverse the deteriorating human rights and 

media freedom situation in Zimbabwe. 

MISA is concerned that despite undertakings made by the Zimbabwean Authorities 

at the consultative meeting held on January 11th, 2002 between the 

European Union, SADC country representatives and a Zimbabwean delegation 

led by The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Dr. I.S.G Mudenge, the 

Government of Zimbabwe continues to pass and present to Parliament repressive 

legislation that is eroding any chance of independent media coverage 

of the unfolding events in Zimbabwe. 

MISA urges the European Union to take concerted action to hold the Zimbabwean 

Government to the January 11th agreement. 

The Bills that have been passed or are being considered by Parliament in 

Zimbabwe are constructing a legal environment for a rule of law that is in 

itself a framework for civil crisis and conflict in Zimbabwe. Of particular 

concern to MISA is that laws such as the Public Order and Security Act, 

(passed) and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill before 

Parliament afford powers that effectively legalise the on-going harassment of 

journalists and blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined right to 

freedom of expression. 

Violations of media freedom in Zimbabwe have been escalating for some 

time and have reached the point where an unambiguous stand must be taken 

to restore the basic tenets of democracy and human rights. We would like to 



bring to your attention the recent events that illustrate the state sponsored 

systematic attacks on the free flow of independent information. Recorded 

incidents clearly indicate that the situation on the ground is worsening and 

that despite public statements and agreements the Government of Zimbabwe 

is continuing with its campaign of atrocities designed to stifle independent 

commentary and deny citizens balanced information with which to participate 

in the forthcoming election. 

MISA issued no less than 33 alerts on different forms of media violations 

against the independent media in Zimbabwe during 2001. These violations 

ranged from a bomb attack on a news organisation, to the arrest and detention 

of individual journalists, verbal and physical attacks on journalists by both 

the government and its supporters and, possibly most worrying, a barrage of 

threats of violence and incarceration against news organisations and individual 

journalists that have served to psychologically cripple the news media. 


February 23, 2001, by members of the Zimbabwe African National Union 

Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) as they marched through the street of Harare, did 

in no way prepare the Zimbabwean or international media fraternity for the 

bomb attack on the offices of that newspaper just five days later. 




The protesters pounced on newspaper vendors and confiscated copies of 

the newspaper, burning the copies in front of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting 

Corporation (ZBC) TV cameras. 

On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean Government 

expelled two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan 

Mercedes Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited 

immigrants never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set 

the scene for a gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign 

correspondents covering news events in Zimbabwe. 

2002 



PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal 

Committee. The Committee declared some sections of the broadcasting regulations 

as unconstitutional but the Speaker of the House dismissed the report 

on a technicality. The Broadcasting Act, among others, hinders opposition 

parties from broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister of 

Information and Publicity excessive powers, while controlling any prospective 

independent broadcast stations. 



Today, across the Southern African Development Community, MISA members 

and supporting organisations have come out in numbers to protest the 

passing of the Public Order and Security Act and the consideration of the 

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill which together impose 

wide-ranging restrictions on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. 

MISA protests these bills for the following reasons: 



• They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government-controlled 

body; 

• They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products, 

including video and audio recordings to obtain a registration certificate from a 

government-controlled body; 




Under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, the Minister 

of Information is afforded great powers as the appointing authority of the 

Media and Information Commission. This Commission will, among others: 

• receive and act upon comments from the public about the administration 

and performance of the media in Zimbabwe; 

• comment on the implications of proposed legislation or programmes of public 

bodies on access to information and protection of privacy; 

• receive and evaluate, and consider applications for registration as a journalist; 

• accredit all journalists; 

• enforce professional and ethical standards in the media; 

• authorise the collection of personal information from sources other than the 

person to whom the information relates; 

• monitor the media and raise public awareness of the media 

• register mass media in Zimbabwe 

• investigate and resolve complaints 

• perform any powers or function that the Minister may, from time to time, 

prescribe as a power and function of the Commission. 

The situation in Zimbabwe has broader ramifications for regional and international 

co-operation because it diminishes the plausibility of positive regional 

initiatives such as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). 

We urge you as President of the Council of the European Union to implement 

all necessary action to at a minimum hold the Government of Zimbabwe to its 



own undertakings with the EU, and to make concerted efforts to restore a 

democratic environment for the people of Zimbabwe. 


Luckson Chipare, Regional director, MISA 

Press Statement 


TOPIC: Statement on the deteriorating press freedom situation in 

Zimbabwe 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) strongly condemns the passing 

of a series of legislation in Zimbabwe, designed to control the media and repress 

independent reporting in the run-up to the 2002 presidential elections. 

Today, throughout the Southern African Development Community MISA members 

and supporting organisations have come out in numbers to protest the passing 

of the Public Order and Security Act and the imminent passage of the Access to 

Information and Protection of Privacy Bill which together impose wide-ranging 

restrictions on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. 

MISA condemns the attempt of the Zimbabwean government to pass these repressive 

bills in an effort to legalise its on-going harassment of journalists and 

its blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined freedom of expression. 

We, along with the rest of the world, have witnessed a frightening deterioration 

in respect of the rule of law in Zimbabwe and the flow of information from and 

into Zimbabwe. 

MISA protests these bills for the following reasons: 



• They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government controlled 

body; 

• They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products or 

even video or audio recordings to obtain a registration certificate from a government 

controlled body; 




2002 

MISA also denounces the ongoing and intensifying victimisation of media 

practitioners and violations of media freedoms in that country. In 2001 alone, 

MISA witnessed an intensified campaign to clamp down on the media and 



independent reporting. Herewith a few of the many incidents reported on by 

MISA in 2001: 








The threats uttered against the independent newspaper, The Daily News, on 

February 23, 2001, by members of the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic 




Two days prior to the bomb attack ZANU-PF supporters and members of the 






On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean government 

expelled two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan 

Mercedes Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited 

immigrants never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set 

the scene for a gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign 

correspondents covering political issues in Zimbabwe. 

On the legislative environment, the Zimbabwean government on April 3, 2001 

passed into law the controversial Broadcasting Services Bill 2001 as ZANU- 

PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal 

Committee. The Committee declared some sections of the broadcasting regulations 

as unconstitutional but the Speaker of the House dismissed the report 

on a technicality. The Broadcasting Bill, among others, hinders opposition 

parties from broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister of 

Information and Publicity excessive powers while controlling any prospective 

independent broadcast stations. 

MISA therefore appeals to: 

• The Southern African Development Community (SADC) to put in place a 

mechanism to ensure that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe adheres to 



his promises to enable an environment that is conducive to free expression and 

a respect of the right of media practitioners to operate without hindrance. MISA 

welcomed and commended SADC governments on the signing of the SADC 

Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport which commits these governments 

to securing and promoting the free flow of information in the SADC region. 

• MISA believes in the rule of law and the separation of powers as internationally 

accepted norms of a democratic system of government. We therefore 

appeal to the African Unity (AU), as the custodian of the African Charter on 

Human and Peoples’ Rights, to ensure democracy reigns in Zimbabwe. Articles 

9 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, respectively 

guarantee every individual the right to receive information and to express 

and disseminate his opinions within the law, as well as the right to assemble 

freely with others. 

• MISA appeals to the Commonwealth Secretariat to ensure that the January 30, 

2002 meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group considers concrete 

action to ensure that promises made by the Zimbabwe Government are 

realised. The CMAG should verify the official information given by the government 

and make room for representations from civic society groups regarding 

the current situation obtaining in the country. 

• MISA appeals to the European Union community to take the strongest stand 

in opposition of the deteriorating human rights and media freedom situation 

in Zimbabwe. 

• MISA appeals to the United Nations to call a special session of the Security 

Council to debate and seek to resolve the democratic crises currently facing 

millions of Zimbabweans. 

We therefore call on President Mugabe and his government to repeal the Public 

Order and Security Act, to desist from passing the Access to Information and 

Protection of Privacy Bill and for the government and its supporters to summarily 

stop all harassment of journalists and media institutions. 

Released by: 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) 

21 Johann Albrecht Street 



Tel: +264 61 232975 

Fax: +264 61 248016 

E-mail: director@misa.org 

2002 

Enquiries: 


Luckson Chipare, Regional Director


STATEMENTS • PRESS RELEASES • LETTERS OF APPEAL TO THE 

AFRICAN UNION (AU) 




Mr Amara Essy 

The Secretary General 

African Union 

Addis Ababa 

Ethiopia 

Dear Sir, 

We, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), wish to appeal to your 

good office to urgently intervene in halting the rapidly deteriorating socio-political 

situation in Zimbabwe, which became a member of the African Union at 

its inception in 2001. 

We would like to bring to your attention those recent developments in Zimbabwe 

which merit the concern of all African leaders, institutions, the countries 

they represent and the citizens of this continent. The time has come to take an 

unambiguous stand on the situation in Zimbabwe and to use the instruments 

available to the African Union to orchestrate a concerted effort to restore the 

rule of law in Zimbabwe. 

The government of Zimbabwe is currently engaging in blatant violations of 

media and human rights through harassment, arrest and beatings of media practitioners 

and members of civil society. These activities are now being legalised 

through the passing of repressive laws like the Public Order and Security Act 

and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill. 

We believe that an attack on the media is an attack on the values that underpin 

the grand ideals of democracy and good governance that are the bedrock of the 

African Union. 

The actions of the Zimbabwean government and the worsening political conditions 

in that country is putting in jeopardy the New African Initiative, that is 

partly being spearheaded by the AU, which aim to reverse the African image as 

a doom continent and rejuvenate its political, economic and social condition to 

prosperity and development. 

We therefore, wish to urge your good office to persuade President Robert Mugabe 

and his government not to irretrievably reverse these gains of democracy that 



are being realised through African renaisance and the progress made by African 

countries who are driven by a genuine interest of entrenching democracy and 

good governance in the best interest of their peoples. 

We would like to urge the AU to proactively participate in efforts aimed at 

restoring rule of law in Zimbabwe and to add its voice to echoes from national, 

regional and international communities. 

Sincerely 


REGIONAL STATEMENTS • PRESS RELEASES • LETTERS OF APPEAL 

IN THE SOUTHERN AFRICA DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY (SADC) 




Chairperson of the Southern Africa Development Community, 

President Bakili Muluzi, 

Private Bag 0095, 

Gaborone, Botswana 

LETTER OF APPEAL ON THE DETERORIATING 

PRESS FREEDOM SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) appeals to the Southern African 

Development Community Heads of State to urgently take a strong stand against 

the continued human rights and media freedom violations in Zimbabwe. 

MISA urges the SADC Heads of State to call on the Government of Zimbabwe 

to halt the passing of a series of legislation in Zimbabwe, designed to control 

the media and repress independent reporting in the run-up to the 2002 presidential 

elections. MISA implores the Heads of States to denounce the ongoing and 

intensifying victimisation of media practitioners and violations of media 

freedoms in that country. 

2002 

MISA is concerned about the attempts by the Zimbabwean Government to pass 

these repressive bills in an effort to legalise its on-going harassment of journalists 

and its blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined freedom of expression. 

We, along with the rest of the world, have witnessed a frightening 

deterioration in respect of the rule of law in Zimbabwe and the flow of information 

from and into Zimbabwe. 

Violations of media freedom in Zimbabwe have been escalating for some time 



and have reached the point where an unambiguous stand must be taken to restore 

the basic tenets of democracy and human rights. We would like to bring to 

your attention the recent events that illustrate the state sponsored systematic 

attacks on the free flow of independent information. Recorded incidents clearly 

indicate that the situation on the ground is worsening and that despite public 

statements and agreements the Government of Zimbabwe is continuing with its 

campaign of atrocities designed to stifle independent commentary and deny 

citizens balanced information with which to participate in the forthcoming election. 









February 23, 2001, by members of the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic 










On February 20, 2001 the world watched as the Zimbabwean Government expelled 

two foreign journalists, Joseph Winter (BBC) and Uruguayan Mercedes 

Sayagues (Mail&Guardian) from the country, declaring them prohibited immigrants 

never to be allowed in Zimbabwe again. This incident set the scene for a 

gradually tightening grip on the freedoms allowed to foreign correspondents 

covering news events in Zimbabwe. 



PF legislators rejected a second adverse report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee. 

The Committee declared some sections of the broadcasting regulations 

as unconstitutional but the Speaker of the House dismissed the report on a technicality. 

The Broadcasting Act, among others, hinders opposition parties from 

broadcasting freely during elections and gives the Minister of Information 



and Publicity excessive powers, while controlling any prospective independent 

broadcast stations. 

MISA is expresses these concerns because Zimbabwe is an important member 

of the SADC. During the SADC Extraordinary Summit in Blantyre, January 

14, 2002 President Mugabe assured Heads of State of his commitment to 

freedom of expression in his country. He also reaffirmed the practice of allowing 

national and international journalists to cover important national events, 

including elections. The SADC Heads of State should regard the on-going 

consideration of the much disputed media bill by the Zimbabwean Parliament 

as an outright provocation that is counter to the January 14th statements. Additionally, 

MISA urges the SADC to hold President Mugabe’s Government 

accountable to those commitments. 

Today, in 10 Southern Africa countries, MISA members and supporting organisations 

are coming out in numbers to protest the consideration of the 

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill and the passing of the 

Public Order and Security Act which both impose wide-ranging restrictions 

on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. MISA is appealing to the Heads of 

State to give support to this protest. 

MISA protests these bills because they impose excessive restrictions on the 

content of what the media may publish or broadcast; they call for all journalists 

to obtain accreditation from a government controlled body; they specify that all 

foreign-dominated ownership of the media is prohibited and non-citizens are 

prohibited from working as journalists; and they endow the authorities with 

excessive powers to stifle and violate media freedom in Zimbabwe. 

MISA therefore appeals to Heads of State of the Governments of the Southern 

African Development Community (SADC) to ask President Mugabe to reaffirm 

his commitment to freedom of expression. MISA welcomed and 

commended SADC Heads of State on the signing of the SADC Protocol on 

Culture, Information and Sport, which commits their governments to securing 

and promoting the free flow of information in the SADC region. 

Furthermore, we appeal to the Heads of States, as signatories to the African 

Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to ensure that democracy reigns in 

Zimbabwe. Articles 9 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ 

Rights respectively guarantee every individual the right to receive information 

and to express and disseminate opinions within the law, as well as the 

right to assemble freely with others. 


2002 







Honourable President Robert Mugabe 



Causeway, Harare 

Zimbabwe 

Your Excellency 

LETTER OF APPEAL ON THE DETERORIATING PRESS 

FREEDOM SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) appeals to your excellency President 

Mugabe to ensure that your government removes repressive provisions in 

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill. We call for the Bill to 

be re-formulated in accordance with internationally and regionally accepted 

principles of giving maximum freedom to the media. 

MISA welcomes and commends the goodwill shown by your government in 

deferring the passing of the bill for further consultations, in which MISA is 

willing to participate. MISA expects the revised bill to omit licensing and accreditation 

of media practitioners. Amongst other issues, we would also anticipate 

the removal of clauses referring to the establishment of a statutory commission 

to regulate the content and other aspects of the media. 

MISA appeals to you to take a strong stand against the continued human rights 

and media freedom violations in Zimbabwe and urges your government to bring 

to book the perpetrators of media violations in the country. 

MISA urges your government to halt the passing of a series of legislation in 

Zimbabwe designed to control the media and repress independent reporting. 

MISA implores you to denounce the ongoing and intensifying victimisation of 

media practitioners and violations of media freedoms in Zimbabwe. 

MISA believes that the passing of these repressive bills is an attempt by your 

government to legalise the on-going harassment of journalists which is no more 

than a blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined freedom of expression. 

We, along with the rest of the world, have witnessed a frightening deterioration 

in respect of the rule of law in Zimbabwe and the flow of information 

from and into Zimbabwe. 

MISA is expressing these concerns because Zimbabwe is an important mem- 



ber of the SADC and we commended your government on the signing of the 

SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport, which commits governments 

in the region to securing and promoting the free flow of information. 

We anticipate your fulfilment of agreements made during the SADC Extra 

Ordinary Summit in Blantyre, January 14, 2002 where your Excellency assured 

Heads of State of your commitment to freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. 

Today, in 10 Southern Africa countries, MISA members and supporting organisations 

are coming out in numbers to protest the consideration of the 

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill and the passing of the 

Public Order and Security Act which both impose wide-ranging restrictions 

on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. 

MISA protests these bills because they impose excessive restrictions on the 

content of what the media may publish or broadcast; they call for all journalists 

to obtain accreditation from a government controlled body; they specify 

that all foreign-dominated ownership of the media is prohibited and non-citizens 

are prohibited from working as journalists; and they endow the authorities 

with excessive powers to stifle and violate media freedom in Zimbabwe. 

MISA therefore appeals you, your Excellency to reaffirm your commitment 

to freedom of expression. Furthermore, we appeal to your government, as 

signatories to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to ensure 

that democracy reigns in Zimbabwe. Articles 9 and 11 of the African Charter 

on Human and Peoples’ Rights respectively guarantee every individual the 

right to receive information and to express and disseminate opinions within 

the law, as well as the right to assemble freely with others. 

Sincerely yours 


Declaration 

April 17, 2002 

TOPIC: Declaration on the arrests of Zimbabwean journalists 

2002 

* Following is a declaration signed by 28 (twenty-eight) members of Parliament 

and media professionals, currently attending the Indian Ocean Rim Conference 

on Parliament and the Media in Cape Town, South Africa. The event 

is co-organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the World 

Bank Institute, the Commonwealth Press Union, the Commonwealth Journalists 

Association, the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association and the 

South African Parliament. MISA is in possession of the original document 

bearing the signatures. 



We, the undersigned Commonwealth parliamentarians, and media professionals 

and participants attending the “Indian Ocean Rim Conference on Parliament 

and the Media”, in Cape Town, South Africa, 14-18 April 2002: 

1. Note with deep concern 

• the arrest and charging of Geoffrey Nyarota and Dumisani Muleya under 

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act of 2002. 

• the serious obstruction of the free flow of information to the citizens of 

Zimbabwe; 

• the restrictive and punitive nature of the Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Act; and 

• the deterioration of relations between the Government and independent 

journalists. 

2. Reaffirm, as shared value of Commonwealth nations, that a free press is 

fundamental to democracy. 

3. Call on the Government of Zimbabwe 

• to cease the prosecution of the two journalists so charged 

• to immediately repeal the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy 

Act. 

Simphiwe Mdlalose 

Regional Chairperson, Media Institute of Southern Africa 


April 29, 2002 

TOPIC: African Charter on Broadcasting to be launched on World 

Press Freedom Day May 3rd 

The African Charter on Broadcasting will be launched as an official activity of 

the Africa Commission on Human and People‚s Rights Sessions to be held in 

Pretoria between May 2 and May 9, 2002. The launch will be a gala dinner 

event held on World Press Freedom Day, May 3, the eleventh anniversary of the 

penning of the Windhoek Declaration. Representatives from a majority of African 

States will be in attendance. 

The SADC was the birthplace of the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting an 

Independent and Pluralistic African Press in 1991. Despite this, the region remains 

an international centre of media violations, and the right to communicate 

is almost non-existent for the majority population. Since the adoption of the 

Declaration, though, there have been gains in media freedom in Africa and in 

some nation states, the media has begun to take up its role as a cornerstone of 

democracy and source of balanced information for citizens. The Windhoek 

Declaration has served as a beacon that highlights the extent to which govern- 



ments throughout the world and the region honour their commitments towards 

upholding and promoting media freedom, independence and diversity. 

However, the Windhoek Declaration focused on promoting independent print 

media, and was silent on issues such as broadcasting liberalisation and the 

globalisation of the communications industry which have increasingly come 

into play in the last decade. Globalisation and liberalisation have serious social 

and economic implications for media freedom and development, not least because 

they threaten to jeopardise the ability of Africans to produce media that is 

both relevant to audiences throughout Africa, and reflects the continent’s rich 

cultural diversity. 

Media practitioners and freedom of expression advocates from throughout 

Africa sought to address these concerns at the UNESCO-supported conference 

which was called to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Windhoek 

Declaration in Namibia in May 2001. The conference responded by adopting 

the African Charter on Broadcasting, which serves as a modern blueprint for 

policies and laws determining the future of broadcasting and information technology 

in Africa. 

A growing partnership of media advocacy organisations across Africa will present 

the African Charter on Broadcasting as an African policy platform at the World 

Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to be held in Geneva in December 

2003. In the lead up, the Charter will be strengthened through an advocacy 

process that is underway and which will strengthen and deepen ownership of 

the Charter by African media organisations and practitioners. 

The development of regional strengthening strategies is being led by a coalition 

of media organisations based in southern Africa. Through the process, media 

agencies across Africa will discuss and mobilise around the Charter. At the end 

of 2003, when the Charter is presented to WSIS, there will be no doubt that this 

is a document for which African civil society seeks international endorsement. 

For further information / interviews contact: 

2002 

African Charter on Broadcasting: 

Tracey Naughton 

Regional Broadcast Program Manager 

Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) 

(+27) 082 726 7431 

or 

John Barker 

Head of Africa Programme, ARTICLE 19 

(+27) 082 890 4204 



World Press Freedom Day and regional media issues: 

Luckson Chipare 

Director, Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) 

(+27) 082 706 2360 

African charter on broadcasting 2001 

Acknowledging the enduring relevance and importance of the Windhoek Declaration 

to the protection and promotion of freedom of expression and of the 

media; 

Noting that freedom of expression includes the right to communicate and 

access to means of communication; 

Mindful of the fact that the Windhoek Declaration focuses on the print media 

and recalling Paragraph 17 of the Windhoek Declaration, which recommended 

that a similar seminar be convened to address the need for independence and 

pluralism in radio and television broadcasting; 

Recognising that the political, economic and technological environment in 

which the Windhoek Declaration was adopted has changed significantly and 

that there is a need to complement and expand upon the original Declaration; 

Aware of the existence of serious barriers to free, independent and pluralistic 

broadcasting and to the right to communicate through broadcasting in Africa; 

Cognisant of the fact that for the vast majority of the peoples of Africa, the broadcast 

media remains the main source of public communication and information; 

Recalling the fact that the frequency spectrum is a public resource which 

must be managed in the public interest; 

We the Participants of Windhoek + 10 Declare that: 

PART I: GENERAL REGULATORY ISSUES 

1. The legal framework for broadcasting should include a clear statement of 

the principles underpinning broadcast regulation, including promoting respect 

for freedom of expression, diversity, and the free flow of information and 

ideas, as well as a three-tier system for broadcasting: public service, commercial 

and community. 

2. All formal powers in the areas of broadcast and telecommunications regula- 



tion should be exercised by public authorities which are protected against 

interference, particularly of a political or economic nature, by, among other 

things, an appointments process for members which is open, transparent, 

involves the participation of civil society, and is not controlled by any particular 

political party. 

3. Decision-making processes about the overall allocation of the frequency 

spectrum should be open and participatory, and ensure that a fair proportion of 

the spectrum is allocated to broadcasting uses. 

4. The frequencies allocated to broadcasting should be shared equitably among 

the three tiers of broadcasting. 

5. Licensing processes for the allocation of specific frequencies to individual 

broadcasters should be fair and transparent, and based on clear criteria which 

include promoting media diversity in ownership and content. 

6. Broadcasters should be required to promote and develop local content, which 

should be defined to include African content, including through the introduction 

of minimum quotas. 

7. States should promote an economic environment that facilitates the development 

of independent production and diversity in broadcasting. 

8. The development of appropriate technology for the reception of broadcasting 

signals should be promoted. 

PART II: PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING 

1. All State and government controlled broadcasters should be transformed into 

public service broadcasters, that are accountable to all strata of the people as 

represented by an independent board, and that serve the overall public interest, 

avoiding one-sided reporting and programming in regard to religion, political 

belief, culture, race and gender. 

2. Public service broadcasters should, like broadcasting and telecommunications 

regulators, be governed by bodies which are protected against interference. 

3. The public service mandate of public service broadcasters should be clearly 

defined. 

4. The editorial independence of public service broadcasters should be guaranteed. 

2002 

5. Public service broadcasters should be adequately funded in a manner that 



protects them from arbitrary interference with their budgets. 

6. Without detracting from editorial control over news and current affairs content 

and in order to promote the development of independent productions and to 

enhance diversity in programming, public service broadcasters should be required 

to broadcast minimum quotas of material by independent producers. 

7. The transmission infrastructure used by public service broadcasters should 

be made accessible to all broadcasters under reasonable and non-discriminatory 

terms. 

PART III: COMMUNITY BROADCASTING 

1. Community broadcasting is broadcasting which is for, by and about the community, 

whose ownership and management is representative of the community, 

which pursues a social development agenda, and which is non-profit. 

2. There should be a clear recognition, including by the international community, 

of the difference between decentralised public broadcasting and community 

broadcasting. 

3. The right of community broadcasters to have access to the Internet, for the 

benefit of their respective communities, should be promoted. 

PART IV: TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CONVERGENCE 

1. The right to communicate includes access to telephones, email, Internet and 

other telecommunications systems, including through the promotion of community-controlled 

information communication technology centres. 

2. Telecommunications law and policy should promote the goal of universal 

service and access, including through access clauses in privatisation and liberalisation 

processes, and proactive measures by the State. 

3. The international community and African governments should mobilise resources 

for funding research to keep abreast of the rapidly changing media and 

technology landscape in Africa. 

4. African governments should promote the development of online media and 

African content, including through the formulation of non-restrictive policies 

on new information and communications technologies. 

5. Training of media practitioners in electronic communication, research and 

publishing skills needs to be supported and expanded, in order to promote access 

to, and dissemination of, global information. 



PART V: IMPLEMENTATION 

1. UNESCO should distribute the African Charter on Broadcasting 2001 as 

broadly as possible, including to stakeholders and the general public, both in 

Africa and worldwide. 

2. Media organizations and civil society in Africa are encouraged to use the 

Charter as a lobbying tool and as their starting point in the development of 

national and regional broadcasting policies. To this end media organisations 

and civil society are encouraged to initiate public awareness campaigns, to form 

coalitions on broadcasting reform, to formulate broadcasting policies, to develop 

specific models for regulatory bodies and public service broadcasting, 

and to lobby relevant official actors. 

3. All debates about broadcasting should take into account the needs of the 

commercial broadcasting sector. 

4. UNESCO should undertake an audit of the Charter every five years, given 

the pace of development in the broadcasting field. 

5. UNESCO should raise with member governments the importance of broadcast 

productions being given special status and recognised as cultural goods 

under the World Trade Organization rules. 

6. UNESCO should take measures to promote the inclusion of the theme of 

media, communications and development in an appropriate manner during the 

UN Summit on the Information Society in 2003. 

SADC Organisations Associated with the African Charter on Broadcasting: 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa 


broadcasting@misa.org.na 

www.misa.org 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) is a non-governmental organisation 

with members in 11 of the Southern Africa Development Community 

(SADC) countries. Officially launched in September 1992, MISA focuses primarily 

on the need to promote free, independent and pluralistic media, as envisaged 

in the 1991 Windhoek Declaration and African Charter on Broadcasting. 

2002 

MISA seeks ways in which to promote the free flow of information and cooperation 

between media workers, as a principal means of nurturing democracy 

and human rights in Africa The role of the MISA is primarily one of a co- 



ordinator, facilitator and communicator, and for this reason MISA aims to work 

together with all like-minded organisations and individuals to achieve a genuinely 

free and pluralistic media in southern Africa. 

ARTICLE 19 

John Barker 

+27 (082) 

Info@article19.org.za 

www.article19.org 

Named after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the organisation 

works world wide to combat censorship by promoting freedom of 

expression and access to official information. 

With partners in over 30 countries, ARTICLE 19 works to strengthen local 

capacity to monitor and protest institutional and informal censorship. 

ARTICLE 19 activities includes monitoring, research, publishing, lobbying, 

campaigning and litigation on behalf of freedom of expression wherever it is 

threatened. Standards are developed to advance media freedom and assist individuals 

to speak out and campaign for the free flow of information. 

SACOD 

Chris K 

sacod@icon.co.za 

www.sacod.co.za 

SACOD is a coalition of Southern Africa filmmakers and organisations in related 

services whose primary focus is the production and distribution of social 

responsibility films and videos. It was founded in 1987 by independent institutions 

from Zimbabwe, South Africa and Mozambique, and Canada to support 

the growth of independent video movement, and to support the process of democratisation 

in Southern Africa via the audiovisual medium. SACOD now 

has members in eight SADC countries. South Africa 

(Regional Office), Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Angola, Lesotho, Zambia, Mozambique 

and Namibia with its regional co-operation office in Johannesburg. 

AMARC 

Michelle Ntab 

regc@global.co.za 

www.amarc.org 

AMARC is an international non-governmental organisation serving the community 

radio movement, with almost 3,000 members and associates in 106 



countries. Its goal is to support and contribute to the development of community 

and participation. 


May 2, 2002 

TOPIC: Launch of State of the media report 

* Following is a statement by the Media Institute of Southern Africa on the 

launch of its annual state of the media report, So This is Democracy?, 2001. 

The report is launched annually on May 3, World Press Freedom Day. 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) will again this year be releasing 

its annual publication, “So This Is Democracy?: State of the media in 

Southern Africa” in commemoration of World Press Freedom Day on May 3. 

This is the eighth consecutive year in which MISA has issued this publication 

which records incidents of press freedom violations monitored by MISA in 

the previous year. The current edition therefore details press freedom violations 

in 2001. 

MISA issued 207 alerts in 2001 about press freedom violations in 11 SADC 

countries. This is an increase of 14 per cent over the 182 alerts recorded the 

previous year in 2000 and a 117 per cent increase over the 84 alerts issued in 

1994, when MISA first began monitoring press freedom violations in the subcontinent. 

The countries monitored include Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, 

Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 

MISA’s Regional Information Co-ordinator, Kaitira Kandjii, says in the acknowledgements 

that the increase in alerts is “as much an indication of the 

worsening media environment in Southern Africa, as it is evidence of organised 

media monitoring in many countries in the region”. 

2002 

In a regional overview Tee Ngugi, a lecturer and political and cultural analyst 

based in Windhoek, Namibia says: “The attempts to curtail media freedom 

and freedom of expression are a manifestation of a continuing struggle 

between two opposed forces: the movement towards the creation of 

true democratic societies and a political leadership still tempted by the old 

philosophy of governance and politics. This is a struggle the people cannot 

afford to lose. Erosion of media freedom and restrictions on freedom 

of expression lead to erosion of democracy. And … democracy is vital to 

development of our societies. For people in Africa and in Southern Africa, 

notions and concepts such as media freedom and freedom of expression 

are not idealistic abstractions. Our very survival depends on their materialisation.” 



Breakdown of the 2001 alerts 

A breakdown of the 207 alerts issued last year show that 21 media practitioners 

were attacked or beaten, four were bombed or suffered damage through 

arson, 52 were detained, nine were charged, 30 were threatened, seven were 

expelled, 39 incidences of censorship were reported, 20 cases of legal action 

were recorded - where journalists faced legal action or where legislation was 

passed that affected the media, 11 victories were recorded and a further 14 

incidents were reported that proved a violation of freedom of expression that 

did not necessarily affect the media. 

Trends detected during 2001 

Although these alerts, as they are generally referred to, provide some indication 

of the status of press freedom in various countries, they do not necessarily 

provide an accurate reading of the status of press freedom in each country. 

Weak media monitoring activities in some countries, such as Lesotho, South 

Africa and Angola, do not reflect the frequent press freedom violations which 

occur in them. 

Zimbabwe 

The high statistics for Zimbabwe, in turn, are both indicative of the consistent 

monitoring carried out by the Zimbabwean chapter of MISA (MISA-Zimbabwe), 

and an increasingly oppressive media environment in that country. Zimbabwe 

needs to be singled out not only for leading the pack in the number of 

alerts it attracted, but also because of the nature of these alerts. They deal with 

arrests, detentions and imprisonments of journalists; journalists being taken 

for questioning by the police; physical attacks on journalists by ruling and 

opposition party supporters; legal action against journalists - often based on 

oppressive and archaic legislation; frequent government threats to close or 

ban newspapers; attempts to introduce a statutory Media Council to licence 

journalists and to impose a state-approved code of conduct for journalists; 

politically-motivated dismissals and demotions of journalists in state-controlled 

media and other forms of intimidation and harassment. 

Zambia 

Zambia took a backseat to its neighbour, Zimbabwe, with fewer alerts issued on 

that country. However, government interference in the media, acts of intimidation 

and arrests under Zambia’s infamous defamation laws remain rampant. 

Swaziland 

Exactly one year ago the Swazi government banned The Guardian of Swaziland 

newspaper and The Nation magazine. Even a positive court ruling in favour of 

unbanning The Guardian had no effect on the Government’s resolve to silence 



that newspaper. The Nation, although unbanned, is still reeling from the impact 

of the ban. 

Swaziland still has neither a Constitution nor a Bill of Rights. It is a monarchy 

ruled by royal decree. The Royal Proclamation of 1973 by the late Kind Sobhuza 

II annulled the 1968 Constitution. The decree effectively outlaws party politics 

and annulled the Bill of Rights continued in the 1968 Constitution, including 

the right to freedom of expression. A Constitutional Review Commission was 

appointed in 1997 to look into the drafting of a new Constitution, but progress 

is hampered by the lack of political will on the part of the authorities and civil 

society is largely excluded from the process. The introduction of a Constitution 

with a Bill of Rights will no doubt form a solid basis for an improved human 

rights situation in Swaziland. 

Namibia and Botswana 

The governments of Namibia and Botswana expressed their intolerance for the 

independent media in a slightly different form - through economic sanctions. 

Both governments slapped newspapers in their respective countries with farreaching 

advertising bans. The Namibian government went a step further by 

issuing a ban on the purchase of that newspaper by government institutions. 

Although Botswana’s Guardian and Midweek Sun were successful in overturning 

the ban, it is still in place in Namibia and with little hope of review. 

On a regional level 

MISA welcomed the August 14, 2001, signing of the SADC Protocol on Culture, 

Information and Sport and commended Governments in the region for 

initiating the process of harmonising legislation affecting information and 

media. 

However, given the propensity of a large number of SADC member States to 

violate freedom of expression and freedom of the media on the flimsiest of 

pretexts, MISA has expressed its concerns with relations to a number of aspects 

of the Protocol. In essence, MISA is of the opinion that the Protocol is not 

conducive to the promotion, protection and enforcement of freedom of expression, 

freedom of the media and the free flow of information in Southern Africa. 

The Protocol, among others: 

2002 

• fails to define and elaborate on the nature, content and limits of freedom of 

expression and freedom of the media; 

• fails to provide for a Special Rapporteur responsible for monitoring compliance 

by States; 

• does not expressly provide for the participation of civil society and special- 



ised NGOs in the law-making process for implementing the standards that it 

sets, as is the case under United Nations and other regional treaties; 

• fails to place strict limitations on the power of individual states to restrict 

freedom of expression and freedom of the media; 

• does not make explicit provision for the right of individuals to have access to 

information held by States or protection of journalistic sources. 

NEW FEATURES IN THE BOOK: 

The 253-page publication is in book form and boasts a number of new features, 

including: 

• Country overviews written by independent authors from each country; 

• Translations into Portuguese of all Country Overviews; 

• An appraisal of the state of the media in the region by Tee Ngugi, a lecturer 

and political and cultural analyst based in Windhoek, Namibia - an independent 

commentator from outside the MISA establishment; 

• A list of MISA’s previous annual Press Freedom Award winners; 

• Graphics showing breakdowns of the 2001 alerts as well as the increase in 

alerts from 1994 to 2001; 

• Contact details of MISA’s national chapters for the reporting of press freedom 

violations; 

• Information on how to classify and report media freedom violations; 

• Information about MISA and its regional programmes. 

MISA thanks all its national chapters in the 11 SADC countries for the contributions 

they made in the reporting of press freedom violations in their countries 

to the MISA Regional Secretariat in Windhoek. These violations form the basis 

of many regional and international campaigns to draw attention to press freedom 

abuses in various countries and to provide protection for media practitioners 

who are under threat. 

COPIES OF THE BOOK CAN BE ORDERED FROM: Sarah Shivute, MISA 

Information Unit, Windhoek, Namibia, Tel. +264 61 232975, Fax. 248016, e- 

mail: sarah@misa.org.na, web: http://www.misa.org 


Regional Director, Media Institute of Southern Africa 


May 6, 2002 

TOPIC: MISA John Manyarara Investigative Journalism Award 

Mr. Conrad Nyamutata, former Chief Reporter of the Daily News in Zimbabwe, 

became the second recipient of the MISA John Manyarara Investigative 

Journalism Award, when he was named the winner on May 3, 2002 - World 



Press Freedom Day. The award was handed to him by Judge John Oliver 

Manyarara at a gala dinner held in Pretoria, South Africa. The following is the 

full citation read at the award ceremony. 

The John Manyarara Investigative Journalism award seeks to recognise excellence 

in investigative journalism. And tonight that award will be received by 

Conrad Nyamutata for a series of investigative stories that probed the 11 September 

2000 bombing of the offices of the opposition Movement for Democratic 

Change (MDC) in Harare, Zimbabwe. Nyamutata’s investigative work 

showed who the players in the September 2000 bomb blast were, and more 

importantly, that they had been allowed to go scot-free. 

The MDC was launched in September 1999, but by June 2000 it had contested 

and won 57 parliamentary seats out of the 120 contested seats. The result shocked 

the ruling ZANU-PF of President Robert Mugabe - that a party barely a year 

old could make such significant inroads. 

Nyamutata’s articles chronicle the government’s response to the threat to its survival 

because of the advent of the MDC on the Zimbabwean political landscape. 

The Zimbabwean government employed the services of serving members of 

the security agency to infiltrate the security department of the MDC. Once inside 

they studied the weaknesses in the opposition party’s security and so went 

about their covert mission. Using their state resources, they bombed the MDC 

offices in Harare. The idea was to suggest profound contradictions within the 

opposition party, especially as they were emanating from a department responsible 

for security. 

Nyamutata’s investigative work showed that the government had planted these 

agents in the MDC with the specific objective of destabilising the opposition. It 

was further discovered that there were similarities in the bombing of both The 

Daily News and MDC offices. 

Nyamutata’s research was able to chronicle how a Central Intelligence Organisation 

(CIO) operative procured several grenades, who he was, where he lived, 

what he did with the grenades and how he celebrated on the night of the bombing 

by repeatedly shouting “Mission accomplished”. 

The police officer implicated in the articles was “fired” from the service, allegedly 

because he was a member of the opposition. In reality, the “firing” was a 

promotion. He is now in the Police Protection Unit, which offers close security 

officers to government ministers. The CIO operative in turn, has since moved 

lodgings and returned to his parents’ home in Highfield. 

2002 

At each turn the police put impediments in the way of the investigations. The 



investigations showed the CIO operative had only been “suspended” whilst 

police claimed he could not be found anywhere. Instead they leaked the story to 

the government-controlled Herald newspaper in the hope of confusing the public 

about to their own role or failure to act. 

There was indeed tension between ZANU-PF and the MDC, but it was more a 

question of outrage, laced with the realisation of the extent to which the organisation 

had been compromised. ZANU-PF savoured its coup. The episode has 

made the MDC more alert to the landmines placed in its path as it tries to engage 

ZANU-PF in the current dialogue. 

Both the public and opposition were stunned by the extent to which a government 

could go in its panic to safeguard its position. In a sense that was just a 

window into how the government would react in its bid to protect itself. 

The promotion of the police officer and the inability of the law enforcement 

agents to arrest the CIO operative unfortunately send the signal that these organisations 

are untouchable. It has the effect of terrorising people. It makes 

them utterly powerless. 

Any story that is thoroughly researched and presented has its benefits: It does a 

lot for the credibility of the newspaper; among the readers it instils a sense of 

trust in the paper’s ability to investigate and report clandestine activities; it has 

a spin-off effect in that suddenly everyone inside the organisation wants to pursue 

an investigative story. Investigative journalism is good for business. 

A well-researched story seldom has legal implications. That was the case with 

this particular investigative work. But in other cases it could be crippling, when 

the people affected sue, but that only occurs when no thorough investigations 

have been undertaken. 

After his training at the Harare Polytechnic, Nyamutata began his career at The 

Herald, where he specialised in court reporting. In 1999, he joined The Daily 

News and soon established himself as a very solid reporter. In recognition of his 

work, Nyamutata was soon elevated to the position of Chief Reporter. Early 

this year Nyamutata travelled to the United Kingdom, to further his studies. In 

his absence, Mr. Thomas Deve, IT Manager of the Daily News, will receive the 

award on his behalf. 

ABOUT THE AWARD 

The John Manyarara Award for Investigative Journalism is presented annually. 

The winner receives 2 000 Euro and a study grant of 10 000 Euro. The award is 

an initiative of the Media Institute of Southern Africa and the NiZA and is a 

tribute to Justice Manyarara, the founding Chairperson of the MISA Trust Fund 



Board (TFB) (1994 -2000), who retired from the TFB on September 8, 2000. 

Justice Manyarara remains a passionate advocate of freedom of speech in Zimbabwe 

and the region at large. 

The award seeks to recognise excellence in investigative journalism in any form 

of media in the SADC region with the exception of the Democratic Republic of 

Congo, Mauritius and Seychelles. The award is given for an article or series of 

articles that demonstrate investigative skills and the presentation of such facts 

in any media. 

A rotational judges’ panel consists of former winners of the already established 

annual MISA Press Freedom Award, with the most recent winner taking over 

from the oldest member. They are joined by a representative of the Netherlands 

Institute for Southern Africa (NiZA). This year’s judges are Gwen Lister, editor 

of The Namibian (Namibia), Geoffrey Nyarota, editor-in-chief of The Daily 

News (Zimbabwe), Fred M’membe of editor-in-chief of The Post (Zambia) and 

NiZA representative, Kees Schaepman. 

The award was won last year for the first time by ‘Star’ reporter Lynne Altenroxel 

for her exposure of unethical medical practice between doctors and pathology 

laboratories. 


May 30, 2002 

TOPIC: Mainstreaming Gender Into the World Summit on the Information 

Society (WSIS) 

* Representatives of African governments, UN agencies, civil society and the 

private sector are currently convening in Bamako, Mali, for the African regional 

preparatory conference as part of preparations for the World Summit on 

the Information Society (WSIS). The Summit will take place in 2003 under the 

patronage of UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, with the International Telecommunication 

Union (ITU) taking the lead role in its preparation along with 

interested UN organizations and the host countries. A General Assembly Resolution 

(A/RES/56/183) endorsing the organisation of the World Summit on the 

Information Society (WSIS) was adopted on 21 December 2001. Following is 

a statement by the Gender Caucus for the WSIS. For more information on the 

WSIS please see http://www.itu.int/wsis/ 

STATEMENT: 

Mainstreaming Gender Into the World Summit on the Information Society 

(WSIS) 

2002 

The Gender Caucus for the WSIS invites you to consider and implement the 



recommendations contained in the attached statement as your organisation makes 

preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society. 

The gender caucus consists of representatives of organisations that responded 

to an invitation by UNIFEM to contribute to ensuring that gender dimensions 

are included in the process of defining and creating a Global Information Society 

that contributes to sustainable development and human security. The following 

organisations took part in the work towards defining an agenda for the 

African region: 

1. Abantu for Development 

2. ACWICT 

3. African Connection Programme 

4. AIS-GWG 

5. AMARC-WIN 

6. AMARC Africa 

7. APC Africa Women’s Programme 

8. Association of YAM-Bukri 

9. ENDA 

10. GEEP 

11. FEMNET 

12. MISA 

13. NDIMA 

14. Network of African Women Economists 

15. UNDP/SURF West Africa 

16. UNIFEM 

17. Unite d’appui au programme de la cooperation Canada-Malienne 

18. WomensNet (SA) 

19. WOUGNET 

20. ZWRCN 

21. Zimbabwe Ministry of Transport and Communications 

We look forward to working with you in the preparations for the WSIS and in 

the programme of action that arises out of our deliberations at the Summit. 

For further information on partnership opportunities and the work of the gender 

caucus please contact Laketch Dirasse, Chief Africa UNIFEM (email 

laketch.dirasse@undp.org) 

Gender Caucus Statement 

For Inclusion in Bamako2002 Declaration 

The African Regional Preparatory Meeting For the World Summit on the 

Information Society 

May 25-30 2002 

We the members of the Gender Caucus meeting in Bamako, Mali during the 



African Regional Preparatory Meeting for the World Summit on the Information 

Society (WSIS) express and confirm support for the WSIS. 

We further bring to the urgent attention of the African and international community 

engaged in the preparation for the WSIS the need to act now to reduce 

the widening gender digital divide within the digital divide faced by Africa. 

Considering the critical role that women play in all societies and their potential 

contribution to developing an Information Society, we hereby urge: 

1. The UN system and agencies, including the ITU, UNIFEM, UNDP, ECA, 

UNESCO 

• To develop training and capacity development programmes that can 

raise awareness of the gendered nature of the Information Society and 

identify strategies for ensuring fair and equitable participation by Afri 

can men and women; 

• To apply gender analysis frameworks in the development of national, 

regional and global policies and strategies; 

• To develop gender-disaggregated data on women’s participation in the 

Information Society and to carry out research to identify impacts of 

exclusion and opportunities for increased participation; 

• To strengthen co-operation among UN agencies working on gender and 

ICT issues including support for the working relationships established 

between UNDP, UNIFEM and the ITU; and 

• To continue to work towards ratifying treaties and protocols that recognise 

women’s human rights including the right to communication and 

include provisions for supporting implementation of these in all of the 

action plans including those arising out of the WSIS process. 

2002 

2. African regional and sub-regional organisations including the UN-ECA, 

ADB, ATU and OAU/AU 

• To ensure participation of the gender advocacy constituencies in Africa 

in the conceptualisation, development and implementation of ICT policies, 

regulatory framework and plans at national, sub-regional, regional 

and global levels; 

• To work with the regional economic communities (RECs) to ensure 

that the gender dimension is considered and integrated into all policy, 

regulatory, work programmes and strategies that deal with ICT and development 

and the ICT industry; 

• To ensure that the development and implementation of the NEPAD 

initiative acknowledges and addresses the gender digital divide and 

other gender imbalances in Africa; and 

• To ensure greater efficiency and synergy among African institutions 

and their partners by increasing effective co-ordination, co-operation 

and collaboration n all the activities relating to ICT and development. 



3. National governments and public -sector bodies particularly including 

policy making and national regulatory authorities involved in ICT sector 

and in sustainable development 

• To make full commitment to support democratisation of policy processes 

within the ICT sector, including use of ICT tools to support this 

process, and to formulate and implement ICT policy using principles of 

openness and with full, legitimate participation of all stakeholders including 

civil society; 

• To implement ICT policies through transparent processes with due consideration 

of the need for accountability; 

• To ensure that women’s fair participation in all levels of the ICT industry 

is assured and increased, through use of regulatory rules and provisions 

that influence shareholder structures and composition of governance 

mechanisms, especially as market structures change and become 

increasingly privatised; 

• To increase access to ICT facilities through making arrangements that 

support achievement of universal access targets and defining specific 

targets for women’s access to ICT; 

• To develop measurable indicators that can contribute to the assessment 

of ICT policies to women’s empowerment; 

• To promote cultural diversity in the implementation of national ICT 

strategies including through active use of local languages and provision 

of information on strategies in various media including community radio 

and non-electronic media; 

• To ensure that there is gender equity in education, specifically by providing 

opportunities to increase girls’ literacy, and by providing access to 

fair and equitable participation in science and technology education 

and training at all levels; 

• To support use of ICT for women’s empowerment including through 

application of ICTs in health, education, trade, employment and other 

women’s development arenas; 

• To implement the CEDAW and all other conventions that recognise 

women’s human rights and right to communication and economic rights 

and to implement ICT policies and programmes that take account of 

these commitments; and 

• To recognise, ratify, promote and implement the African charter on broadcasting. 

