(WPFC/IFEX) – The following letter from Zimbabwe Minister of Information Jonathan Moyo is in response to an earlier WPFC protest letter to President Robert Mugabe (see annex) regarding the proposed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill. It is followed by the WPFC’s reply to Moyo’s letter. 31 July 2001 Marilyn Greene Executive Director […]
(WPFC/IFEX) – The following letter from Zimbabwe Minister of Information Jonathan Moyo is in response to an earlier WPFC protest letter to President Robert Mugabe (see annex) regarding the proposed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill. It is followed by the WPFC’s reply to Moyo’s letter.
31 July 2001
Marilyn Greene
Executive Director
World Press Freedom Committee
11690-C Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 20191
United State of America
Dear Ms Greene
We acknowledge your faxed letter of July 27, 2001 to His Excellency President Robert Mugabe expressing your organization’s opinions on the proposed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill to be tabled before the Parliament of Zimbabwe in due course.
While we have noted your opinions in the usual manner, it is regrettable that you chose to make your letter available to only some selected media interests, including the Opposition Press in Zimbabwe, who have published excerpts of your letter with the now too familiar distortions and misrepresentations not only about press issues in Zimbabwe but also about the general political situation in the country. What makes this even more regrettable is that you did not extend the common decency to allow for a response to your letter.
We assume that you released your letter to selected media interests associated with the opposition in our country because it was your partisan intention to use your letter to spread falsehoods to the public gallery in the hope of further entrenching international confusion about the actual situation in Zimbabwe. This, in view of the fact that the opinions in your letter echo the same distortions and misrepresentations, virtually all of them based on either your organization’s ignorance about Zimbabwe or your not-so-hidden political agenda against the majority African people in our country.
As regards the content of your opinions, please note that, while we fully respect your right to hold any opinions about our country, we disagree with you not only because your opinions are ill-conceived, ill-informed and politically motivated but also because your opinions naturally do not have as much weight as the opinions of the majority black Zimbabweans who make up the core of our Sovereign Republic.
We have advised you before that the people of Zimbabwe cherish their fundamental human rights, including Press Freedom, not because organizations like yours gave them these rights but because of the success of the armed liberation struggle that was waged precisely to bring about and extend fundamental rights to everyone. In the same way, and for the same reasons, we fought to have our rights; it should go without saying that we will defend the same rights with all the legality arising from our independence and freedom as an expression of our Sovereignty.
In terms of our democratic practice and rule of law, as enshrined in our Constitution, which is our fundamental law and only guiding principle, Parliament has the full responsibility of making laws. The process of making law in our Parliament is public knowledge and is therefore known to any interested Zimbabwean, including objective minded international observers.
It is important for you to understand that, like any other legislation, the proposed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill will not, and cannot, become law without going through our democratic and constitutional process. Individuals and groups with an interest in giving input to any proposed legislation know what to do, when and how to do it. Consequently, your opinion that there is or might be any disregard for any input is just that: your opinion. That opinion has no basis in our democratic and constitutional practice and therefore does not deserve to be taken seriously beyond cheap politicking by your organization that, with its so-called anti-communist role during the Cold War, is now well known for supporting partisan geopolitical interests on behalf of Western governments.
Finally, it is most unfortunate that, from a professional point of view, you seem to have neither qualms nor shame about purporting to comment authoritatively on a proposed Bill whose contents you have not read. That is unprofessional and unethical not least because ignorance is never a basis for a professional or ethical comment. For your information, the Bill in question is still being drafted. Also for your information, we have received and continue to receive lots of input from interested parties that do not share your political agenda. When the Bill is tabled in Parliament, there will be more opportunities for further input and debate in the usual democratic and constitutional way.
Sincerely,
Prof. Jonathan Moyo, MP
Minister of State for Information and Publicity
Office of the President and Cabinet
Response to Moyo’s letter from the WPFC:
August 1, 2001
Fax to: (263) 4728 799 / 708 820 / 734 644
The Honorable Jonathan Moyo
Minister of State for Information and Publicity
Office of the President and Cabinet
Private Bag 7700
Causeway
Harare, Zimbabwe
Dear Professor Moyo,
Thank you for your letter of July 31, which we have given appropriate consideration.
Unfortunately, it provides no information about the proposed Zimbabwe “Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill” beyond what you and other government representatives provided when we met with you in Harare on May 9.
Rather, it appears to be an ad hominem attack on the World Press Freedom Committee, which has a long and constructive record of support for a free press in all countries, including those of Africa, and for the right of people to know what is happening around them.
I am sorry that you felt it necessary to respond in this manner, as our wish is to cooperate with you in helping ensure that Zimbabwe’s proposals square with its expressed desire to support the freedom of all its citizens.
