Back to Index

The state-controlled Media and Information Commission (MIC) on 23 February 2007 reserved its ruling in a case  in which it intends to cancel an expired accreditation card which it issued to freelance journalist Nunurai Jena “in error” under the controversial Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).

The card in question expired on 31 December 2006.

Jena who was duly accredited for the 2006 calendar year is alleged to have:

• failed to submit a fresh application following changes in his original application.
• failed to renew his accreditation by 31 December 2005 in that he submitted his form 18 days after the expiry date.
• failed to include required photographs in his application dated 10 December 2004 and 18 January 2006 and that the application form is neither signed nor stamped by the mass media service which he listed as either his employer or buyer of his stories.
• received an accreditation card issued on the basis of a recommendation but before the application was approved, signed and stamped and that the officer who made the recommendation has since been dismissed for “various acts of misconduct”.

In addition the MIC also demanded that Jena furnishes them with documentation of his journalistic activities, local and foreign buyers of his stories and print-outs of the accounts into which he deposited his earnings from journalistic activities in 2005 and 2006.

Responding to these allegations, Media Lawyers Network lawyer, Tapiwa Muchineripi who is representing Jena, conceded that Section 79 of AIPPA requires journalists whose circumstances would have changed to submit a fresh application as opposed to seeking renewal of accreditation.

Muchineripi, however, argued that the MIC is mandated by Section 39 (1) (e) which deals with the functions and powers of the Commission to inform and educate the public about AIPPA, a function which it failed to perform in the case of Jena.  He submitted that if the MIC had performed its duties as required it would have accordingly advised Jena to submit a fresh application.

Muchineripi furthered argued that cancellation of an accreditation card amounts to deletion from the roll of journalists.  He advised the Commission of a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Mugabe and Mtezo versus the Law Society of Zimbabwe that deletion from one’s professional role is reserved for very serious offences.  As such, he urged the MIC to desist from rushing to delete Jena from the roll of journalists in view of the Supreme Court ruling.

Regarding allegations that Jena had received an accreditation card issued on the basis of a recommendation and that the officer who made the recommendation had since been dismissed for “various acts of misconduct”, Muchineripi argued that Jena had no control over the conduct of the MIC’s employees. He should therefore, not be penalised for the employee’s incompetence.

As for the other allegations, Muchineripi argued that they could not be substantiated as they did not reflect any contraventions of AIPPA.

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