By Nigel Nyamutumbu
If there was anyone who had given the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) the benefit of doubt that the media regulatory body would act independently and break away from the dark past in awarding television and community radio licences, the parliamentary inquiry into the call for applications virtually exposed that this process is nothing but an attempt to apply lipstick on a frog.
The recently appointed BAZ board appeared before the parliamentary portfolio committee on information, media and broadcasting services on March 5, where they had been invited to share the regulatory authority’s vision, capacity to implement their legislative functions and more critically to provide clarity on the recently gazetted regulations for the establishment of community radio stations.
In addition, the committee sought clarity on the criteria used in determining the areas that will be the first beneficiaries of community radio licenses.
To put things into perspective, the call for television and community radio broadcasting stations, which also included a call for applications for campus radio services as gazetted on February 21 2020, is a historical development. Zimbabwe has a single television station despite being one of the first countries to introduce this broadcasting service in Africa. It is indeed embarrassing that some countries that enjoyed television services decades after Zimbabwe have progressed and are now spoilt for choice with a wide range of television station options.
Zimbabwe is one of the few countries in Africa that does not have community radio services with the national and provincial stations in the country either directly controlled by the state or those affiliated to the ruling party and government. The absence of genuinely independent players within the broadcasting sector has long been one element that has stalled the realisation of democracy and human rights in the country.
The absence of diversity in the broadcasting sector is one area that President Emmerson Mnangagwa said would underpin the new democratic trajectory not only for Zimbabweans to enjoy their constitutionally enshrined rights, but also to convince the international community that the country is transforming and to attract the much-needed foreign direct investment.
As such, the process of opening up the airwaves has to be meticulous, transparent and inspire confidence within media stakeholders and indeed the nation at large as evidence that government is sincere about reforms. There is no need to unnecessarily rush, if the process will not produce the desired results.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
As veteran journalist and legislator Kindness Paradza argued in the hearing, the country has waited for 40 years for the airwaves to be open to community broadcasters and can, therefore, afford to wait a little longer if the process would lead to legitimate reforms.
While there are several issues that emerged from the parliamentary portfolio committee hearing, there are at least three issues that BAZ ought to urgently consider so that their credibility is restored in the process of awarding the television and community radio licences. These issues pertain to the costs of applications, the gazetted regulations, stipulated within statutory instruments 26, 27 and 39 of 2020 and the envisaged roll-out plan proposed by BAZ.
On the issue of the cost of application, prospective television applicants are expected to part with an initial $42 500 and should they be invited for a public hearing, a further $127 000 is required. Those that wish to apply for the community radio service are expected to part with $8 500. These fees, which are supposed to merely facilitate administrative procedures as obtained in the constitution, are by any measure exorbitant.
Section 61 (3) of the constitution categorically states that “broadcasting and other electronic media of communication have freedom of establishment, subject only to state licensing procedures that are necessary to regulate the airwaves and other forms of signal distribution.” The aforementioned fees do not pass this constitutional test, especially in the context of the response that was given by the board that BAZ needs the fees in order to sustain its operations.
Surely citizens’ rights cannot be mortgaged to sustain the operations of a state entity whose role is to facilitate the enjoyment of that same right.
The second issue that BAZ needs to immediately address are the regulations governing the call for applications. The parliamentary portfolio committee particularly zoomed into the regulations set out for community and campus radio broadcasting services gazetted under statutory instrument 39 of 2020.
Firstly, the regulations miss the mark in defining community by merely restricting this definition to geographic boundaries. In so doing, the regulations negate community of interests and as was rightly submitted by legislators — religious groupings, business people or groups of farmers can make up communities of interest keen on having a medium to exchange ideas.
Secondly, as informed by the narrow definition, the regulations make it mandatory for persons serving in the law and order (among other) departments to be a part of the prospective community radio governing structure. This prescriptive nature of those that should constitute the leadership of the community radio station, especially of state agents entrenches the state control of these platforms and could deter content that is critical of it. This provision is also not in the spirit of section 61 (3b), which states that broadcasting establishments should be “independent of control by government or by political or commercial interests.”
Thirdly, the regulations seek to establish the political inclinations of an applicant, something that is also ultra vires the constitution. When quizzed on the need of this provision in the gazetted regulations, the board conceded that it was an unnecessary inclusion, although it was not clear on what steps would be taken to rectify this anomaly.
It is really spurious that the authority had included such a provision in the first place.
*To read this article in full go to www.thestandard.co.zw l Nigel Nyamutumbu is a media development practitioner, currently serving as the programmes manager of the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe (MAZ). He can be contacted on email [email protected] or +263 772 501 557