4. African private sector and African entrepreneurs in the diaspora 

• To support and encourage fair and equitable employment practices in 

cluding gender equality in remuneration and access to promotion and 

increased responsibility; 

• To take account of corporate social responsibility in carrying out their 

operations and business development activities; 

• To provide increased access to financing for deployment of ICT projects, 



including through active partnerships with UNIFEM, and women’s organisations 

particularly in rural areas; 

• To participate in mentoring, information exchange and other programmes 

to support development of private sector initiatives in the African Information 

Society; and 

• To provide infrastructure, services and applications that meet women’s 

needs particularly in rural areas. 

5. African civil society 

• To ensure that gender equity is a cross-cutting principle and to commit 

themselves to take a gendered approach in all activities, including planning, 

implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and in the structure 

of civil society organisations themselves; 

• To commit to active continuous participation in global, sub-regional 

and national policy processes in the ICT sector; 

• To investigate mechanisms for improving the effectiveness of civil society 

participation in policy conceptualisation and implementation, including 

capacity building and formation of co-ordinating and information 

sharing mechanisms; 

• To commit to formation of horizontal coalitions on issues relating to 

the Information Society that permits sharing of ideas and development 

of joint strategies across various groupings; and 

• To use ICTs as an additional strategic tool for action, recognising that 

these facilities and applications have advantages for facilitating wide 

communication processes. 

6. African research and academic community 

• To contribute to the development of a common vision and shared understanding 

of a Global Information Society that contributes to achieving 

the goals of sustainable human development in Africa and globally; 

• To apply interdisciplinary approaches to examining the emerging Information 

and Communication Society and culture and its influence on 

development of Africa; 

• To allocate adequate resources to research and teaching on gender dimensions 

of Information Society issues; 

• To increase the use of gender analysis in producing gender disaggregated 

data and research findings on the impacts of ICTs on men and women ; 

• To encourage and support increased participation of women academics 

in ICT research and analysis through proactive approaches to support 

women’s involvement and mobility in these fields; 

• To integrate information literacy and ICT awareness into curricula at 

all levels of formal and informal training and education programmes; and 

• To share and widely disseminate results of academic research. 

2002 

7. Public, private and community media 



• To take account that the convergence of technologies - in radio, internet, 

email, video and telephone fax etc, has the potential to facilitate communication 

and access to information, and to take the necessary steps 

work with a wide range of media and to adopt a multi-media approach; 

• To promote the role that the media can play in transforming society, 

encouraging debate and to inform. In particular, noting the potential to 

address unequal gender power relationships in society, and within the 

media itself; 

• To promote and support the particularly pivotal role of community media 

in the democratisation of communication and gender justice; 

• To carry out the specific responsibility to provide equal access to media 

regardless of gender and other points of exclusion. This includes accountability 

to its constituencies with regard to its progress in addressing 

gender inequality; 

• To promote national languages and local content to ensure the widespread 

participation and inclusion of women; and 

• To ensure that local knowledge, including local gender knowledge is 

given importance in media content, and steps are taken to establish stand 

ards of reporting which include gender dimensions. 

8. African women movements and organisations 

• To commit to mainstream ICT advocacy issues within their women’s 

human rights programmes, projects and activities; 

• To participate in ICT policy processes at all levels including sharing 

information, reflect women’s concerns and integrating gender analysis 

expertise into policy formulation and research; and 

• To use ICTs as a tool in information dissemination and campaigning, 

including around national, sub-regional, global policy processes. 

9. International partners and investors 

• To recognise that providing increased access to ICTs should be integrated 

into programmes that assist with poverty alleviation and em 

powerment of women; 

• To introduce mandatory requirement that all ICT and development 

projects include a gender dimension and specific activities to increase 

women’s access to ICT facilities and applications and participation in 

ICT sector; 

• To define measurable performance indicators to identify the impact of 

funded projects on the lives of girls and women; and 

• To ensure that there is consideration and integration of the gender 

dimension in global ICT governance. 

10. All stakeholders 

• To commit to work in partnership, to ensure co-ordination, co-operation 

and collaboration in the development of a shared vision and com- 



2002 

mon understanding of a World Information Society that contributes to 

human development based on agreed principles including recognition 

of women’s human rights and right to communicate; 

• To commit to reducing the disparities that currently exist in access to 

and participation in the Information Society, particularly with respect 

to the widening gender digital divide; 

• To actively encourage, facilitate and support women’s active participation 

in the Global Information Society; 

• To commit to ensuring that ICTs be used as an effective tool in reaching 

collective goals of 

* Gender equality and women’s empowerment 

* Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger 

* Achieving universal education 

* Reducing child and maternal mortality 

* Reducing gender based violence and child abuse 

* Improving access to health care and particular reproductive health 

and reduction of child mortality rates 

* Combating malaria, HIV/AIDS and other endemic diseases 

* Ensuring peace, human security and stability 

* Encouraging pursuit of freedom and good governance and increased 

democratic participation with protection of national, regional and 

global legitimate interests; 

• To ensure that all the proposed training and capacity development programmes 

to support developing countries effective participation in the 

WSIS including the UNITAR programme integrates appropriate consideration 

of the gender dimension and includes full participation of 

women; 

• To integrate programme development at the World Summits on the Information 

Society with the regional and global preparation for World 

Conference on Women (Beijing+10) and other sustainable development 

initiatives particularly WSSD; 

• To use a broad information dissemination programme, that integrates 

radio traditional media and other ‘low-technology’ applications to 

widely distribute the results of the discussions and to invite broader 

participation in the development of a shared understanding and com 

mon vision; 

• To take forward the recommendations made in this document beyond 

Bamako 2002 particularly in all of the preparatory processes for the 

WSIS 2003 and 2005; 

• To provide specific opportunities for the discussion and further elaboration 

of the issues raised and the recommendations made to be included 

in the programme of activities planned for Geneva 2003 and 

Tunis 2005; and 

• To actively engage in mobilising human and financial resources that 

are required to integrate efforts for reducing the gender digital divide 



into the work programme arising from the World Summit on the Information 

Society. 

Position of African Women in relation to ICTs 

1. For many women in Africa, the challenge is to overcome a double burden of 

marginalisation. The marginalisation of Africa is characterised by increased 

poverty, lack of infrastructure, conflicts, deepening rural/urban disparities and 

high illiteracy. Women’s burden is heavier in all these aspects because women 

represent the majority of the poor and illiterate. The relative high cost of access 

to ICT facilities and equipment as well as the unavailability of access to funding 

and credit also contribute to this burden. Further, the unavailability of appropriate 

technologies designed for an African context exacerbates the problems 

of women’s access and participation in ICT and in the Information Society. 

Gender discrimination excludes the majority of women from benefiting 

from the opportunities that ICTs offer as a tool and catalyst for development 

and al human enterprise. 

2. The ICT sector is dominated by values which favour profit over human well 

being. This lack of concern for human development objectives does not augur 

well for women in Africa. Within the firms, markets and institutional contexts 

through which ICTs are diffused, power relations do not advance women’s 

empowerment and the agenda of the few groups representing the interests of 

gender equality and human development in policy processes are marginalised. 

These groups occupy low status and are seen to have little relevance. In addition, 

women are underrepresented in all aspects of decision-making in operations, 

policy and regulation. Unless this dominant culture and its related practices 

are changed, rapid diffusion of ICTs will contribute little to gender equality 

and human development for the world’s majority. 

3. The failure to achieve greater equity in access to the Information Society 

poses greater risks that the African region and women in that region will fall 

further behind, becoming more marginalised and excluded. The Information 

Society as it is presently constituted does not reflect different women’s concerns, 

needs and interests and fails to recognise and protect women’s human 

rights and dignity. This failure is leading to the imposition of external models 

and perspectives that will aggravate present conditions of poverty and exclusion. 

The concept on the Information Society as it stands now, leads to an absence 

of an African, and an African women’s perspective. 

4. Women are seen as passive receivers of information rather than actors able to 

shape and contribute to decision making and policy formulation in general and 

in the ICT sector in particular. African women are able to contribute to the 

formulation and implementation of creative solutions to the digital divide and 

are legitimate partners and actors in building an Information Society in Africa. 



5. ICTs and the upgrading of human capacity are increasingly considered to be 

agents for development. It is, therefore, critical to ensure equal access and 

gender equity in the Information Society. Increased access to ICTs can uplift 

African women’s livelihood through: 

* Greater access to and control of local and international markets for African 

women producers and traders; 

* Employment and other profit-related opportunities which do not require a 

physical presence thereby allowing women to combine the care economy with 

their professional roles; 

* Promotion of health, nutrition, education and other human development opportunities; 

* The capacity to mobilise for women’s empowerment and societal well being. 


December 3, 2002 

TOPIC: State of broadcasting in SADC 

A workshop attended by participants from broadcasting regulators, national 

broadcasters and parliamentarians drawn from Angola, Botswana, Malawi, 

Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, was hosted in Namibia by the 

Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) and the Southern African Broadcasting 

Association (SABA) in co-operation with the Fredrich Ebert Stiftung, 

from November 27 to 29, 2002 with the main objective to assess the state of 

broadcasting in Southern Africa. 

Policy Framework 

The workshop acknowledged southern African and African policy documents 

as yardsticks to discuss current processes of broadcasting reform in the SADC 

region, in particular, the 

* SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport; 

* African Charter on Broadcasting; 

* SADC Declaration on Information and Communications Technology; 

* Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa adopted by the 

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. 

2002 

In particular the workshop dealt with the following principles: 

* The provision of the SADC ICT declaration to create a three tier separation of 

powers in the regulation of telecommunications and broadcasting, with the government 

responsible for a conducive national policy framework, independent 

regulators responsible for licensing and a multiplicity of providers. They agreed 

that the national framework should offer a broad legislative basis that should be 

developed in a participatory process involving all stakeholders and the public at 

large, to be implemented by the regulator. 



* The provision by the Principles on Freedom of Expression stipulating that 

any public authorities exercising powers in the area of broadcasting, i.e. Boards 

of regulatory authorities and public service broadcasters, should be independent 

and adequately protected against interference, particularly of a political or 

economic nature process for such bodies should be open, transparent, inclusive 

and credible. 

* The definition of public service broadcasters offered by the African Charter 

on Broadcasting and the Principles of Freedom of Expression as being accountable 

to the public, i.e. the citizens, through the legislature rather than the executive, 

governed by a board which is protected against interference of a political 

or economic nature, editorially independent, and adequately funded in a manner 

that protects them from arbitrary interference. 

Action Plan 

Actions that were determined as the way forward were categorised into three 

areas, being policy, technical and operational. Specifically, the plan of action is: 

Policy Matters: 

1. Raising Awareness of Policy Documents 

1. a. Popularise the documents noted above including enactment into 

local regulatory frameworks, including constitutions. 

1. b. Define in more detail differences between public service broadcasting 

and national / state broadcasting and then develop a process 

for transition and criteria to measure progress. 

1. c Define more precisely the different roles of executive, parliament, 

civil society, statutory bodies, stakeholders etc in the process of 

policy development. 

2. Audit of Current State of Legislative Environments 

While it was acknowledged that there is no common blueprint applicable 

to all nation states, there was consensus on such key principles guiding 

broadcast reform. 

The workshop consented that parliaments, executives, stakeholders and 

the public at large should be made aware of the relevance of the above 

documents, and agreed that an audit should be under taken to compare 

existing legislation and regulations in the various countries with the principles 

set by the documents. 

Such an audit could form the basis for the development of regional and 



national strategies. 

3. Advocacy and Lobbying 

3. a. MISA, SABA and Broadcasters to engage the legislature so that the 

said policy documents and declarations are incorporated into their 

national laws. 

3. b. Parliamentarians, regulators, broadcasters and media associations 

are encouraged to initiate a public process of broadcasting and regulation 

reform according to the key principles mentioned in the key 

documents that framed workshop discussions. 

3. c. Conduct awareness campaigns on the need for and principles of 

broadcasting reform. 

4. Local Content 

4. a Ensure sufficient local content quotas that reflect local cultures, aspirations, 

languages and realities in SADC countries. 

4. b Broadcasters should be led by the desire to uphold national interest 

and security. 

4. c. To develop and empower local indigenous content production capacity 

to enable broadcasters to attain local content quotas. 

Technical Matters: 

1. Standardisation 

Broadcasters to explore opportunities for standardisation of production, and 

transmission systems. 

2. Coverage 

Ensure universal access to broadcasting in terms of population reach with 

regards to reception equipment and transmission coverage. 

3. Digitalisation and Infrastructure 

Ensure a regional approach to new broadcast technologies such as digitalisation. 

Operational Matters: 

1. Funding 

Public service broadcasters need to explore avenues for adequate funding 

in a manner that protects them from arbitrary interference, e.g. a mix of 

state funding, advertising, licensing and sponsorships. 

2002 

2. Broadcast Management 



Ensure sound, credible and transparent management of broadcast and regulation 

institutions to make them more effective in discharging their duties. 

3. Co-production and Program Exchange 

Encourage co-production and program exchange within the region. 

4. NEPAD 

4. a Encourage public broadcasters to educate themselves and the public 

on NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development). 

4. b To use NEPAD in accessing funds to meet the development needs 

of media in the SADC region. 

Issued by: 

Southern African Broadcasting Association (SABA) 

Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) 


ZIMBABWE 



TOPIC: Press Statement by Zimbabwean Journalist Organisations 

Representatives of the four main journalistic unions in Zimbabwe met at the 

MISA-Zimbabwe offices in Harare, Zimbabwe on Thursday, January 10, to 

discuss the impending passage of the abominable Access to Information and 

Protection of Privacy Bill. The meeting was attended by leading representatives 

of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, the Media Institute of Southern 

Africa, the Independent Journalists Association (IJAZ), the Foreign Correspondents 

Association and the Federation of African Media Women-Zimbabwe. 

The organisations agreed to challenge the new law in court once it is signed, 

as it is patently illegal and designed to deprive the media of its constitutional 

right to freedom of expression. In the meantime the unions agreed that journalists 

must continue with their work and ignore the Bill which is expected to 

be passed next week. 

A meeting of all journalists to discuss the Bill and conscientise journalists on 

how this legislation will impact on the media will be held on Saturday, January 

19. The unions will mobilise journalists to defy this undemocratic law by 

calling for a boycott of the registration process which is arbitrarily controlled 

by the Minister of Information in the Presidents Office. 

The Unions leaders also agreed to send a signed petition to the Leader of the 



House and Honourable Minister of Justice Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 

Patrick Chinamasa stating their grave concerns over the implications of this 

proposed law on freedom of expression and of the media in Zimbabwe. 

Issued by 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa - Zimbabwe (MISA-Zimbabwe) 

Zimbabwe Union of Journalists (ZUJ) 

The Independent Journalists Association (IJAZ) 

The Foreign Correspondents (FCA) 

Federation of African Media Women - Zimbabwe. (FAMWZ) 


May 2, 2002 

TOPIC: Arrest of Zimbabwean journalists 

MISA-Zimbabwe condemns in the strongest words the detention of journalists 

Lloyd Mudiwa, Collin Chiwanza and Andrew Meldrum on allegations of having 

written falsehoods. 

These allegations do not in any way correspond with the suffering, humiliation 

and intimidation that is being perpetrated on the three journalists. The Zimbabwe 

chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-Zimbabwe) equally 

condemns the utterances by Professor Jonathan Moyo [Minister of Information 

and Publicity] on May 1, 2002, that the arrested journalists are criminals and 

that his department has nothing to do with the arrests. Such words are unfortunate 

and regrettable. 

What needs to be mentioned is that it is the Minister’s department that came up 

with this “law” which promotes lawlessness. Indeed as he said, this “law” 

criminalizes the profession of journalism as witnessed by the recent spate and 

wanton arrests of journalists. These arrests are reminiscent of the Rhodesia era 

in every sense. 

MISA-Zimbabwe therefore demands the immediate release of the three journalists 

without any further delays. We note that there is no provision in the socalled 

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act that allows the police 

to hold journalists endlessly after charging them. These actions are a clear 

sign of abuse of authority, harassment and lawlessness. MISA-Zimbabwe further 

expresses deep concern over the statement made by the Minister of Information 

and Publicity on Monday April 29 that parastatals must consider stopping 

advertising in “The Daily News” and the rest of the private media. 

2002 

We note that this statement, although made in particular reference to a news 

report, has wider implications for the sustainability of the whole independent 

media. We also note that no reasonable policy decision can be made on the basis 

of an isolated incident as mentioned in the statement. 



It is interesting to note that media ethics only seem to apply to the independent 

media in Zimbabwe and not the public media. This is evident by the fact that 

not a single mention has ever been made by the Minister or the Department of 

Information over unethical conduct by the public media. 

Although both the public and private media make lapses here and there, it is the 

position of MISA-Zimbabwe that the media must remain sustainable through 

recognized and acceptable means such as accessing advertising revenue and 

the cover prices of newspapers. 

As the Minister rightly observed, the money that is used by parastatals is taxpayer’s 

money. MISA-Zimbabwe believes therefore that taxpayer’s money cannot 

be dictated to by one section or institution in terms of its usage. The ultimate 

goals of any advertising by parastatals are to reach out to the people of Zimbabwe. 

MISA-Zimbabwe notes that the intended victims of the advertising ban 

are Zimbabwean citizens and legally registered media houses who also pay 

taxes. 

MISA-Zimbabwe believes that the way forward in addressing ethical issues in 

the media is through a voluntary media council in which journalists themselves 

agree on how they are to conduct themselves. 

Drastic measures like suffocating media houses financially do not serve the 

purposes of promoting media diversity that is necessary for our society. In MISA- 

Zimbabwe’s view, there isn’t any intention by advertisers to promote unethical, 

journalism or the destruction of Zimbabwe. It is important to note that the existing 

media in Zimbabwe is supported by the readers who are interested in reading 

newspapers of their choice. 

Advocating for the stoppage of advertising in certain newspapers is unfortunately 

a sure way of cutting off a sizeable number of people from accessing 

information. MISA-Zimbabwe, in any case, urges all media houses to operate 

in a way that maintains respect and credibility. 


April 18, 2002 

TOPIC: Statement on the Arrest of Journalists 

* Following is a statement by the Zimbabwe chapter of the Media Institute of 

Southern Africa (MISA-Zimbabwe) on the arrest of Editor in Chief of The Daily 

News, Geoff Nyarota, and Zimbabwe Independent Chief Reporter, Dumisani 

Muleya. See www.misa.org for detailed information about the arrest and charges 

preferred on the aforementioned journalists. 

The recent arrest of the Editor in Chief of The Daily News, Geoff Nyarota and 



Zimbabwe Independent Chief Reporter, Dumisani Muleya is unreservedly condemned 

by MISA-Zimbabwe. 

What is most frightening in the arrest of the two journalists is that it is the 

Department of Information and Publicity that is the complainant in matters that 

involve individuals. MISA-Zimbabwe and other media organizations maintain 

that the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is meant to target 

certain journalists. Without doubt the recent events are bringing out the real 

intentions behind the media law. Rather than bringing “sanity” in the media as 

is purported, the law is now being arbitrarily applied to the detriment of the 

principles of free expression. 

That the Department becomes a complainant in terms of a law that was partisanly 

drafted by the same department is undemocratic to say the least. One would 

expect that the complainants’ take up any grievances they may hold against 

journalists through the civil laws available to everyone else rather than have 

government take up matters of criminal defamation on behalf of individuals. 

The effects of criminal defamation laws and the sum total of the Access to 

Information and Protection of Privacy Act is to intimidate journalists into silence 

and seriously affect the flow of information to members of the public. 

The arrest of the journalists however gives a chance for constitutional challenges 

to be made on the legality of the Access to Information and Protection of 

Privacy Act and indeed such laws as the Public Order and Security Act. It is the 

position of MISA-Zimbabwe that a process of litigation must be undertaken so 

that such repressive laws are struck off our statutes books. 

MISA-Zimbabwe further calls upon law-enforcing institutions such as the police 

to carry their work impartially and above reproach. What is becoming clear 

is the psychological war that the police carry out on journalists by arresting and 

later releasing them, sometimes without any charges preferred. What is ultimately 

necessary and important is the creation of a conduicive political environment 

in which journalists can carry out their business like any other citizen. 

Sarah Chiumbu, MISA-Zimbabwe Director 


June 4, 2002 

TOPIC: Statement on the appointment of a Media Commission in 

Zimbabwe 

2002 

MISA-Zimbabwe seeks to clarify that the statement circulating in Zimbabwe 

on the need for a gender balanced Media Commission is neither an endorsement 

of the recently appointed body headed by Mr Tafataona Mahoso, nor of 

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which we believe is a 



flawed piece of legislation. 

MISA-Zimbabwe is in fact concerned that although the appointment of the 

commission has been made, there is still a great deal of misunderstanding and 

disagreement on the current status of the Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Act under which the Commission has been appointed. This is indicated 

by the legal actions currently underway against some of the clauses of the Act. 

Many Zimbabwean women’s organisations have raised the question of the 

glaring absence of gender balance in the appointed commission as represented 

by the statement that is being circulated. The question of gender balance, we 

believe, cannot be separated from that of a complete review of the Access to 

Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As a multi-pronged struggle it is 

therefore necessary to look at the whole question of the legitimacy of the 

Commission, not only from a legal and constitutional point of view, but also 

from a social relevance point of view, hence the question of gender balance 

on any public body. 

As a result of the frequency at which the Act has been used to arrest journalists, 

MISA-Zimbabwe believes that the Act has lost the general spirit that it must 

promote, i.e. opening up the flow of information from public bodies and institutions 

to members of the public. Many of the so-called charges, in our view, do 

not warrant such harsh measures. We believe that it is not in the interests of 

Zimbabwe for journalists to be arrested almost on a daily basis. 

MISA-Zimbabwe therefore believes that it is necessary to build consensus on 

the law first, before appointing the Commission. Our position and that of almost 

all journalists (state and private), is that the Ministry of Information and 

Publicity must encourage and indeed support the initiative by journalists to 

form their own regulatory council along the same lines as the Law Society and 

other professional bodies. This, we believe will address the question of responsible 

journalism that the government is always talking about. 


June 13, 2002 

TOPIC: Zimbabwe’s Editors Forum launched 

Editors of all Zimbabwe’s privately owned media houses have come together 

and launched the Zimbabwe National Editors Forum (ZINEF) in the capital 

Harare on June 12, 2002. 

ZINEF interim chairperson is Geoff Nyarota, the editor-in-chief of “The Daily 

News”. Other members of the executive are Iden Wetherell, editor of the “Zimbabwe 

Independent”, Francis Mdlongwa, editor-in-chief of “The Financial 

Gazette”, Bornwell Chakaodza, editor of “The Standard”, and Chiza Ngwira, 



editor of the monthly magazine, “Parade”. 

Addressing journalists at the launch, Nyarota said that the forum is open to all 

editors who uphold principles of press freedom. He also said that editors who 

apply to become members would be subjected to a peer view process before the 

application is approved. 

ZINEF said that its role would be that of protecting editors against victimization 

for carrying out their duty. The forum would also defend and promote 

media freedom through all available media institutions. ZINEF will also strive 

to nurture media freedom as a democratic value in all the communities and at 

all levels of society. ZINEF will also seek to resists those laws that impose 

restrictions on the media and freedom of expression and those that are incompatible 

in a democratic society. 

The Zimbabwe chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-Zimbabwe) 

welcomes the launch of the forum, which it had been calling for since 

November 2001. MISA-Zimbabwe believes that it is through the forum that 

issues such as the media council can be addressed and other matters that affect 

the profession such as the polarisation currently being witnessed in the Zimbabwe 

media. 


October 21, 2002 

TOPIC: Outcome of national journalists and media workers’ meeting 

The following resolutions were made at the National Journalists and Media 

Workers Meeting, jointly organised by the Zimbabwe chapter of the Media 

Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-Zimbabwe), Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, 

Foreign Correspondents Association, Federation of African Media Women 

in Zimbabwe, The Media Monitoring Project and the Independent Journalists 

Association of Zimbabwe on Saturday, October 19, 2002: 

2002 

1. That the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) is an 

unacceptable piece of legislation. 

2. That all journalists and media workers will protest against the AIPPA through 

demonstrations and defiance of the accreditation requirements of the Media 

and Information Commission. The demonstrations will begin as of next week 

in protest at the amendments to the AIPPA that are currently before the Parliament 


3. That all journalists and media workers shall engage in a massive public awareness 

programme to tell the people of Zimbabwe why they are opposed to the 

AIPPA. 

4. That all journalists and media workers shall seek cooperation with broader 

civic society on engaging in the public awareness programme and protection of 

freedom of Information in Zimbabwe. 



5. That the decision to become accredited as a media worker or as a journalist 

under the AIPPA and the Media and Information Commission shall be the sole 

prerogative of each individual journalist or media worker. 

6. That there shall be the setting up of a Media and Freedom of Expression 

Support Fund that will assist all media workers and journalists that become 

accredited or are denied accreditation or alternatively do not want to seek accreditation. 

This Media Support Fund shall be governed by representatives of 

Media Houses that attended the Saturday 19 October 2002 Media Workers and 

Journalists meeting. 

7. That a Committee be set up comprising of the various Media Houses and 

Media Unions or Organisations present at the meeting to ensure that the resolutions 

of the Saturday October 19 meeting are carried out. 

BACKGROUND 

The Zimbabwe government on Friday, October 11, 2002, announced its intention 

to take to parliament a Bill to amend the Access to Information and Protection 

of Privacy Act (AIPPA). The amendments are meant to plug what the government 

calls loopholes in the media law. The Bill will however result in more 

powers being accorded to the Media and Information Commission and many of 

the so-called loopholes amount to nothing in offering a reprieve to media houses 

and journalists. 

ZAMBIA 


June 27, 2002 

TOPIC: Application of Section 69 of the Zambian Penal Code 

Honourable Levy Mwanawasa 

President of Zambia 

State House 

PO Box 30135 

Lusaka, Zambia 

June 27, 2002 

Your Excellency 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) wishes to express its disappointment 

and deepest concern over the arrest and charging of journalists 

Emmanuel Chilekwa, Shadreck Banda, Kings Lweendo and Jane Chirwa with 

‘Defamation of the President’ under Section 69 of the Zambian Penal Code. 

Following a successful petition of their lawyers, the journalists were released 

today, June 27, 2002, after spending nearly three weeks in Kamwala Remand 



Prison. They have pleaded not guilty to the charge and the trial has been set for 

July 9, 2002. Furthermore, according to reports Chilekwa, Banda, Lweendo 

and Chirwa had also suffered physical assault and verbal abuse during the interrogation 

sessions which preceded their arrest. 

MISA is strongly opposed to the use of criminal defamation legislation and 

urges your government to scrap this oppressing legislation from the statute books. 

Currently the Media Legal Reform Committee, of which the Zambia Independent 

Media Association (the Zambia chapter of the Media Institute of Southern 

Africa) is a partner, regards it as a priority to advocate for the repeal of the 

criminal libel law (section 69 of the Penal Code). 

MISA holds the opinion that defamation should be dealt with as a civil matter 

and that those who feel that they have been aggrieved should resort to civil 

courts where the accusations may be substantiated or otherwise, rather than 

order the police to arrest journalists and in so doing criminalise their work. 

Criminalising free expression has been the cause of severe punishments administered 

by a number of southern African governments. This has the serious effect 

of intimidating people who may genuinely have information of public concern 

regarding the activities of those in the leadership. 

We, therefore, call upon you, Mr President, to ask the Director of Public Prosecution 

to drop the charges against the journalists as you did in the case of Fred 

M’membe in February this year when the “Post” newspaper’s editor was charged 

under the same piece of legislation. MISA believes that journalists should carry 

out their duties of informing the nation on issues of public interest without 

direct interference from the Executive or the police. 

Furthermore, we urge you, Your Excellency, to uphold Zambia’s international 

and national obligations on press freedom and freedom of expression. We remind 

you, Your Excellency, that the media plays an essential role within a democracy 

and that attempts to limit their ability to report is in breach of the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which, under Article 19, everyone 

has the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any 

media and regardless of frontiers”. 

Yours sincerely 

Luckson Chipare, Regional Director 

SWAZILAND 

2002 



TOPIC: Deteriorating Press Freedom situation in Zimbabwe 



The Swaziland chapter of Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA- 

Swaziland), Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) and 

Swaziland Media and Publishing Allied Workers Union (SMEPAWU) strongly 

condemns the passing of a series of legislations in Zimbabwe, designed to 

control the media and repress independent reporting in the run-up to the 2002 

presidential elections. As interested parties, in that the local media is expected 

to report and inform the public as part of its obligation and duty, it goes without 

saying that the recent developments in Zimbabwe are not conducive to 

our professional mandate. 

We herewith join our colleagues and friends, throughout the Southern African 

Development Community, together with supporting organizations in protesting 

the passing of the Public Order and Security Act and the imminent passage of 

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, which together impose 

wide-ranging restrictions on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. 

As media practitioners, we want to call on His Majesty’s Government to seriously 

consider protesting on our behalf the attempts of the Zimbabwean government 

to pass these repressive bills in an effort to legalize its on-going harassment 

of journalists and its blatant disregard for the constitutionally enshrined 

freedom of expression. Such action is not in the spirit of the Windhoek 

Declaration, Organization of African Unity and the International Human Rights 

Charters. 

MISA-Swaziland, SNAJ and SMEPAWU protest these bills for the following 

reasons: 

1. They impose excessive restrictions on the content of what the media 

may publish or broadcast; 

2. They call for all journalists to obtain accreditation from a government 

controlled body; 

3. They call for all media outlets or businesses disseminating media products 

or even video or audio recordings to obtain a registration certificate 

from a government controlled body; 

4. They specify that all foreign-dominated ownership of the media is prohibited 


5. They endow the authorities with excessive powers to prevent demonstrations. 

The three local media bodies also denounce the ongoing and intensifying victimization 

of media practitioners and violations of media freedoms in that country. 

We appeal that His majesty’s government seriously consider the repercussions 

thereof and do something to warn Mugabe’s Government that such oppressive 

legislations are no longer acceptable at this time and age. SADC states and 

governments are supposed to be more sensitive to the international expectations 

and desist creating a situation whereby our economies are affected nega- 



tively and in the process millions of our people in the region are left in poverty 

and are not enjoying their rights and freedoms they so deserve. 

We have not forgotten how such an oppressive legislation could not get a free 

passage through our Parliament here in Swaziland a while ago. Our leaders 

were wise enough to listen to our concerns raised by the media stakeholders, 

and it is in that same vein that we cannot allow Zimbabwean situation to be left 

unchallenged. 

We hope our concerns will be raised at relevant forums and that the media 

situation in Zimbabwe will improve. Press Freedom is a right that is to be enjoyed 

by those who are being governed, and not just a privilege which governments 

can take away as they please. The situation in Zimbabwe is not at all 

acceptable to us as media practitioners. 

Signed: 

MISA-Swaziland 

SNAJ 

SMEPAWU 

CC. 

Minister Of Public Service and Information. 

Prime Ministers’ Office. 

Diplomatic Representatives, Resident in Swaziland. 

Local Media Houses. 


October 30, 2002 

TOPIC: NGO Statement on abduction of girls to become king’s wives 

We, the underlisted human rights NGO’s and civil society in Swaziland, are 

deeply concerned by the perpetual violation of human rights in the country. As 

moral accountants of our own worth, we felt that if we did not speak out on this 

issue, then we would have failed ourselves and neglected the responsibilities 

entrusted upon us of fostering accountability, creditability and influencing public 

debate on issues infringing fundamental human rights. 

In order to enforce the culture of responsibility we would like to declare our 

utmost condemnation of the recent abduction of three girls by messengers of 

His Majesty King Mswati III. Article one of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights of 1948, states that “All human beings are born free and equal in 

dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should 

act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” 

2002 

It is obvious that many rights were violated by these acts of abduction, such as: 

* The right to education (Article 26) 



* The right to liberty and security (Article 3) 

* The right to a free and consensual marriage of both spouses (Article 16) 

We are greatly disturbed that this comes at a time when the youth of Swaziland 

is supposed to be on a 5-year period of chastity in respect of Umcwasho. The 

example set by His Majesty King Mswati III serves to water down our efforts 

aimed at curbing HIV-AIDS in Swaziland. 

It is also worrying that the King may not necessarily marry all three of these 

girls and that those he chooses not to marry will be stigmatised for the rest of 

their lives - thus denying them their right to respect and dignity. 

