Back to Index

The Daily News of Zimbabwe
International Journal of Civil Society Law, Vol II Issue 2
April 2004

Brystol English, departing IJCSL Associate Editor, is a third year student at The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. Interested readers may contact Ms. English by e-mail at 59english@cua.edu.

Zimbabwe's media crisis continues in the series of cases between the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) and the government, namely, the Media and Information Commission (MIC). The litigation arises from the 2000 Access to Information and Privacy Act (AIPPA) of Zimbabwe initiated by Mugabe's administration. The ANZ argues that the Act is a vice to hold down the ANZ's ability to publish its two opposition newspapers, the Daily News and the Daily News Sunday. The courts have made several critical decisions, some conflicting, between February and March. The decisions are and will be a reflection of today's questionable rule of law and democracy in Zimbabwe and perhaps an indication of what the future holds.

Immediately following the ruling allowing the Daily News to recommence publication on 22 January after a December court ruling ordered a police occupation of the premises and seize of publication, the Supreme Court, in a 4-1 decision, overturned the earlier ruling and decided on 5 February that the ANZ must be registered by the MIC. As a result, the Daily News stopped publishing on 6 February. The Court also maintained its position that refused to hear the plea of unconstitutionality because the ANZ had approached the court with "dirty hands."¹ The ANZ and the Independent Journalist Association of Zimbabwe (IJAZ) challenged the constitutionality of the AIPPA requiring the reporters to be accredited and that the statute makes it a criminal offense for a reporter to publish without accreditation. IJAZ argues that the accreditation and registration provisions of AIPPA should be of a voluntary nature in the request for identification as before the enactment of AIPPA.²

Following the 5 February Supreme Court decision concerning the constitutionality of AIPPA, the Daily News applied for clarification on whether the paper was permitted to publish notwithstanding its failure to be registered by the MIC. On 17 February the High Court declined to issue a judgment concerning the issue until the paper's application for accreditation was approved or denied. In turn, the Supreme Court postponed its ruling on the paper's fate until 3 March pending finalization of all other proceedings, leaving uncertainty of the paper's status. Despite the paper's urging the court to follow the law that permits journalists to continue operations pending the application process of a submitted application for accreditation, the court, seeing no urgency in the issue, advised them to follow the normal procedures of the court. ³

Foreseeably, the MIC rejected the ANZ's attempt to register and receive accreditation with the Commission.⁴ This waging war over media rights being fought in the courtrooms and the subsequent holdings pronounced by Zimbabwean judges will make the difference of how the country is perceived and treated by the international community. Illustratively, the European union renewed sanctions on 23 February not only against Mugabe in his role in oppressing the media and opposition, but also against the head of the MIC for his responsibility in closing down operations and intimidated opposition papers such as the Daily news. The sanctions also speak to the EU's concern of the AIPPA's degradation of the freedom of association and assembly.⁵

Resulting from the court's advisement not to operate pending finalization of litigation, the ANZ has been forced to downsize its journalist and staff positions from approximately 300 to a core group of 50. The continuing litigation and stay of publishing means that the Daily News, once with a readership of 900,000, can no longer afford salaries for its workers. Also as a result of the upholding of the AIPPA, some journalist are reluctant to continue working as criminal penalties will insist.⁶

On 3 March the Supreme Court reserved judgment in a consolidated case brought by the ANZ and the MIC. The case comprised the issues of constitutionality of AIPPA and the Administrative Court's jurisdiction to order and enforce its judgment that the MIC register the ANZ. Despite its previous "dirty hands" position and the fact that the ANZ had attempted to comply with last September's court order to register with the MIC before challenging the constitutionality of the AIPPA, the Court heard the ANZ's arguments against constitutionality after the counsel for the government conceded that ANZ had complied with the law.⁷ The counsel was also unsure that the powers of the Information Minister were not excessive in the eyes of justice and unable to confidently defend the government's position to the Court. The Court also challenged the level of fairness to be obtained by the Commission which does not operate independent of government influence; particularly, under AIPPA, the Information Minister, an interested party of the government, is permitted to suspend, prosecute and dismiss members of the MIC on a misconduct charge by the Minister. Noting that the Minister is also responsible for the definition of misconduct, the Court chided the impossibility of a consistent legal definition. The Court also proffered that the regulated body for journalists should be independent of government and commercial influence.⁸

The Supreme Courts aforementioned challenges, questioning, and suggestions of government independence are monumental from the previous months positions. If the legal positions are followed through here, Zimbabwe may be in the grips of change.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP