The death of media freedom in Zimbabwe is being mourned after a Supreme Court ruling effectively put journalists under government control.

The ruling, which upheld restrictive media laws controlling local journalists and foreign correspondents, gave Jonathan Moyo, the information minister and President Robert Mugabe's spin doctor, the power to decide who works as a journalist.

Only one supreme court judge, Justice Wilson Sandura, disagreed with the findings, calling them "unconstitutional".

The judgment was written by Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku, a close friend of Mugabe, who served in his cabinet after independence.

In future, journalists working without licences will face a mandatory two-year jail sentence without the option of review. The judgment nullified lower court judgments that had ordered that the government's Media and Information Commission - established to license journalists - be disbanded. Friday's judgment saw the immediate closure of the country's biggest and only independent newspaper, the Daily News, because its journalists had long been refused licences to work. The ruling meant imprisonment if they had continued to bring out the newspaper.

Abel Mutsakani, the managing editor of the Daily News and president of the Independent Journalists Association of Zimbabwe, which brought the unsuccessful supreme court application challenging the constitutionality of the draconian Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, said: "This is the final nail in the coffin of the independent press. We are devastated and heartbroken.

"To say we are in mourning is probably an understatement. How can anyone expect to work as an independent journalist anymore when government has been vested with arbitrary powers to license journalists?"

"It's completely disgusting when the supreme court of the land itself becomes or behaves like a criminal institution," said one lawyer, who asked not to be named.

By giving the government powers to license journalists, in violation of constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression, the supreme court has "dishonestly and wantonly" abdicated its role as the supreme upholder of the human rights of citizens, the lawyer said.

The Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe and many international media bodies, including the Southern Africa Journalists Association (Saja), condemned the ruling.

"Surely even those judges who see their role as being to appease the regime of Robert Mugabe only, must at times be restrained by their conscience in the long-term interests of their own country in which their children live," said the Saja.

Lovemore Madhuku, a University of Zimbabwe constitutional law professor, who also heads the largest Zimbabwean civic group, the National Constitutional of Zimbabwe (NCA), said the judgment was nothing more than "a clear endorsement of the governing regime, passed without any regard to basic principles of legal interpretation".

Moyo, however, praised the judgment and vowed that Zimbabwe would also not relax measures preventing foreign journalists from residing permanently in the country. "We have no apology to make," Moyo said. "We do not want to flood our country with foreign media representatives when we have a flood of Zimbabwean journalists with no jobs."

Mugabe introduced the laws after his controversial re-election in March 2002, a move critics said was aimed at silencing opponents as the country struggles with a deep political and economic crisis.

Dozens of journalists have already been prosecuted under the act. "I am delighted about the decision of the supreme court," Moyo said. He said the government was forced to act after realising that western powers wanted to use the foreign media in "their campaign for unconstitutional regime change" in Zimbabwe.

In his judgment, Chidyausiku ruled that section 20 of the Zimbabwean constitution, which guaranteed freedom of expression, did not guarantee the freedom of the press as well. He also said journalists were not above the law and that they should be subjected to government regulatory control.

Supreme Court judge Sandura, the sole survivor of Mugave's purging of the bench over the past three years, said it was unconstitutional for journalists to be forced to be accredited buy a government media commission.

He said this was because the constitution empowered citizens to "hold opinions, receive and impart ideas and information without interference", unless state restrictions were reasonably justified in a democratic context.

Sandura also disagreed with the notion that freedom of expression does not cover freedom of press.

"There is not rational basis for distinguishing the practice of journalism from the exercise of the right of freedom of expression because the two are entwined..." Sandura ruled.

Mathatha Tsedu, chairperson of the African Forum of Journalists, said the situation in Zimbabwe continued to defy logic.

"On the one hand there is talk of a possible political solution, so one is baffled by the Zanu-PF government's insistence on controlling the media in a democratic society. The Daily News should be fighting in the marketplace, not the courtroom," he said.

Anton Harber, a professor of journalism at the University of the Witwatersrand, said the notion of a government registering journalists is contrary to any notion of press freedom and democracy.

"For a country to uphold that right, which Zimbabwe does, goes against international notions of press freedom."

Harber said the closure of the Daily News was a setback for the democratisation of Zimbabwe.
Patrick Craven, a Cosatu spokesperson, said the federation was opposed to the lack of basic human rights legislation in Zimbabwe. Craven said journalists and media workers are seriously at risk through the latest decision.

Ronnie Mamoepa, a spokesperson for the department of foreign affairs, said the South African government had discussed concerns regarding the media in Zimbabwe, which had been raised by the Editors Forum, with the authorities.