A recent newspaper report (Times of Swaziland - October 21, 2002) quoted 

Prince Masitsela challenging Lindiwe, the mother of Zena Mahlangu, as to who 

she is to challenge the King. We feel this question was not directed to Lindiwe 

alone but to all citizens of this country. We therefore ask ourselves who are we 

in this country. Can we as individuals claim to be Swazi citizens? Can we claim 

to have basic human rights? Lindiwe is exercising her rights as articulated in 

articles 6, 7 & 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that:- 

* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the Law 

(article 6) 

* That all are equal before the Law and are entitled without any discrimination 

to equal protection (article 7). 

* No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his/her privacy, family 

and home or to attacks upon his/her honour and reputation. 

That her family, privacy, honour and reputation were interfered with is undisputable. 

Her family will never be the same again, her children’s school performance 

has been greatly affected and that will have a negative impact on their 

future economic empowerment. Lastly, the Convention on the Rights of the 

Child, which His Majesty’s Government signed in 1990, states that, “Parents 

have the responsibility to raise the child. The state must respect the parents’ 

responsibility and help out if necessary” (article 5). 

In conclusion, we would like to emphasize that it is time culture is practiced in 

accordance with the fundamental human rights. As responsible citizens we feel 

we cannot sit and wait for more girls to become victims of an outdated cultural 

practice. We therefore appeal to the courts to also act responsibly by allowing 

the mother to continue to raise and guide the child until she is 21 years old and 

ready to engage independently in a lawful consenting relationship. 

Signed: 

1. Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) 

2. Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) 



2. Family Life Association of Swaziland (FLAS) 

4. Coordinating Assembly of Non Governmental Organisation (CANGO) 

5. Lawyers for Human Rights 

6. Federation of the Disabled Persons (FODSWA) 

7. Save the Children Swaziland 

8. Human Rights Association of Swaziland (HUNARAS) 

9. Swaziland chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISWA) 

SOUTH AFRICA 


April 01, 2002 

TOPIC: Detention of journalist Peta Thornycroft 

The South African chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA- 

SA) condemns the detention without trial of journalist Peta Thornycroft by the 

Zimbabwe Central Intelligence Agency and demands her immediate release. 

MISA-SA has noted features of Thornycroft’s detention which show that this is 

unlawful punitive action against a journalist who has been a consistent and 

accurate reporter of the evils of the Mugabe government and its militant supporters. 

The features are: 

• The fact that she was detained on charges when a summons to appear in court 

would have been sufficient to ensure that she would stand trial; 

• The initial refusal of the authorities to allow Thornycroft’s lawyer to see her 

after her “arrest” and the inability of the investigating officer to give the lawyer 

details of the allegations against her; 

• The sudden absence of the relevant police authorities when the lawyer sought 

to institute proceedings for the release of Thornycroft on bail, thus ensuring that 

her detention would continue for the whole of the Easter weekend - which 

amounted to imprisonment without trial for at least five days; 

• Constant confusion about the charges being preferred against her, which at 

first were that she was not accredited to work as a journalist, then changed to 

publishing false statements likely to be prejudicial to state security and incitement 

to public violence and then again reverting to not being accredited. 

• The publishing allegations against her are mystifying as she does not write for 

Zimbabwe newspapers and little of her published material is available in Harare. 

It would appear that these allegations have no validity, hence the switch back to 

a charge of her not being accredited. This last allegation is also spurious as she 

has valid accreditation. 

2002 

MISA-SA regards the unwarranted imprisonment of Thornycroft coupled with 

new threats that have been made against Harare “Daily News” Editor Geoff 

Nyarota - that he published falsehoods - as the first steps in a new throttling 



clampdown on independent media and journalists in Zimbabwe. 

It is clear that the Mugabe government is desperate to prevent the truth about 

the vicious attacks on opposition supporters from being published in Zimbabwe 

and overseas. 

Raymond Louw 

MISA-SA General Council member 


August 02, 2002 

TOPIC: Amendment of the Broadcasting Act in South Africa 

Statement on the Amendment to the Broadcasting Act in South Africa, released 

at the MISA Annual General Meeting (AGM), Maputo, August 16, 2002 

We, the participants at the 10th Annual General Meeting of the Media Institute 

of Southern Africa (MISA), including members of the southern African country 

delegations and representatives of partner organisations, feel compelled to express 

in no uncertain terms our serious concern at the South African government’s 

attempt to compromise the independence of the South African Broadcasting 

Corporation (SABC) News and to curtail the broadcaster’s freedom of 

expression. 

We wish to remind the South African government that the editorial independence 

of the SABC is celebrated as a major achievement and has been trumpeted 

as a model to be emulated by other governments in the region. 

The Broadcasting Amendment Bill published on August 13, 2002, takes these 

achievements backwards into very dark days of South African history. The 

Amendment flies in the face of the democratisation process that has been the 

hallmark of South African politics since 1994. 

Editorial independence means the right of journalists and editors to make decisions 

on the basis of professional criteria, consistent with universally accepted 

principles, such as the newsworthiness of an event or its relevance to the public’s 

right to know and in accordance with international codes of ethics for journalists. 

The proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act removes the clause in the Charter 

that governs the SABC Board which provides the Corporation with freedom 

of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence. This is 

replaced with clauses that require accurate, accountable and fair reporting. The 

amendment gives the Minister the power to define what the terms “accurate”, 

“creative” and “accountable”, mean. The amendment further requires journalists 

to act in the interests of the Corporation. This is very different from a jour- 



nalistic practice that acts in the public interest. 

It is important that public broadcasters, without undue interference, dedicate 

themselves to serving the functions of informing citizens about matters of public 

interest including acting as a watchdog of public affairs. 

This imposes a responsibility on governments to ensure that these broadcasters 

have complete editorial independence. Governments that fail to do so and interfere 

with the editorial independence of public media are in breach of universally 

accepted principles. 

If the South African government feels aggrieved by SABC news coverage, it, 

like any other person or institution, has the right to redress through the Broadcasting 

Complaints Commission of South Africa that was created specifically 

to adjudicate on such matters. 

For more information contact Tracey Naughton 

MISA Broadcasting Programme Manager 

broadcasting@misa.org.na 

NAMIBIA 


August 27, 2002 

TOPIC: Appointment of President Nujoma as Minister of Information 

It is with mixed feelings that the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) 

received news of the appointment of President Sam Nujoma as Minister of 

Information and Broadcasting, to take effect on August 28, 2002. We hope that 

President Nujoma will use his new office as Minister of Information to promote 

and protect media freedom and freedom of expression in Namibia. 

The Ministry of Information is the governing agency of the National Communications 

Commission (NCC), the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) 

and the New Era, which play a vital role in assisting the citizenry to make 

informed decisions regarding democratic practices and good governance. It is 

not only the act of voting that constitutes democracy, but also the establishment 

of the free flow of information, checking of power, accountability and the monitoring 

of progress that will keep the system afloat. 

MISA, a regional organisation that advocates for media freedom and freedom 

of expression, holds the opinion that the aforementioned agencies should be 

operating independently, always in the public interest without government interference 

and control. 

2002 

We welcome President Nujoma’s concern over the problems currently facing 



the NBC. We hope that the president will commit adequate financial and human 

resources to ensure that the broadcaster operates efficiently and effectively. 

We hope that the decision to place the ministry under the presidency - 

the highest office in the country - will not lead to undue government interference 

in the shape, form and content of the public media. 

MISA calls on President Nujoma to ensure that the editorial independence of 

the NBC and others is established. We urge President Nujoma to ensure that 

the NBC successfully fulfils its obligation as a public service broadcaster and 

that the public is guaranteed diversity of information required for the functioning 

of democracy. 

It is our sincere hope that President Nujoma hastens the restructuring of the 

NCC and NBC and completes the liberalisation of the telecommunications 

and broadcasting sectors. It is our position that appointments to regulatory 

bodies and public media are made by a public process overseen by Parliament, 

and that President Nujoma will be central in the review of the current 

procedure. 

We therefore urge President Nujoma to use his new office to create an environment 

in which public media bodies and regulators act purely in the public 

interest and enjoyment of all citizens. 

Issued by: 


Regional Director, Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) 



TOPIC: Licensing of a second cellular phone company in Namibia 

Namibia’s communications regulator has kicked off the process to license a 

second cellular phone company before major legislation reforming the regulation 

of the communications industry has been tabled in Parliament. 

The Communications Bill, which will establish a new communications regulator, 

the Communications Authority of Namibia (CAN), to regulate private telecommunications, 

broadcasting and postal services, will be presented in Cabinet 

only in the new year, after which the Bill will still have to be debated in 

Parliament. 

In terms of the draft Bill, all private broadcasters, telecommunications operators, 

and postal service companies will be regulated by CAN. However, Namibia’s 

national broadcaster, the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), 

will not fall under CAN’s jurisdiction in terms of the draft Bill, and presumably 



will continue to be regulated by government directly. 

The draft Bill states that CAN will be an “independent” regulator. However, in 

terms of the draft Bill, the authority’s decision-making Board of directors will 

be appointed by the Minister responsible for Information and Broadcasting. 

Currently, the President runs this portfolio. 

According to press reports today, the incumbent regulator, the Namibian Communications 

Commission, on Wednesday December 18, 2002, announced the 

appointment of German consultancy firm DETECON International to oversee 

the bidding for a second cellular phone license. 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) questions the launch of the 

process of licensing a second cell phone operator before the pending reform of 

the communications sector has been debated in Parliament. 

As it is, MISA takes issue with many aspects of the draft Communications Bill, 

which we believe falls short of international standards - notably the SADC 

Protocol on Information, Culture and Sport adopted by Namibia’s National 

Assembly earlier in the year - governing broadcasting and the regulation of 

communications in general. 

There appear to be similarities between the current process for licensing of the 

second cell phone company, and the deregulation of broadcasting back in the 

early ’90s. Then Namibia’s first commercial television broadcaster, M-Net, 

started broadcasting before the relevant legislation had been passed. The business 

arm of the ruling SWAPO Party, Kalahari Holdings, was - and remains - 

the majority shareholder in Multichoice Namibia, the company which launched 

M-Net. 

Enquiries: 



MISA - Media Institute of Southern Africa 



Phone: +264 61 232 975 

Fax: +264 61 248 016 

Cell: +264 811 282 669 

Email: broadcasting@misa.org.na 

Web: www.misa.org 

2002 



TOPIC: Namibia Draft Communications Bill 



Namibia’s Communications Bill, which will establish a new communications 

regulator, the Communications Authority of Namibia (CAN), to regulate private 

telecommunications, broadcasting and postal services, will be presented in 

Cabinet early in the new year, after which the Bill will be debated in Parliament. 

In terms of the draft Bill, all private broadcasters, telecommunications operators, 

and postal service companies will be regulated by CAN. However, Namibia’s 

national broadcaster, the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), will not 

fall under CAN’s jurisdiction in terms of the draft Bill, and presumably will continue 

to be regulated by government directly. 

The draft Bill states that CAN will be an “independent” regulator. However, in 

terms of the draft Bill, the authority’s decision-making Board of directors will be 

appointed by the Minister responsible for Information and Broadcasting. Currently, 

the President runs this portfolio. 

According to press reports the incumbent regulator, the Namibian Communications 

Commission (NCC), on Wednesday December 18, 2002, announced the 

appointment of German consultancy firm DETECON International to oversee 

the bidding for a second cellular phone license. 

The NCC has therefore kicked off the process to license a second cellular phone 

company before major legislation reforming the regulation of the communications 

industry has been tabled in Parliament. 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) questions the launch of the process 

of licensing a second cell phone operator before the pending reform of the 

communications sector has been debated in Parliament. 

As it is, MISA takes issue with many aspects of the draft Communications Bill, 

which we believe falls short of international standards - notably the SADC Protocol 

on Information, Culture and Sport adopted by Namibia’s National Assembly 

earlier in the year - governing broadcasting and the regulation of communications 

in general. 

There appear to be similarities between the current process for licensing of the 

second cell phone company, and the deregulation of broadcasting back in the 

early ’90s. Then Namibia’s first commercial television broadcaster, M-Net, started 

broadcasting before the relevant legislation had been passed. The business arm of 

the ruling SWAPO Party, Kalahari Holdings, was - and remains - the majority 

shareholder in Multichoice Namibia, the company which launched M-Net. 

Enquiries: 





MISA - Media Institute of Southern Africa 



Phone: +264 61 232 975 

Fax: +264 61 248 016 

Cell: +264 811 282 669 

Email: broadcasting@misa.org.na 

Web: www.misa.org 

MALAWI 


March 28, 2002 

TOPIC: Unethical behaviour of Malawian journalists 

The Malawi chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa, known as the 

National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA), has learnt with deep 

concern the physical assault of football coach Nsazurwimo Ramadhan by three 

Sun Newspaper reporters on Friday evening. 

Police records show that Ramadhan was assaulted, in front of his wife, by 

reporters Chikumbutso Mtumodzi, Thom Chiumia, Ken Ndanga and their aide 

Davie Chipembere at Chichiri Shopping Mall. According to law the four were 

arrested and later granted bail. 

Having talked to all concerned parties, NAMISA finds this act, especially by 

practicing journalists, regrettably embarrassing. It is embarrassing and unfortunate 

because it comes at a time when media institutions such as NAMISA 

and the Media Council have engaged Government in dialogue to monitor 

violations of media freedom. The government is proving to be supportive. 

NAMISA would like to remind journalists that their profession requires them 

to act honourably at all times, and that as seekers of the truth they are regarded 

as activists and protectors of human rights. As such their tool, the pen 

- and not the punch as was witnessed in this case, should be used to uplift their 

society. 

NAMISA sympathises with Mr and Mrs Ramadhan for the agonising experience 

and trust that the police will handle the issue professionally to the satisfaction 

of all concerned parties. 

2002 


May 23, 2002 

TOPIC: NAMISA condemns siege of Daily Times premises by UDF 

cadres 



The National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA) is dismayed by 

the demonstration and invasion, on Monday, May 20, 2002, of the “Daily 

Times” premises by traditional leaders and ruling United Democratic Front 

(UDF) loyalists purportedly drawn from Chiradzulu East Constituency. We 

believe the action by UDF was a deliberate move to silence the newspaper 

against writing articles critical of the ruling party and especially on the third 

term issue. 

According to media reports the crowd was demonstrating against articles the 

“Daily Times” and its sister weekly, “The Malawi News”, recently published 

quoting some chiefs who allegedly denied having mandated their Member of 

Parliament, Henry Mussa, to support a UDF bid to change the Constitution in 

order to allow President Bakili Muluzi to run for a third term in office in 2004. 

Much as we appreciate that the political activists had the right to assemble 

and demonstrate peacefully, NAMISA finds the demand by the activists to 

see journalists Mabvuto Banda and Akimu Kaingana and the invasion of the 

newspaper premises by overzealous and excited young democrats as sheer 

acts of intimidation which violate press freedom as enshrined in section 36 

of the Republican Constitution. 

We fail to understand why the honourable MP and the chiefs could not just 

discuss their concerns with Blantyre Newspapers management and resolve 

the issue amicably, as opposed to ferrying truckloads of party zealots to instill 

fear in media workers. One would have expected the Hon. MP and the chiefs 

to have demanded an apology from the paper if they, indeed, were misquoted 

as they have claimed. This is normal in the media world and we are sure the 

Hon. MP knows this. That the demonstration was calculated at intimidating 

Blantyre Newspapers workers and, indeed, send a message to other media 

houses, is vindicated by the news blackout on the incident in the “Daily Times” 

of May 21. Yet this event happened in Blantyre Print’s own backyard. 

We further condemn earlier attempts by other UDF cadres to scare media 

workers from writing news stories and analytical articles that do not favour 

the ruling party’s designs to change the Constitution. A few days ago UDF 

deputy Regional Governor Samson Msosa warned the media to stop writing 

on the third term debate. The party also issued a statement accusing “The 

Nation” newspaper of having sinister motives. In their view, the crime that 

“The Nation” committed was to run interviews which dismissed threats by 

Regional Governor Davis Kapito who warned UDF MPs not to vote against 

change of the Constitution. 

NAMISA wishes to remind the UDF and all other political parties that the 

media has the noble duty of covering issues in a balanced and objective 

manner and it should be left to do just this in the interest of nurturing an 



informed society. 

