Zimbabwe journalism 

 

6/20/02 11:06:44 AM (GMT +2)
 
 

 

Today, our reporter Lloyd Mudiwa appears in court, charged under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It is The Daily News on trial – the first of a long list of similar cases we expect to be brought up under a section dealing with journalistic work.

 

 

 

The result, either way, will set a precedent with a potential to change the manner in which we speak or speak out against anything in our beleaguered country.

 

The core of the charge sheet states that a journalist shall be deemed to have abused his journalistic privilege and committed an offence if he falsifies or fabricates information; publishes falsehoods; and except where he is a freelance journalist, collects and disseminates information on behalf of a person other than the mass media service that employs him without permission of his employer.

 

He faces a fine of $100 000 or up to two years in jail. The heart of the matter is the definition of a falsehood. Two senior ministers of government, Ignatius Chombo and John Nkomo, on Tuesday were quoted live on television, declaring categorically that squatters at Whitecliff farm near Snake Park in Harare would be forcibly removed by the morning of 19 June. Chombo is the minister responsible for local government.

 

Nkomo supervises the police. If what the two say does not happen because Information Minister Jonathan Moyo stops it, could the ZBC be charged with publishing a falsehood?

 

Could the ZBC be accused of having failed to check the “truthfulness” of the stance taken by Chombo and Nkomo, key officials who handle squatters whenever they pitch up their makeshift structures?

 

Somebody recently told The Herald there had been a flurry of activity at the British High Commission involving officials from the Law Society, the opposition MDC and Western diplomats plotting to overthrow the government. On that day, the High Commission was closed for the Queen’s jubilee.

 

In this case, who shoulders the blame for publishing a falsehood? The source or the newspaper? If it is the newspaper, then why did the government not take action?

 

If a Minister tells a Press conference that a new railway line, linking Harare and Chitungwiza, will be built in the next two months and that does not happen, could a newspaper which reports that be prosecuted for reporting a falsehood?

 

This story was published just before the 2000 parliamentary election. In fact, a company won the tender and a ground-breaking ceremony was held. There is still no railway line there two years later.

 

The key to the definition of the word false, in the case of information gathered from sources, lies in the determination of whether the journalist wilfully and intentionally published a story knowing the information to be false. In any case, it is abhorrent to criminalise journalism.

 

Truth-telling in journalism, and in society generally, is an ideal which we all strive for. The truth, says the adage, has many facets. A major ethical challenge to journalism is to investigate any material that we process in order to get the total truth and nothing else.

 

Mistakes do occur in the process as some sources refuse to divulge information. In the case of The Daily News, Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena, has publicly vowed to deny us vital details on anything, for his own personal reasons, despite the fact that, as a public official, he is compelled to do so.

 

As we have stated before, the Act is being applied selectively to destroy the privately-owned Press. The state media’s open lies have gone unquestioned and are sometimes peddled with government blessing.

 

Today, media houses, all registered companies, are being asked to re-register with a government-appointed Media Commission. The Act defines a journalist as anybody who earns a living directly from a media service.

 

That includes editors, reporters, sub-editors, editorial secretaries and messengers, photographers and darkroom assistants, origination clerks, production assistants, cartoonists, librarians and vendors.

 

For them to work, they must have licences. Failure by any one of them to obtain a licence results in the suspension of the company’s operations.

 

This is a tall order which must never be accepted in a democratic society. The consequences of Mudiwa’s case, preceded by that of Andrew Meldrum, the correspondent of the British Guardian newspaper, are set to resonate beyond our borders. They threaten to change the face of our journalism.

 

 

 

Extortionist Masara 

 

6/20/02 10:19:37 AM (GMT +2)
 
 
Lloyd Mudiwa

 

Bernard Masara, 36, who in February last year extorted $15 000 from the former chief executive of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ), Muchadeyi Masunda, on Tuesday had his appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed in the High Court in Harare.

 

 

 

ANZ are the publishers of The Daily News. High Court judge, Justice Susan Mavangira, said: “Both appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.”

 

Masara was convicted by Harare magistrate Remigious Jemwa in April last year and sentenced to three years in jail.

 

Jemwa, however, suspended part of the sentence leaving an effective 20 months in jail.

 

Masara, who was allegedly hired by the Central Intelligence Organisation to assassinate Daily News Editor-in-Chief, Geoffrey Nyarota, last year revealed details of the plot.

 

The Daily News published the story after agreeing to find a safe sanctuary for Masara outside the country.

 

After the story was published, Masara left Zimbabwe for a refugee camp in Botswana, where he was to stay.

 

However, he returned to Zimbabwe and ANZ informed him their arrangement was no longer in force because he had failed to adhere to the terms agreed.

 

Masara then demanded that the company continue to look after him. He wrote a letter to Nyarota on 29 January 2001 warning the editor he would face death if he did not bow to the demands.

 

On 5 February, Masara went to Nyarota to demand $15 000 to pay debts he said he had incurred while in Botswana. He refused to leave the office until he was paid $14 000.

 

Nyarota contacted the police when Masara returned to his office nine days later demanding more money.

 

Masara, in his appeal, wanted the conviction set aside. If the court declined to overturn the guilty verdict, he wanted it to impose a non-custodial sentence.

 

Arguing against his conviction, Masara said he had not meant to harm Nyarota and Masunda.

 

He said: “They were just empty threats. I just wanted to frighten them into paying for my subsistence. Since the threats were empty, I should not have been convicted.”

 

Masara, who represented himself, said since he should not have been convicted in the first place, Jemwa should not have sentenced him.

 

He said in the event Mavangira upheld the conviction, then she should impose a non-custodial sentence since he did not actually harm anyone.

 

While supporting the conviction and a custodial sentence, Nickiel Mushangwe of the Attorney-General’s Office said the sentence might have been severe.

 

Mushangwe said Masara had committed extortion by employing threats with the objective of obtaining money.

 

"A custodial penalty is indeed warranted," he said. "Masara in the instant case conducted himself in a most shameful manner.

 

Purely out of the benevolence and goodwill of the complainant, he was paid considerable sums of money, on several occasions, over a long period of time.

 

"His actions are tantamount to one biting the hand that feeds oneself. According to Masunda and Nyarota, Masara had literally become a thorn in the flesh, making outrageous demands."

 

Mushangwe said extortion was a serious offence, and case precedent clearly established that even in the case of a first offender the appropriate sentence was frequently a prison term without the option of a fine.

 

But Masara was a repeat offender who was last in prison in 1992. Mushangwe, however, urged Mavangira to reduce the effective jail term to 14 months, saying Masara had since led an unblemished life since 1992 and apologised for the offence.