Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
Media Update # 2001/40
1st October to 7th October 2001

CONTENTS
1. Summary
2. The Supreme Court ruling and the Judiciary
3. POLITICAL VIOLENCE: ZBC continues to suppress
incidents of violence
4. MDC ROW: Private press maintains low-key note

1. SUMMARY

ª The Supreme Court’s ruling granting the government
temporary relief from an earlier interdict preventing it from
acquiring commercial farms, attracted wide media attention.
The state media focused on comment from government
officials and those individuals and organizations sympathetic
to the ruling party to give the impression of unanimous
approval. And it pursued its agenda to portray those who had
raised doubts about the competency of the Bench that made
the decision as racists by quoting anonymous sources,
including “black judges and lawyers”. In this way the
government media kept alive accusations of racism in the
legal fraternity that had resurfaced at the beginning of the
hearing but which originated in a campaign initiated by
senior government officials last year to remove former Chief
Justice, Anthony Gubbay.

ª All sections of the print media published a scathing criticism
of the Executive by a High Court judge before his
resignation. But the government-owned media dismissed it
by quoting Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, attacking
former High Court Judge Michael Gillespie as an
“unrepentant racist” former Rhodesian whose criticism had
demonstrated a “disgusting abuse of the bench” (The
Herald 6/10). But the paper made no effort to substantiate
these vitriolic insults, nor asked Moyo what evidence he had
for making them.

ª The row between Supreme Court Judge, Justice
Muchetetere and Chief Justice, Godfrey Chidyausiku, was
carried merely as a letter in The Herald (2/10) and as a
straightforward story on the front page of The Daily News the
next day. But the Herald simply ignored the controversy in
its news columns.

ª Fewer stories of political violence punctuated the week than
in previous weeks, but where they were reported the familiar
pattern emerged of the state media blaming the MDC and
the private Press ascribing responsibility to Zanu PF.

ª Zimpapers also continued to try and extract as much
propaganda as possible out of attacks on an MDC MP’s
home in its efforts to portray the opposition as “doomed”
as a result of divisions within the party exposed by the
violence (The Herald 2/10). The private Press on the other
hand, dealt with the dispute arising from the attacks
sympathetically, minimizing its effect on the party.

ª MMPZ notes the recent corrections published by The Daily
News to errors carried in earlier issues. This is as it should
be. However, the errors concerned reflect a lack of diligence
in the process of newsgathering and provide the paper’s
critics with the opportunity to discredit its reputation and
devalue the importance of its role as a vital messenger of
relevant news. Its muddle over the numbers of health
professionals remaining in government service reflected a
level of naiveté or negligence among members of the editorial
staff that beggars belief, while the story relating to Minister
Moyo’s bouncing cheques in Bulawayo exposed the paper’s
willingness to publish stories without substantiating
evidence. Despite the extremely hostile environment in
which media workers in the privately owned Press operate,
this practice cannot be condoned. The story about the
health professionals appeared in The Daily News of October
1st, and the correction appeared the next day. The paper
apologized to Minister Moyo in its October 8th edition for the
story it carried in its edition of September 13th falsely
claiming that the Minister had issued cheques, which had
been dishonoured.

2. THE SUPREME COURT RULING AND THE JUDICIARY

ZBC reported the Supreme Court ruling in favour of the government
by widely quoting ZANU PF officials and sympathisers celebrating
the decision. War veteran, Andrew Ndlovu, (ZTV, Nhau/Indaba,
2/10) was quoted saying the ruling showed that “the judiciary was
now addressing Zimbabwean problems and is no longer
against the will of the people of Zimbabwe”, giving the
impression that changes made to the judiciary by the government
were bearing fruit.
ZANU PF lawyer, Terrence Hussein, was sought for a legal
interpretation of the ruling (ZTV, 2/10, 8pm) and countered earlier
reports in the private press questioning the neutrality of the Bench
on the grounds that most judges who heard the case were
appointed under ZANU PF patronage. He pointed out that one of
the judges had been part of the Bench that had heard the original
case last year, while there had been no complaints about the
decisions of two of the other judges who had been recently
appointed to the Supreme Court. But he overlooked the need to
examine the credentials of Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku
whose relationship to ZANU PF is unquestionable.
Minister of Information, Jonathan Moyo, was also quoted saying
the ruling confirmed that government’s land reform programme was
being conducted lawfully.
“...That means everything which we did as government
in terms of land acquisition and resettlement up to the
1st of July was, contrary to those who have sought to
portray it in political terms, quite legal…”
The next evening Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary
Affairs, Patrick Chinamasa (ZTV, 3/10, 8pm), reinforced Moyo’s
statements when he stated:
“…this Supreme Court should have made this ruling
late last year. The Supreme Court last year, on no legal
basis or grounds, stopped government from lawfully
acquiring land in terms of our Land Acquisition Act…”
The impression given by Minister Chinamasa was that the
Supreme Court, led by former Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay, had
ignored the laws of the country and that the current Bench’s
interpretation of the law was correct. It also gave the impression
that Supreme Court rulings are fair only when they are in line with
government's wishes.

