The Munhumutape African Broadcasting Corporation (MABC) Television (Pty Ltd), an independent broadcasting company, is challenging the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, in particular Section 27, arguing that it denies freedom of information and the right to information in a democracy. According to papers filed with the High Court on 9 February 2000 by MABC Managing […]
The Munhumutape African Broadcasting Corporation (MABC) Television (Pty Ltd), an independent broadcasting company, is challenging the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, in particular Section 27, arguing that it denies freedom of information and the right to information in a democracy.
According to papers filed with the High Court on 9 February 2000 by MABC Managing Director and Chief Executive Oscar Kubara, the company is charging that Sections 27 and 28 of the act have no place in any modern society and have to be obliterated from the country’s laws.
Kubara argued that Section 27 of the Broadcasting Act infringes upon MABC’s right to impart information and associate with others who want to access its information, as guaranteed by both Section 20 and 21 of the Zimbabwe constitution. He added that Section 28 was simply a reinforcement of the monopoly guaranteed in Section 27.
According to Section 27 of the act, no person other than the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) is permitted to carry on a broadcasting service in Zimbabwe.
The ZBC was cited as the first respondent, with the minister of information, posts and telecommunications and the attorney general (AG) as second and third respondents respectively. The minister was cited in his capacity as the cabinet minister who administers the Broadcasting Act while the AG is nominally being cited in view of the provision of Section 24 of the Zimbabwe constitution which gives the AG the right of audience in any situation where provisions of any statute are being challenged.
In her opposing affidavit filed with the High Court, Erica Fungai Ndewere, ZBC Corporate secretary and legal adviser, stated that ZBC was established in terms of the Broadcasting Act and had no role in the country’s law making process. She said that ZBC was wrongly cited in proceedings where it is sought to have sections 27 and 28 of the Broadcasting Act declared unconstitutional.
Ndewere further said that she was unaware that MABC were presently trading as a broadcaster, since in March 1998 their lease of airtime on ZBC TV 2 was withdrawn for breaching terms of the lease agreement. She said that MABC owed the ZBC Z$12,344,357.05 (approx. US$323,490).
Ndewere denied that MABC was being hindered in its enjoyment of the right to free of expression by the provisions of Section 27 and Section 28. She further denied that ZBC programming was biased and unprofessional. Ndewere stated that MABC competitor, Joy TV, which currently leases ZBC’s second television channel, provided alternative news bulletins and programming.
Ndewere noted that in any event Zimbabwe was able to receive worldwide coverage of views, opinions, news, entertainment or other items as there was no law regulating the receipt of satellite broadcasting into Zimbabwe.
The case continues.
