Zimbabwe 2002: Elections and new media legislation

Updated February 2002

In preparation for the general elections, the Government of Zimbabwe has pushed two pieces of legislation through Parliament, which impose severe restrictions on the Zimbabwean people's freedom of expression and assembly. The Public Order and Security Bill was passed with a majority of 62 votes to 49. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill earned prominent headlines in international newspapers and attracting severe criticism from members of the Zimbabwean opposition, local media and international community.

In the lead up to the presidential elections, the proposed laws impose severe restrictions on the freedom of opinion, expression and information, using the concepts of national security and public order. The bills include a mixture of life and death sentences for those accused of assisting in terrorism, espionage, sabotage and treason against the President, all concepts widely and elusively defined. Some of the hardest tenets of the Public Order and Security Bill criminalize criticism of the Zimbabwean President. Under its provisions, a person can be sent to prison for, literally, 'uttering words' that are obscene, threatening, abusive, insulting or intending to provoke a breach of the peace.

The bill outlaws any communication or the publication of statements that are deemed prejudicial to the state, promoting public disorder or public violence; adversely affecting the defence or economic interests of Zimbabwe; or undermining public confidence in a law enforcement agency. Most controversially, the bill bans anyone from issuing public statements that engender hostility, hatred, contempt or ridicule of the President.

The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill was presented on 30 November 2001 and finally passed in its amended, 'softer' form on Thursday 31 January, following a week of intense pressure, including a vigil at parliament and a protest petition organised by Zimbabwean and foreign journalists.

Under the proposed legislation, a new regime of licensing journalists will severely curtail independent reporting and acts of terrorism will be made punishable with life imprisonment or the death penalty. Journalists have to register with the Statutory Media Commission to be set up by the government, and will have to observe a code of conduct. Licences can be annually renewed, but can also be revoked at any time.

It will be deemed an offence to deliberately spread information aimed at discrediting a person on the basis of political affiliation, and to conceal, falsify or fabricate information presented under the guise of authentic reports.

Journalists will not be allowed to rewrite a story published by another mass media service - most likely the state media - unless the owner of the newspaper grants permission. Furthermore, cabinet deliberations or information held by different government departments will be published only if they are voluntarily released and authorised by a supervisor from the department concerned.

The wording of the provisions attracted severe criticism for leaving much room to the discretion of the Minister of Information. Broadly defined clauses will be used to censor Zimbabwean journalists who have published in foreign newspapers in the past. Charges could be formulated to accuse journalists of assisting terrorism, so prone to manipulation is the wording of the tenets.

Britain herself passed a Terrorism Act in summer 2000 that, according to James Hammerton, marked 'a serious assault on civil liberties, using an extremely broad definition of terrorism that would cover those who voice support for armed resistance against repressive regimes, those who damage property in protest, and those who organise mass faxing as a form of protest against governments'. As Hammerton suggests, under the Act 'the Home Secretary is authorised to outlaw an organisation on the basis of suspicion. The Act also allows police to search and arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant.

It creates various offences where the burden of proof may be on the defendant to prove their innocence and even makes it an offence to wear clothing that makes the authorities suspicious of membership or involvement in the activities of a proscribed organisation'.

Since events of September 11, numerous changes have occurred in the law of Western countries, which are questionable in principle and ill equipped to balance the competing interests of individual rights and order. Emergency anti-terrorism bills indicate a global trend moving away from protection of civil liberties and human rights promotion.