* NAMISA is the Malawi chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa 

(MISA). 

Signed: 

Lance Ngulube, Chairperson 

Lowani Mtonga, National Director 


September 5, 2002 

TOPIC: Harassment of journalists in Malawi 

The National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA) - the Malawi 

chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa - has gathered circumstantial 

information that some well placed United Democratic Front (UDF) political 

zealots have drawn up a plan to deal with selected journalists in the country 

whom they feel are a threat to their individual and party interests. 

The cadres have targeted BBC correspondent Raphael Tenthani of the “Daily 

Times”‚ Mabvuto Banda, Ackimu Kaingana of “Malawi News”, “The Chronicle” 

newspaper and “The Pride” magazine crew. Mabvuto Banda has changed 

houses four times in a short period of time to avoid being victimised. 

According to the information that NAMISA has gathered, the reportages of 

these journalists are regarded as a threat, an embarrassment to the government 

and an obstacle in the way of the now failed Open Term Bill. 

NAMISA monitored how party functionaries have hunted for the journalists 

throughout recent Parliament sitting and during the visit of the Libyan Leader 

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. 

NAMISA would like to remind the nation that the media is only playing its 

rightful role in disseminating information to the public. The same journalists 

who are targets for harassment have enlightened the society and exposed a 

number of ills in Malawi society to the extent of saving people. 

For example, the media saved the lives of Malawians by informing the government 

about the existence of poison in imported maize. The journalists also 

ensured enough publicity on the otherwise hurried debate on the Open Bill. 

They have exposed corruption and other scandals for the betterment of 

Malawians. 

2002 

It is shocking to learn that the party functionaries are planning to beat up the 

journalists for doing their work. We would like to inform all Malawians that 

freedom of the press is provided for in the Malawi Constitution and the United 



Democratic Front Constitution. 

In 2001 UDF functionaries beat up and harassed a number of journalists. There 

is a resurgence of that plan to harass journalists or media houses that are 

critical of the government. It is an act of intimidation and terrorism to assault 

journalists for doing their work. Such an action will only succeed in tarnishing 

the image of the government, the ruling party and President Muluzi who 

has been advocating for tolerance and the upholding democratic values (including 

freedom of expression). We only hope that the party zealots will 

desist from carrying out such devilish plans. 

Lance Ngulube 

Chairperson, National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA) 



Breakdown of recorded incidents by 

category 

Please refer to page 4 for an explanation 

and definition of these various categories 

Killed 

Expelled 

Beaten 

Censored 

Bombed 

Legislation 

Detained 

Other 

Sentenced 

Victory 

Threatened 

2002 



Total alerts issued in 2002 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Number of alerts by country: 2002 

Angola 

Botswana 

Lesotho 

Malawi 

Mozambique 

Namibia 


Swaziland 

Tanzania 

Zambia 

Zimbabwe 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 120 



Killed 

Beaten 

Bombed 

Detained 

Sentenced 

Threatened 

Expelled 

Censored 

Legislation 

Other 

Victory 

Angola 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Botswana 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 

Lesotho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Malawi 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 1 0 

Mozambique 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 

Namibia 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 

South Africa 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 

Swaziland 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 

Tanzania 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 

Zambia 0 6 0 7 0 4 0 4 4 0 2 

Zimbabwe 0 10 3 37 0 15 10 22 18 2 3 

2002 



MISA’s Annual 

Press Freedom Award 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) presents an annual Press Freedom 

Award with a cash prize of US$1 000 to honour excellence in journalism. 

Excellence in journalism may be described as the upholding of the ethics of 

the profession at all costs, and the relentless pursuit of the truth. The award is 

also in recognition of the work of an individual or institution contributing 

significantly to the promotion of media freedom in the region. The excellence 

which the award acknowledges, can be achieved either through reportage or 

in other ways such as media reform, lobbying or training. 

ELIGIBILITY: The MISA Press Freedom Award is open to all forms of media 

e.g. photography, print, producers, radio, video, film, Internet, or media 

associations and institutions. Eligible individuals or institutions should be based 

in the southern African region (SADC region). 

NOMINATIONS: NOMINATIONS FOR THE 2003 AWARD ARE NOW 

OPEN. All Nominations should be accompanied by a motivation not exceeding 

1 500 words and the CV of the nominee. Where applicable, a copy of the 

work, or a portfolio of work, should be included with the nomination. Nominations 

should be sent to the MISA Secretariat, for the attention of the Regional 

Director, to: 

Postal: Private Bag 13386 

Windhoek 

Namibia 

Fax: +264-61-248016 

E-mail: director@misa.org 

Deadline: June 16, 2003 

For further information, please contact the Regional Director at +264- 

61-232975 



Previous winners of the 

MISA Press Freedom Award 

1993 - Onesimo Makani Kabweza 

The late Onesimo Makani Kabweza, as editor of Moto in Zimbabwe, was 

one of the first Zimbabwean journalists to break the “culture of silence” 

which followed the country independence in 1980. Onesimo dared to take a 

critical stand against the new Zimbabwean government under Robert Mugabe 

at a time when others were too scared to criticise or speak out against any 

government wrongdoing. He was very enthusiastic about the need for southern 

African media workers to unify and thus shared the dreams and aspirations 

of MISA. At the time of his death in 1993, Onesimo was on his way 

back from a trip to Harare on MISA business. 

1994 - Basildon Peta 

By the time the young Basildon Peta was awarded MISA’s Press Freedom 

Award, he had already come up against the full might of the Zimbabwean 

police. The senior reporter at the Daily Gazette, Basildon was incarcerated 

in 1994 for a week, enduring long sessions of interrogation by the 

police, who failed to break his determination to stand by the truth. Basildon 

was also not cowered into silence and he went on to expose further incidents 

of corruption and abuse of power in government. 

1995 - Fred M’membe 

Fred M’membe, probably one of the most persecuted journalist in his country 

and the rest of the region, is a qualified accountant who, along with colleagues 

John Mukela, Masautso Phiri and Mike Hall, founded The Post newspaper 

in Zambia in 1991. Since its founding as a weekly paper and its swift 

progress to a daily paper, The Post under the helm of Fred, tirelessly kept a 

watch on the government, exposing numerous incidents of corruption, illegal 

activities, bad governance, human rights abuses and lack of respect for the 

rule of law. In the process, and despite enormous efforts on the part of the 

government to harass The Post and Fred in particular, Fred has distinguished 

himself as a consistent and fearless journalist, committed to the ideals of media 

freedom. 

2002 

1996 - Allister Sparks 

Allister Haddon Sparks has played a phenomenal role in the media in 

South Africa. Starting out as a reporter on the Queenstown Daily Representative 

in 1951, Allister rose to become a sub-editor under the renowned 

Donald Woods at the East London Daily Dispatch, the editor of the Sunday 

Express, and then the editor of the great Rand Daily Mail. It was during his 

tenure at the Rand Daily Mail in the late 1970’s that Allister distinguished 



himself as a journalist of great valour and strength, willing to stick his neck 

out for a story even though it might have reached into the deep echelons of 

government. In 1992, a decade after being dismissed from the Rand Daily 

Mail, Allister was instrumental in setting up the Institute for the Advancement 

of Journalism (IAJ), based in Johannesburg, South Africa. At the time of 

receiving the MISA Press Freedom Award, Allister was serving on the Board 

of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). 

1997 - Gwen Lister 

Gwen Lister, as editor of The Namibian, almost single-handedly kept up 

the mantle of Press freedom in Namibia, both before and after independence. 

Starting out as a journalist at the Windhoek Advertiser in 1975, she 

eventually went to establish The Namibian, which hit the streets for the first 

time in August 1985. From the outset, The Namibian was the only newspaper 

in Namibia that was brave enough to expose ongoing atrocities and human 

rights abuses being committed by the South African occupation forces. Gwen’s 

determination to uncover and report the truth never wavered, despite concerted 

attempts to harass and intimidate her and the rest of The Namibian 

staff. Gwen’s commitment to a free Press remained steadfast after Namibia’s 

independence in 1990, and her paper continued to adopt a watchdog role, this 

time over the new government of the South West African People’s Organisation 

(Swapo). 

1998 - African Eye News Service (AENS) 

African Eye News Service was the first media institution to be honoured 

with the MISA award. Based in the first South African province of 

Mpumalanga, AENS had established itself as one of the sub-region’s truly 

investigative news services. In its three years of existence, AENS, under the 

editorship of Mr Justin Arenstein, had either halted or uncovered a series of 

corrupt practices in the public sector - some of which had led to public commissions 

of inquiry, or resignations of the affected officials. Its bold and extremely 

courageous reporting earned it several enemies in both the public and 

private sectors of the South African community. The agency attracted numerous 

multimillion rand defamation suits, and to date it had won every case. Its 

team of journalists, especially Mr. Arenstein, had also been the targets of physical 

and verbal harassment, including death threats and threats of assault, while 

also being personally maligned. Despite this harassment and hostility, the 

AENS team carried on its mission with excellence, exhibiting mature and 

professional journalism with depth and carefully verified detail. 

1999 - Bright Chola Mwape 

For the second time in the history of MISA’s Press Freedom Award, the 

award honoured somebody posthumously to Mr Bright Chola Mwape in 

1999. Bright was still a young man when he tragically died as a result of 

injuries sustained in a car accident in August 1999. In 1994 Bright was Man- 



aging Editor of The Post, Zambia’s leading and only independent daily newspaper. 

An article in 1996, in which he criticised a Zambian politician for attacking 

a Supreme Court judge who had earlier struck an important victory for 

the Right to Protest and Freedom of Assembly, saw him being condemned to 

indefinite imprisonment. Also imprisoned was his editor-in-chief Fred M’membe 

and fellow columnist, Lucy Shichone, by the speaker of Parliament. All three 

initially went into hiding to avoid being hauled off to prison. Later on Bright 

and Fred handed themselves over to the police. They were freed after 24 days. 

In 1997, Bright joined MISA’s regional secretariat to head the Media Information 

Unit. Bright’s disdain for the hypocrisy of the SADC governments was 

evident on the occasion of May 3 1999 in a dynamic speech he delivered in 

Windhoek, Namibia. In his speech, Bright angrily dismissed a proposed Media 

Award the SADC governments were considering, questioning their moral 

right to confer such an award amid their obvious reluctance to refrain from or 

condemn government infringements on the rights of the media. 

2000 – Geoffrey Nyarota 

Geoff Nyarota’s first courageous stance of independence came when, as editor 

of the Chronicle, he exposed corruption in high places in what was to 

become known as the “Willowgate scandal”. Geoff was subsequently unceremoniously 

removed from his post and relegated to an obscure position in the 

Zimpapers Company - a move no doubt meant to silence him. It did not work. 

The resilience of Geoff came of age in a sense, with the launching of The 

Daily News in March 1999. It was a magnanimous dream that had as its roots 

service to the Zimbabwean citizenry. The trail that The Daily News blazes has 

come at a price - the paper’s journalists have been harassed and attacked; in 

some parts of the country people can only read the paper in secret for fear of 

reprisals; a bomb - no doubt targeted at the paper was detonated in the building 

housing the paper early in 2001 while the newspaper itself courageously 

exposed a plot by the Central Intelligence Agency to assassinate Geoff. Notwithstanding 

this, The Daily News has played a vital role in publishing news 

not available in other daily papers or through the electronic media, and in the 

process has given knowledge, understanding, strength and courage through 

information to its readers. The expansion in readership has been followed by a 

massive expansion in advertising, and this is built on the exposure of truth 

made possible only because of the enormous personal courage of Geoff Nyarota 

and the team he leads. It is for this that he is being recognised as the recipient 

of the MISA Press Freedom Award. 

2002 

2001 – Carlos Alberto Cardoso 

Carlos Alberto Cardoso, editor of Metical, who was murdered on 22 November 

2000, was born of Portuguese parents in the central city of Beira in 

1952. He studied in South Africa, where be became involved in radical, antiapartheid 

student politics, which earned him expulsion from the country. 

Back in Maputo, he identified with the revolution against Portuguese colo- 



nial rule, although he never became a member of the Mozambique Liberation 

Front (Frelimo). His exceptional talents as a writer ensured a rapid rise in the 

world of journalism. He worked first on the weekly magazine Tempo, then 

briefly on Radio Mozambique, before he was appointed chief news editor of 

the Mozambique News Agency (AIM) in 1980. 

There were often tensions between the open and outspoken brand of journalism 

practiced by Cardoso, and the altogether more cautious approach followed 

by the Frelimo leadership and by the Ministry of Information. 

In 1982, this clash resulted in the sudden imprisonment of Cardoso, apparently 

because an opinion article he wrote in the daily paper Noticias violated 

an obscure government guideline on covering the war. Six days after his arrest 

he was released and he was fully reinstated at the head of AIM. Cardoso was 

deeply affected by the death of Machel in a plane crash just inside South Africa, 

on 19 October 1986. He followed the story of the plane crash with tenacity, 

and built up a picture of the likely causes of the crash - deliberate electronic 

interference by the Apartheid military. 

In the late 1980s, Cardoso found himself in conflict with Information Minister 

Teodato Hunguana, leading to his resignation. In 1990, Cardoso was among 

a group of journalists campaigning for the inclusion of a specific commitment 

to press freedom in the new constitution. The clauses on the media in the 1990 

constitution, and the follow-up press law of 1991, are among the most liberal 

in Africa. In 1992, Cardoso and a dozen others founded a journalists’ cooperative, 

Mediacoop, launching Mediafax. A dispute in Mediacoop in 1997 led to 

Cardoso leaving the cooperative to set up Metical. 

Cardoso campaigned tirelessly against what he regarded as the disastrous 

recipes for the economy imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, championing 

the fight of the cashew processing industry and later of the sugar industry, 

against liberalisation measures. 

Among the scandals Cardoso had been investigating in the last months of 

his life, one stands out above all others. This was the largest banking fraud in 

the country’s history. In 1996, a well-organised criminal network stole the 

equivalent of $14 million out of Mozambique’s largest bank, BCM. Although 

the names of the main suspects were known there was no prosecution and no 

trial. That this was dangerous territory became clear in November 1999, when 

the BCM’s lawyer, Albano Silva, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. 



How to report an attack 

on the media 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) needs your assistance to 

compile accurate and detailed alerts on abuses of press freedom in the 

Southern African region. Alerts serve a very important function in the 

advocacy work of MISA. The ultimate aim of the alert is to spur people on to 

take action in the light of a particular violation. Apart from that, the alert serves 

the purpose of reporting and recording a specific event or incident, which 

either amounts to a violation of media freedom or freedom of expression, or 

significantly advances it. The alert is thus part of one of the most essential 

tools of advocacy - information. 

What to report: 

Journalists who are: 

◗ Assaulted 

◗ Arrested 

◗ Censored 

◗ Denied credentials 

◗ Harassed 

◗ Wounded 

◗ Kidnapped 

◗ Killed 

◗ Missing 

◗ Threatened 

◗ Wrongfully expelled 

◗ Wrongfully sued for libel or defamation 

News organisations that are: 

◗ Attacked or illegally searched 

◗ Censored 

◗ Closed by force 

◗ Raided, where editions are confiscated or transmissions are jammed. 

◗ Materials confiscated or damaged 

◗ Wrongfully sued for libel or defamation 

What to include in your report 

◗ MISA needs accurate and detailed information about: 

◗ Names of journalists and news organisations involved 

◗ Date and circumstances of the incident 

◗ Detailed background information 

Anyone with information about an attack on the media should call the Researcher 

at MISA by dialling +264 61 232975 or by sending e-mail to 

research@misa.org.na 

2002 

What happens with your information 

Depending on the case, MISA will: 

◗ Investigate and confirm the report 

◗ Pressure authorities to respond 

◗ Notify human right groups and press organisations around the world, includ- 



ing IFEX, Article 19, Amnesty International, Reporters San Frontiers, Human 

Rights Watch and the International Federation of Journalists and 

◗ Increase public awareness through the press 

◗ Publish advisories to warn other journalists about potential dangers 

◗ Send a fact-finding mission to investigate 

More about MISA alerts 

The alert is different to a media statement that the latter is more a reaction and 

comment on an incident, while an alert is simply a report about it. Where comment 

is included in an alert it is best reported as a quote. 

Action alerts also educate people about the nature of media freedom violations, 

leading to greater sensitivity to threats and violations, thus ensuring that more 

and more violations do not go unreported. MISA alerts are used as a source of 

information by media freedom organisations around the world and serve to 

augment important international reports and publications which in turn are used 

as advocacy tools or research documents. 

What types of incidents are reported in an action alert? 

1. Direct violations against journalists’ right to operate or report freely - these 

include physical or verbal attacks or threats against journalists during the course 

of their work or as a result of their work; journalists being barred illegally from 

observing events or incidents or inspecting areas, journalists evicted or deported 

from a country because of their work, journalists imprisoned or detained and, 

journalists killed during the course of or as a result of their work. 

2. Censorship - this is where media workers, institutions or activities are banned 

or blocked. Where this does happen always indicate who issued the ban, why 

and in terms of which laws the ban was issued (sometimes countries have more 

than one law which could be used to censor media). 

3. Court cases - these are court cases involving the media or concerning issues 

which affect the media (e.g. a1995 case in Zimbabwe involving cell phone 

company Retrofit did not include the media but significantly advanced freedom 

of expression and required to be reported). Alerts are not normally issued for 

trials or cases which are in progress (unless something significant happens), the 

commencement and conclusion (judgement) are the most important to report (it 

requires however that the entire trial be monitored). Background information is 

very important in alerts relating to court cases e.g. where a newspaper is being 

sued ever an article, find out when the contentious article was published and 

give a brief idea of what the article said or reported. This helps to access whether 

a trial is reasonable and fair. In the case of a criminal trial, indicate exactly 

which law and sections thereof the journalist or media is being charged under. 



4. Legislation - This refers to the introduction, amendment or repealing of all 

legislation affecting media in some way or the other. Very draconian legislation 

is usually monitored and reported from the stage at which it is mooted. When 

issuing in alert around legislation, we make sure to explain precisely which 

parts of the law affect the media and how. 

5. Policies and statements by elected government officials - these are monitored 

and reported in so far as they have a direct bearing on the workings and operations 

of the media. Verbal threats or attacks on the media are crucial to report, as 

well as statements advancing new policies or clarifying, government policies 

with respect to the media. 

MISA chapters where one can report media violations in Southern Africa 

ANGOLA 

(There is currently no MISA Chapter in Angola. Please report media violations 

in Angola to the Regional Secretariat) Regional Secretariat 

Zoé Titus 

Regional Program Coordinator: Media Freedom Monitoring 



Tel. +264 61 232975 

Fax. +264 61 248016 

E-mail: research@misa.org 

Web: http://www.misa.org 

2002 

BOTSWANA 

Mr Modise Maphanyane (National Director) 

Ms Caroline Phiri-Lubwika (Information Officer) 

Plot 398 Ext. 4. Kgasa close 

P/Bag BO 86 

Gaborone 

Tel: 00 (267) 3971972 

Fax: 00 (267) 561199 

Cell: 00 267 71603228 

Email: misa@info.bw 

Web: http://www.misabotswana.co.bw 

LESOTHO 

Mr Malefetsane Nkhahle (National Director) 

Mr Thomas Mapesla (Information Officer) 

House No. 1B, Happy Villa 

P O Box14130,Maseru 100 

Tel:00 (266) 22 320941 

Fax: 00 (266) 22 310560 

E-mail: medinles@lesoff.co.za 



MALAWI 

Mr Lowani Mtonga (National Director) 

Mr Innocent Chitosi (Information Officer) 

E-mail: misama@globemw.net 

Onions Complex, off Chilambula Rd, Area 4, 

P.O Box 30463, Lilongwe 3 

Tel/Fax: 00 265 1 758 091 

Tel: 00 265 1 758 090 

Cell: 265 8 839651 

MOZAMBIQUE 

Mr Alfredo Libombo (National Director) 

Mr Gustavo Mahoque (Information Officer) 

E-mail: MisaMoz@Virconn.com 

Avenida Emilia Dausee No. 389 

Maputo R/C 

C/O Mediacoop 

PO Box 73, Maputo 

Tel: 00 2581 302833 

Fax: 00 258 1 302842 

Cell: 00 258 82305215 

Cell: 00 258 8248 3568 

NAMIBIA 

Mrs Tanya Menges (National Director) 

E-mail: misanam@mweb.com.na 

Tel; 00 (264 61) 236069 

Fax: 00 (246 61) 236054 

Cell: 081 244 3977 

12 Feld Street off Thorer Street 

Maerua Park 

P.O Box 86075, Eros 


SOUTH AFRICA 

Ms Tusi Fokane (Acting National Director) 

Mr Goodman Chauke (Administrative/Information Officer) 

20 Melle Street, Van der Stel Building 

First Floor, Rooms 115/116 

MISA SA, Postnet Suite 122 

P/Bag X42, Braamfontein 2017 

Tel: 00 (27 11) 403 0207 

Fax: 00 (27 11) 403 0208 

E-mail: misa-sa@mweb.co.za 

E-mail: misa-sa@misa-southafrica.org.za 



SWAZILAND 

Mr Comfort Mabuza (National Director) 

Ms Phumelele F. Dlamini (Information Officer) 

Dlanubeka House 

6 th Floor, Office 604 

Corner of Tim & Walker Streets 

P.O. Box 681 

Mbabane H 100 

Tel: 00 (268) 404 6677 or 40 49700 

Fax: 00 (268) 404 6699 

Cell: 605 1142 

E-mail: misa@africaonline.co.sz 

TANZANIA 

Ms Rose Haji (National Director) 

Mr Marco Gideon (Information Officer) 

Uhuru Street, Plot No. 2 

Shari Shamba Area (next to Wazie Club Ilala) 

P.O.Box 78172 

Dar-es-Salaam 

Tel: 255 22 137547 

Fax: 255 22 137548 

Cell: 255 744 270856 (Director) 

Cell: 255 741 564 213 (Information Officer) 

E-mail: misatan@africaonline.co.tz 

2002 

ZAMBIA 

Mr Fanwell Chembo (National Director) 

Mr Sipo Kapumba (Information Officer) 

Mr Lingela Brian Muletambo (Broadcasting Researcher) 

Plot 3814 

Martin Mwamba Road 

Olympia Park 

P.O. Box 32295 

Lusaka 

Tel: 00 (260 1) 292096 or 292097/ 

Fax: 00 (260 1) 292096 

Cell: 00 (260 95) 703747 

Resource Centre: (260 1) 294285 

Information Officer: (260 1 ) 294286 or 260 97 841615 

E-mail: zima@zamnet.zm 

E-mail: fanwell@zima.org.zm 

E-mail: sipo@zima.org.zm 

E-mail: brian@zima.org.zm 

Web: http://www.zima.zm 



ZIMBABWE 

Ms Sarah Chiumbu (National Director) 

Mr Rashweat Mukundu (Information Officer) 

Mr Takura Zhangazha (Advocacy Officer) 

84 McChlery Drive, Eastlea, Harare 

Box HR 8113 

Harare, Zimbabwe 

Tel/Fax: 00 (263 4) 735441/735442 or 721841 

Fax: (call first and ask for fax line) 

Cell: 00 263 11 602 685 

E-mail: Misa@mweb.co.zw 

E-mail: Misazim@mweb.co.zw 

REGIONAL SECRETARIAT 

Kaitira Kandjii 

Regional Program Manager: Freedom of Expression and Right to 

Information 



Tel. +264 61 232975 

Fax. +264 61 248016 

E-mail: kkandjii@misa.org 


REGIONAL SECRETARIAT 

Zoé Titus 

Regional Program Coordinator: Media Freedom Monitoring 



Tel. +264 61 232975 

Fax. +264 61 248016 

E-mail: research@misa.org 




MISA in Southern Africa 

MISA is a dynamic, member-driven network of national 

chapters co-ordinated by a professional regional secretariat 

which seeks - through monitoring, training, capacity building, 

research and the distribution of information - to foster free, 

independent and diverse media throughout southern Africa in 

the service of democracy and development as stated in the 

Windhoek Declaration and African Charter on Broadcasting 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) is a non-governmental organisation 

with members in 11 Southern Africa Development Community 

(SADC) countries. Officially launched in September 1992, MISA focuses 

primarily on the need to promote free, independent and pluralistic media, as 

envisaged in the 1991 Windhoek Declaration. 

MISA seeks ways in which to promote the free flow of information and cooperation 

between media workers, as a principal means of nurturing democracy 

and human rights in Africa. The role of MISA is primarily one of a 

coordinator, facilitator and communicator, and for this reason MISA aims to 

work together with all like-minded organisations and individuals to achieve 

a genuinely free and pluralistic media in southern Africa. 

THE MISA SECRETARIAT 

The MISA Secretariat is based in Windhoek, Namibia, and its main tasks 

are: 

Advocacy: To conduct advocacy in accordance to the organisation’s mission, 

act on media freedom violations and conduct research as the basis of 

specialised and popularised publications. 

News Exchange: To facilitate news exchange (to make sure that local news 

from the independent media is made accessible to the whole region and that 

regional news from the independent media is made accessible to the world) 

National Chapters: To establish a MISA platform in each of the 11 Southern 

African Development Community (SADC) countries, recruit institutional 

members from private and community media and individual members from 

all media houses in the region. MISA has national chapters in Angola, Botswana, 

Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, 

Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 

2002 

Capacity Building: To capacitate national chapters, individual members 

and the independent and community media. 



Management: To establish and implement financial control systems for 

MISA programmes and core functions, develop and maintain a rolling planning 

system for MISA strategies, programmes and core functions and liase 

with key opinion and decision makers central to the fulfilment of the organisation’s 

mission. 

MISA PROGRAMME AREAS 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Freedom of Expression and the Right to Information 

1. Reform and advocacy on all anti-media laws, policies and 

regulations 

2. Legal Defence Funds 

Media Freedom Monitoring 

1. Media Freedom monitoring and Alerts 

2. Research and publications 

Campaign for Broadcasting Diversity 

1. Policy reforms that provide for diversity, pluralism and 

guaranteed public interest 

2. Regulating of broadcasting and telecommunications 

environments. 

3. Regional harmonisation of policy and practice, particularly in 

the provision of satellite services. 

Media Support Activities 

1. Ethics and Media self regulation 

2. Professional Training of media practitioners 

3. Media Awards 

4. Promotion of Local Independent and Community media 

5. News Exchange (MISANET) 

Legal Support 

1. Legal Defence Funds 

GENDER 

MISA believes that gender is intrinsic to a pluralistic and diverse media; 

giving voice to all members of the community; realising human aspirations 

as well as freedom of association. To ensure that gender is being effectively 

mainstreamed throughout its programs and activities, MISA will use gender 

as one of the important indicators for measuring whether each of the values 

and principles that MISA stands for is being achieved. 

The MISA Regional Governing Council adopted the MISA Gender Policy 

on March 28, 2002 and affirmed that MISA will play its role in promoting 

gender equality through adopting exemplary institutional practices and systematically 

taking gender considerations into account in all dimensions of 

its work. 

For more information contact gender@misa.org 



PUBLICATIONS AND MAILING LISTS 

MISA produces an annual publication entitled “So This Is Democracy” which 

outlines the state of the media in Southern Africa and summarises all the 

media freedom alerts issued by MISA in the course of a year. MISA also 

produces the quarterly FreePress magazine, the bi-annual Media Directory 

and publishes research on a number of topical media debates in Southern 

Africa. 

MISA manages a number of mailing lists which alert subscribers to media 

freedom violations, media related developments, training opportunities and 

advocacy campaigns in Southern Africa and further afield. The Media Lawyers’ 

List connects media lawyers in the region. This mailing list is a combined 

project between Article 19, MISA and the Freedom of Expression Institute 

(FXI) in South Africa. 

As a member of the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) 

MISA’s media monitoring function reaches an extensive community of NGO, 

governmental and educational organisations, as well as private persons interested 

in media-related issues. For more information on these activities 

please contact write to info@misa.org 

MISA CAMPAIGNS 

ASK: information is your right 

Civil society is fundamental in the shaping of the media’s responsive role 

and functions. In fact, the challenges facing the media cannot be isolated 

from the challenges facing society as a whole. Likewise, its active participation 

in media freedom issues is central to shaping government policies 

and legislation. MISA seeks to develop a public culture that is not only 

supportive of the media and freedom of expression issues, but in which citizens 

are furthermore empowered to claim information as a right. 

The ASK campaign aims to promote the adoption of access to information 

legislation in the SADC region. Through this campaign MISA aims to raise 

public awareness of people’s right to access information that would help 

them to either understand their situation and remedy it or seek solutions for 

it. For more information on the campaign please contact kkandjii@misa.org 

2002 

SADC Journalists Under Fire 

MISA’s Action Alerts are an excellent tool for advocacy as they strengthen 

the cause of freedom of expression. Unfortunately the issuing of an alert 

does not guarantee the protection of journalists. Practical follow-up is required 

to forward the momentum and opportunities created by action alerts. 

The SADC Journalists Under Fire campaign exposes the persecution of journalists 

in the SADC region, provides practical support to victims and lastly 



advocates for an enabling environment for media freedom and freedom of 

expression. For more information on the campaign please contact 

research@misa.org 

Campaign for Broadcast Diversity 

The broadcast program recognises the contemporary context of the convergence 

of broadcast and telecommunications technologies and advocates for 

progressive policies that will set the framework for the information society 

of the next century. The framework must provide for diversity, pluralism 

and guaranteed public interest in the legislating, infostructure development 

and regulating of these environments. In the SADC context the program 

advocates for regional harmonisation of policy and practice, particularly in 

the provision of satellite services. 

To receive updates on broadcasting and telecommunication developments 

in the SADC region and information on MISA’s Broadcasting Program 

projects send an email to: broadcasting@misa.org 

Speak Out, Participate (Right to Communicate) 

The campaign explores people’s rights to communicate in the new information 

age. 

Speaking for ourselves (in the WSIS) 

The campaign, which has a limited lifespan, ensures that an African perspective 

is presented at the UN World Summit on Information Society. 

Advocacy & Campaign Management Training 

This project will train trainers and campaigners in 10 SADC countries and 

enable civil society advocacy on topical issues. 

Open the Waves 

The campaign promotes three tiers of broadcasting, true public service broadcasters 

and independent regulatory environments. 

LEGAL DEFENCE FUND 

This Fund is intended to assist media workers in distress or test repressive 

legislation in the courts of law. For more information contact the Regional 

Director at director@misa.org 

TRAINING 

MISA Scholarship Exchange Programme 

As part of its ongoing commitment to training, MISA offers a scholarship 

exchange programme, which is facilitated by the Regional Secretariat in 

Windhoek, Namibia. The programme assists individual media practitioners 



in all areas of the media (managerial, editorial, advertising, and technical) to 

work on attachment in another media institution to learn new skills and develop 

existing ones. Contact the Chapter Mobilisation Officer for details of 

this programme at jennifer@misa.org 

MISANET NEWS EXCHANGE 

Since 1994, MISA has been hooking up to the Internet media institutions 

throughout the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). As a result, 

an unprecedented communications network has been developed between 

media organisations throughout the region. This network is called the 

MISANET News Exchange. 

MISANET allows for the exchange of news between connected media institutions; 

an initiative that has developed into probably the most comprehensive 

on-line source of Southern African news and information available. For 

more information about MISANET, contact: info@misanet.org 

THE SOUTHERN AFRICA MEDIA DEVELOPMENT FUND 

(SAMDEF) 

The SAMDEF Fund seeks to promote the development of the emergent independent 

media in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) 

region through financial and technical support. The Fund is based in 

Gaborone, Botswana. For more information on the SAMDEF Fund see 

www.samdef.bw 

THE SOUTHERN AFRICA INSTITUTE OF MEDIA 

ENTERPRENERIAL DEVELOPMENT (SAIMED) 

SAIMED offers management training and media development services to 

accelerate the development of media enterprises throughout Southern Africa 

including creating the capacity in them to source finance from any financial 

institution.” 

2002 


CONTACT US 

MISA Regional Secretariat 

21 Johann Abrecht Street 



Tel: +264 61 232975 

Fax: +264 61 248016 

info@misa.org 

www.misa.org


Notes

Download - Media Institute of Southern Africa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?