Back to Index

Human rights commission and rights abuses
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Weekly Media Update 2006-13
Monday March 27^th – Sunday April 2^nd 2006

THE official media’s status as megaphones of government policies was clearly illustrated by their passive defence of government’s plans to establish the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC), ostensibly to deal with rights violations in the country.

Instead of critically examining the proposal, these media simply amplified Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa’s justification for establishing the commission and supinely endorsed the plans.

As a result, none of the 25 stories they carried on the matter (ZBH [16] and official Press [9]) explored the mechanics surrounding the creation, composition and operation of the ZHRC. Neither would they fully discuss the effectiveness of the commission in a country with a raft of repressive laws that have eroded basic freedoms of Zimbabweans.

Rather, Spot FM, ZTV (28/3, evening bulletins) and Radio Zimbabwe (29/3, 6am) merely quoted Chinamasa inadvertently revealing that the decision to institute the body was necessitated by government’s wish to counter "falsified and orchestrated" allegations of rights abuses in the country.

They never challenged these attempts to dismiss reports on the country’s poor human rights record as falsehoods. Instead, the stations passively celebrated the proposal saying it will create a "culture of human rights in the country".

ZBH’s favourite commentators such as Aston Musunga and Godfrey Chikowore were then brought in to give the commission a seal of approval. They hailed the decision saying "it will go a long way in protecting the rights of all Zimbabweans" and "further consolidate the country’s democracy".

Without subjecting such claims to scrutiny, ZBH’s reporters also blindly celebrated the official plans. For example, the broadcaster’s chief reporter, Reuben Barwe, said the development was overdue as NGOs who "have had a field day about the human rights record of this country…could easily soil the image of the country for easy donor funds". His counterpart Douglas Rinemhota weighed in claiming that "many believed" the establishment of the commission "will show Zimbabwe’s commitment to upholding international conventions of human rights".

The government papers were no different.

Seven of their nine stories on the subject simplistically endorsed the setting up of the commission while only two sought alternative views on the matter. The two comprised comments by the UN hailing government’s proposed ZHRC on condition it "would be carried out through a process of consultation with all relevant parties" (The Herald 29/3) and civic and political organisations’ scepticism about the relevance of the commission in an oppressive environment characterised by draconian media and security laws such as POSA and AIPPA (The Herald 30/3).

However, rather than make a reasoned appraisal of ZHRC on the basis of these observations, the government newspapers simply drowned such views in stories that regurgitated Chinamasa’s statements justifying the need for the commission.

And instead of interrogating Chinamasa’s insinuation that the formation of the commission was triggered by "the falsification, exaggeration, orchestration and stage-managing of human rights violations by detractors" than from a genuine need to safeguard human rights in the country, The Herald (1/4) - like ZBH - narrowly latched onto this explanation and vilified NGOs for "fabricating" rights abuses in the country.

In fact, the official papers devoted several editorials and opinion pieces to endorsing the envisaged reining in of NGOs through the formation of the commission. The Herald (28/3), for example, noted that the commission will "pull the rug from under their (NGOs) feet as it will be tasked with communicating with all treaty bodies that they fed with lies over the human rights situations in the country."

Subsequently, it (30/3) accused NGOs of "filing an average of three fabricated human rights complaints every month" at "various international forums and treaty bodies to which Harare is a signatory" resulting in Zimbabwe being kept under international scrutiny with "endless envoys" being sent to "investigate the alleged violations".

However, the paper did not substantiate its claims. Rather, it presented ZHRC as "an indispensable institution" that would safeguard the soiling of Zimbabwe’s human rights profile and reduce the frequency of cases of alleged human rights abuses.

Besides justifying the formation of the commission on a series of some UN resolutions made in 1946, 1979 and 1986 and 1993, The Herald (30/3) passively cited Chinamasa assuring the nation that "the ZHRC would be constituted in the same way members of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) were selected" and enjoy the "same independence" as that of the judiciary.

The government media’s lopsided coverage of the subject was reflected by their sourcing patterns as shown on Figs 1 and 2.

Fig 1 Voice distribution on ZBH

Although ZBH carried more alternative voices, almost all those quoted were the usual advocates of government policies who passively hailed the proposed establishment of the commission. Views of civic society and human rights activists on the matter were conveniently ignored.

Fig 2 Voice distribution in the government Press

Notably, though the papers only cited two government voices, most of the stories they carried were mere amplifications of official voices.

Only the private media presented more alternative views in the 10 stories (private Press [8] and private stations [2]) they carried on the matter. For instance, while they acknowledged the authorities’ move, they queried the sincerity of setting up the human rights body within a choking legislative environment.

SW Radio Africa (27/3), for example, reported National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) chairman Lovemore Madhuku dismissing the proposals saying, "You need to have laws that provide for genuine human rights protection. Then a commission only comes into being to protect those human rights which are already provided for under the law".

The Financial Gazette (30/2) concurred, adding that "human rights credentials are not earned on the basis of half-hearted measures as this promises to be".

Similar views were raised in the Zimbabwe Independent’s comment (31/3), A new constitution should come first. In addition, the paper quoted the NCA contending that the commission would "serve as additional bureaucratic ruling to prevent and delay Zimbabwe from mounting human rights complaints in the international arena…"

Its Muckraker column alleged that Chinamasa had "unwittingly sabotaged" the commission’s credibility when he associated its independence to that of the judiciary and the ZEC.

The Standard and Sunday Mirror (2/4) also carried stories critical to the proposed ZHRC.

Apart from examining plans to establish the human rights commission, the private Press also carried four reports on human rights violations and recorded two incidents. The private radio stations featured 10 stories, of which four were fresh incidents of rights abuses. The incidents included the harassment and arrest of university students, MDC supporters and members of the civic society on allegations of violating the repressive POSA.

The critical manner in which the private media handled the subject was illustrated by their efforts to give space to independent commentators as shown in Fig 3 and 4.

Fig. 3 Voice distribution in private papers

Fig 4 Voice distribution in the private stations

Visit the MMPZ fact sheet

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