By Arthur Chatora
The recent disturbing threats made by Information, Media and Broadcasting Services minister Prof Jonathan Moyo in Bulawayo that the state security will confiscate journalists’ cameras and digital devices should the president fall again raises concern over government threats to censor the media by trampling on their constitutional right to freely exercise their duty. Commenting on media coverage of the “Mugabe fall”, whose pictures went viral on social media, the minister said the media’s behaviour was “irresponsible and unrealistic” and perceived errant journalists risked exclusion from future events.
Commenting on the failed attempts to force journalist to delete pictures of President Robert Mugabe falling or “breaking the fall”, Moyo said, “These digital devices have built in facilities for things that are deleted to remain alive for at least thirty days. So next time, we have learnt that we should not delete, we should take devices”.
What the minister’s utterances highlight is a worrying aversion to divergent voices and unfavourable representations in the media considering the fact that taking the pictures was not an offence and there are no regulations to regulate or censor their publication. The constitution guarantees “freedom of the media” and protects citizens’ “freedom to seek, receive and communicate ideas and other information”. Essentially, the constitution affords the media the freedom to represent public phenomenon and it is not the prerogative of the government nor the Ministry of Information to determine how news is framed or which images or incidents the public sees. Deleting the pictures or threats to confiscate cameras is an attempt to expurgate and re-construct reality.
At the briefing held at the Bulawayo Press Club Prof Moyo made veiled threats to exclude journalists from future events saying “we are inviting them these days…If they become irresponsible and unrealistic in their behaviour we will remind them that is exactly the reason why we were not inviting you before”. These denigrating remarks are surely disturbing and reflect the general attitude towards private media. Journalists from the private mainstream media have continued to practice in a challenging political and professional context despite civic groups such as Misa-Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe National Editors’ Forum (Zinef) issuing statements criticising the attacks and threats against the media. It is commonplace that journalists from the independent media are periodically sidelined from certain events, usually without reasonable justification, in itself an attack on citizens’ right to access public information.
At the event the minister went on to give examples of various locations where if the public took inappropriate pictures security personnel is obliged to delete the images. The areas identified included the “sacred temple in Cambodia” and “the Vatican”. I am in agreement that indeed there are areas or incidents which the public might not be permitted to take pictures or video footage for security reasons or if the area is designated as a National Key Point/Area, and prior permission is required (legally in itself a contested issue).
However, the point of departure is the event in question did not fall into such a category, it was not closed to the media. The event was a public event where journalists were invited. Thus, it is the media’s prerogative to choose to publish this information to the public as long as the information does not “incite violence; advocate of hatred or hate speech; [cause] malicious injury to a person’s reputation or dignity; or malicious or unwarranted breach of a person’s right to privacy,” Section 61: Constitution of Zimbabwe.
Using the example of a Cambodian sacred temple and equating it to the “presidential fall” incident is being economical with the truth as one is a private location whose coverage is governed by institutional rules and regulations as opposed to a public event. It rather conflates unrelated issues, which muddles the distinctions between genuine public interest and what is merely of interest to the public.
The notion of the media as watchdog, whose functions include defending the public interest is of utmost importance. The debate over what is regarded as “responsible” or “unrealistic behaviour” highlights the contestation over public discourse. It raises legitimate questions that citizens might have, the concerns over the president’s health. It is the public’s right to know and debate whether the fall has an impact on the president discharging presidential duties or if was indeed a result of a poorly laid out carpet. However, expurgating or censorship of this content is an attack on the public’s right to know.
It is worth drawing parallels between the minister’s threats and the ongoing debate in South Africa of the signal jamming in parliament during President Jacob Zuma’s State of the Nation Address as they both point out to media censorship. While the censorship is different in form and magnitude, the one case in Zimbabwe is a threat to censor cameras whilst the South African case is an actual clampdown on mobile phones signal which resulted in a digital media blackout (which led to a court case brought by media houses and civic groups against Minister of State Security). While the reasons for such signal jamming censorship are speculative (floated explanations include security, political and technical malfunction), the undeniable consequence is subversion of freedom of expression.
Similarly, the threats to confiscate journalists’ cameras is also a subversion of their freedoms, impacting on the public’s right to know. Of major concern is that this threat has not raised distinct outrage and condemnation within civic organisations and the public at large.
Indeed, it is disturbing that the practice of photo journalists is threatened by ad hoc retributive remarks and we should be very afraid and concerned.