Frankly, provisions reportedly contained in the draft bill as described to us that would license journalists, impose a code of conduct for news media and establish a special body to enforce its provisions sound remarkably like proposals to regulate journalists advanced some years ago in South Africa during the regime of that country’s apartheid government.
With specific reference to points that you raise:
We would be pleased to send copies of our letter to other news media you feel should have this, if you will provide names and addresses.
We must respectfully reject your statement that our views of the facts are based on “ignorance about Zimbabwe” because, as noted already, they derive in a significant way
from information provided, during our visit to Harare, by you and other government officials.
We agree wholeheartedly with your statement that the people of Zimbabwe cherish their fundamental human rights, including press freedom, and we look to you to help ensure that these rights are fully accorded everyone.
Contrary to your apparent belief, the World Press Freedom Committee does not, and never has, supported “partisan geopolitical interests on behalf of Western governments.”
The WPFC accepts no government support, and has criticized actions of Western governments with equal vigor when this was required.
We would appreciate it very much if you would have your office send us by swiftest means the draft of the proposed bill that you described to us as soon as this is available. This would facilitate understanding of its final direction, which we hope will be more positive than has been outlined.
Finally, we welcome your comment that when the bill is tabled in Parliament there will be opportunity for further input and debate in the usual democratic and constitutional way. We assume this will permit press freedom and human rights groups such as ours to submit further views in writing, and we and others will be watching to see if the proceedings are handled in a manner in which views of all sides are heard.
We would appreciate any further comments you might have, and thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. Greene
Executive Director
ANNEX
Original WPFC letter to Moyo, dated 27 July 2001:
27 July 2001
His Excellency Robert Mugabe
President of Zimbabwe
Causeway, Harare
Zimbabwe
Fax: (263) 4728 799 / 708 820 / 734 644
Dear President Mugabe:
It is with great disappointment that the World Press Freedom Committee notes the determination of your government to go forward with presentation of an ill-conceived bill whose intention is to assert government control over Zimbabwe citizens’ access to news and information.
Ironically misnamed a “freedom of information” bill, this proposed legislation would achieve just the opposite. We respectfully disagree with Information Minister Jonathan Moyo’s characterization of this bill as normal. Mr. Moyo told us, in a conversation in his office on May 9, that the bill is “very comparable to FOI legislation found in constitutional democracies around the world ⦠because we are a constitutional democracy.”
He also indicated that the government would “table” or present the bill for legislative action without benefit of comment or contribution from journalists or the public. Such consultation, he said, “will be out of the question. It is the role of Parliament to pass law; groups can apply pressure through their constituency MPs. They can then table amendments.”
Such disregard for input by those affected by proposed legislation is clearly not consistent with democratic governance.
Conceived virtually in secret and without meaningful consultation with journalists or the public, the “freedom of information” bill places in the hands of government officials the determination of who can work as a journalist, what information can be reported and how newspapers and broadcast entities shall be run.
Mr. President, such restrictive measures are indicators of insecurity, not strength. A true democracy – which you say you have in Zimbabwe – welcomes the ideas and views of its constituents rather than their fearful and unquestioning acquiescence. We take exception to your own stated view that “journalists haven’t got the freedom to offend others.” In their work, which includes investigative reporting and the scrutiny of actions and policies of public officials, journalists will – and indeed must – often “offend” others.
It is sadly ironic that in the same week as Zimbabweâs step backward into censorship, another African nation, Ghana, moved in the opposite direction, toward a more open system in which freedom of expression is encouraged.
We applaud Ghana’s leaders and legislators for their determination to decriminalize offenses of defamation and libel, making them civil offenses instead. This is as it should be – in Ghana, in Zimbabwe, and in all nations calling themselves democracies. Ghana is also moving to distance itself from old colonial laws that enable the president to ban organizations at will.
We urge you to recognize that a vibrant public debate is the lifeblood of true democracy and the foundation of national strength. A free and independent media is an essential part of this process. A free press is fundamental to democracy.
Earlier this year, a delegation of press freedom advocates, including representatives of the World Press Freedom Committee, visited Zimbabwe and spoke with a wide range of government and media representatives. We urged them to work for a full, free and public dialogue on all issues of public concern.
Unfortunately, we have seen little progress toward this openness.
We urge Zimbabwe to:
— Meet its obligation, as a member of the United Nations, to adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its Article 19, which affirms:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
— Ensure the safety of journalists and carry out full and proper investigations of abuses against press freedom;
— Cease its campaign of intimidation against the news media;
— Halt the use of criminal defamation suits against journalists; and remove from the statue books insult laws granting special protection to public officials.
— Withdraw from further consideration its proposed “freedom of information” bill, which attempts to impose government control over access to and dissemination of information and news.
Respectfully,
Marilyn J. Greene
Executive Director
Ronald Koven
European Representative
