Press freedom: GNU not doing enough

It is under that GPA that the reigning Government of National Unity (GNU) was established in February this year.  Article XIX of the GPA specifically relates to ‘Freedom of Expression and Communication.’  For some reason, Zimbabwean politicians are inclined to avoid terms such as “freedom of the media” or “press freedom.”
At the Lancaster House talks, Ian Smith, President Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo and Abel Muzorewa agreed to the inclusion of Section 20 in the Constitution which would provide for just “Freedom of Expression”.
This is unlike Constitutions in other democratic and progressive jurisdictions, such as Namibia, South Africa and Malawi where their constitutions explicitly provide for press freedom.
The protagonists of the political process in 1979 (at Lancaster House) might be forgiven on the grounds that they negotiated in bad old days, when the civil liberties philosophy was somewhat still underdeveloped.  Yet 29 years later, under the Thabo Mbeki-led talks President Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara still shied away from committing to press freedom. They were happy to just refer to “Freedom of Expression and Communication”.
Well, they did say they were not happy with all the aspects of the agreement, but the point remains, press freedom in Zimbabwe must still be derived from umbrella provisions.  Media freedom or freedom of the press must be derived from Section 20 of the Lancaster House Constitution, or from Article XIX of the Global Political Agreement.
The derivative mode for the exercise of press freedom is certainly well below acceptable standards in any modern democracy.  Regrettably, even in the diluted form, the constitutional, statutory and GPA provisions providing for press freedom in Zimbabwe have not been observed with the seriousness that should be accorded to press freedom.
Typically, the principals to the GPA acknowledge the importance of a free press in Article XIX, which purports to proceed from the point of “recognising the importance of the right to freedom of expression and the role of the media in a multi-party democracy.”
The principals further note that:  “while the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act permit the issuance of licenses, no licenses other than to the public broadcaster have been issued.”
An undertaking was made at the time of the signing of the GPA in 2008, to the effect that the government would ensure the immediate processing by the appropriate authorities of all applications for re-registration and registration in terms of both the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) as well as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).
At least two problems arise from this one out of many problematic undertakings. The first problem is that the GNU has done absolutely nothing to ensure “re-registration or registration” of banned newspapers and broadcasting stations.  The Daily News, the Tribune, the Daily News on Sunday, Capitol Radio, among other beleaguered media institutions, remain banned.
If anything is being done about the re-registration of these institutions and the registration of new players in the media field, then such action does not amount to immediate accomplishment, as stipulated by the GPA.
There can be not justification for the subsistence of monopolistic structures in the media under the GPA, nor under contemporary media law jurisprudence.
Indeed, the GNU’s failure to advance the cause of press freedom is further illustrated by the dilatoriness with which it has approached the media reform program.
An All Stakeholders Media Conference, apparently designed to reform the media sector, and hopefully to entrench press freedom on the Zimbabwean scene, has been postponed twice within a few weeks.
The conference had initially been scheduled for March 29. It was cancelled at the last minute via the 8:00pm news bulletin on March 28.
Many participants had traveled to Harare and had already checked into hotels and lodges for the conference. This writer had cancelled an important trip to Bulawayo, in preference for the conference, only to learn via the news, that the important event had been “postponed until further notice.”
Then a new date was set:  April 24-26. Many participants became aware, one way or the other, of the new dates just a few days before the scheduled dates.  Just before the dates, the conference was postponed yet again, to May 6-8.
The venues have been changed from Harare to Nyanga, and now possibly yet again to Kariba.  Details are still sketchy and it remains to be seen if the May event will take off.  No solid reasons have been proffered for the postponements.  One thing is abundantly clear though; so far the GNU has not been serious about media reform and about press freedom.
The second problem with the undertaking under the GPA, for the registration or re-registration of media houses under the BSA and AIPPA is that the political players failed to recognise the draconian nature of the two pieces of law.  How could a government use instruments that were used viciously in the past by the previous regime to suppress the press, for the freeing of the airwaves and of the press?
The over-whelming position taken by most journalists and media reform advocates in recent years is that AIPPA, the BSA, the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), the Official Secrets Act, and numerous other repressive pieces of legislation, must vanish from Zimbabwe’s statute books.  The promise on press freedom through controversial and undemocratic laws is therefore blemished by the defects that made the subject statutes controversial and divisive in the first place.
As stated earlier, blemished as the promises might be, the GNU has still failed to keep its word. 
When and if the GNU eventually decides to belatedly free the press, it should remember that freedom of the media or press freedom means a state where the broadcast and print media are not unreasonably restricted in the process of gathering and disseminating information. 
The media should not be subjected to backward practices such as prior censorship of editorial material to be published or broadcast, and shall not be subjected to restrictive pre-operational legal, political or financial conditions by government or any regulatory authority.
Anyone who wishes to speak through the press should speak.  Because the country’s media houses are too few to accommodate all the voices, there should be as many media outlets as citizens wish to establish, in order to make free expression possible, and to promote plurality of ideas and content in the media.
Zimbabwe’s media regulatory regimes and legal landscapes still fall far short of these internationally accepted minimum standards, but on this Press Freedom Day, the rulers of the land get another chance to make things right for the press.
Zimbabweans deserve a free press!

– Chris Mhike is a media lawyer practicing in Harare.