The Daily News and Zimpapers' titles followed up ZTV's reports the
next morning (3/10). It wasn't until Thursday (4/10) that Zimpapers
dailies carried long articles according Minister Moyo lengthy space
to elaborate on his television comments. Deputy Attorney-General,
Bharat Patel, was also given ample space to give government’s
legal comment on the ruling. The CFU and their legal
representative, Adrian de Bourbon, were given a few lines to
comment, but these were quickly muffled by anonymous
“analysts” accusing De Bourbon of being racist. The Herald has
been regularly employing these unnamed sources to promote a
racist perspective without providing any credible evidence to
support such claims. The next day, The Herald (5/10) continued its
racist invective, combining an unrelated High Court case, and a
follow-up to the land ruling under the headline, High Court Judges
in Racial Clash.
Abandoning all norms of issue-oriented journalism, the paper
resorted to crude character assassination by quoting unnamed
black lawyers claiming De Bourbon was an indoctrinated racist
who had been taught by a Professor Christie who reportedly “used
to tell his students that blacks could not practice law because
of their background.” Opinion was allowed to pass as fact and
the paper made no effort to explain how any of this had any
connection to De Bourbon, far less his remarks in the Supreme
Court. Nor was De Bourbon given an opportunity to reply to the
insults.
The Herald (4/10) aired a government perspective of the Supreme
Court’s decision, while The Zimbabwe Independent (5/10) provided
a gloomy but factual comment “Without an independent judiciary
we are doomed”. This cited ongoing violence in the country to
substantiate the fact that the rule of law had not been restored on
the farms as claimed by the government, a fact also raised in The
Daily News comment of the previous day.
In a news story on the ruling, The Zimbabwe Independent quoted
De Bourbon saying he would take the case to the Law Society of
Zimbabwe, the South African Bar Association, and the International
Bar Association (IBA). The paper also carried useful independent
opinion from the Legal Resources Foundation that revisited the
IBA’s recommendations issued after a visit to the country earlier
this year. The LRF was reported as saying the composition of the
judiciary could give credence to the allegation that the Bench was
“packed” which might violate the assurances given to the IBA by
President Mugabe.

The Saturday dailies reported the attack on the Executive by
former High Court judge, Justice Michael Gillespie, in a criminal
review judgement, accusing government of subverting the judiciary
and "engineering" factory invasions and electoral violence. The
Daily News (7/10) gave the story front-page status but simply
reported the contents of the review, without seeking comment.
By contrast, the judge’s remarks gave Zimpapers and government
officials the opportunity to attack the judge without bothering to
provide any evidence to support the insulting claims made against
him.
The article gave Minister Moyo another opportunity to launch a
gratuitous and vitriolic attack on the judge and the judiciary in
general, violating a government undertaking made to the IBA that
attacks on the judiciary would be brought to an end. Moyo's
disparaging accusations of racism and abuse contained in the
story (see summary) were echoed in the newspaper's comment,
which also linked him to the "Rhodesian era" and to the MDC.
The same edition of The Herald carried the full text of Gillespie’s
judgment, which substantiated the reasons for his resignation
without being overly emotive. The Sunday News (7/10) also carried
a comment equally scathing, not only of the judge, but of all white
judges in general.
The Sunday Mail, The Zimbabwe Mirror and The Financial Gazette
reported none of these developments.

ZBC (ZTV, 6/10, 8pm and Radio 1/3, 7/10, 6am) followed up The
Herald’s attack on Justice Gillespie by quoting the lawyer, Joseph
Mandizha, who said the judge’s comments exposed his ignorance
of the ‘doctrine of the separation of powers’. ZBC allowed
Mandizha to misinform the public without any challenge when he
said: “While we talk of the separation of powers, the reality of
the matter is that the Judiciary and the Executive should really
be one and the same. So it’s as if the judiciary is attacking
itself.”
His comments appeared to be an attempt to say the institution of
the Judiciary should not be independent of the Executive, thus
justifying the Executive’s recent interference with the Judiciary.
Mandizha also took the opportunity to criticize Advocate De
Bourbon for his comments about the Supreme Court ruling.
Another lawyer, Shingi Mutimbwa, was quoted by ZTV describing
Gillespie’s comments as, “…a serious indictment…of criminal
and civil justice in this country”. No independent comment was
sought from lawyers’ organizations or legal academics.

The week also witnessed a row between Minister Chinamasa and
Justice Muchechetere over who was more senior in the country’s
legal fraternity. ZBC merely noted that The Herald had published a
letter from Justice Muchechetere (ZBC, 3/10, 8pm) dismissing
claims by Minister Chinamasa that he and Chief Justice
Chidyausiku were the two most senior black legal practitioners in
the country. Muchechetere stated that he was the most
experienced because Chinamasa and Chidyausiku had graduated
when he was already practicing. A closer analysis of this debate
shows that Chinamasa based his argument on the political position
one held, while Muchechetere based his response to Chinamasa's
comments in Parliament the previous week on years of experience.
To clarify this, the state broadcaster should have sought
independent experts to explain the criteria used to establish
seniority in the judicial fraternity.
This could only be found in the private Press. The Zimbabwe
Independent (5/10) quoted University of Zimbabwe law lecturer
Lovemore Madhuku saying Chinamasa’s statements were “too
simplistic and misleading.”
He was also quoted as saying: “Seniority among lawyers
depends on various factors. (Political) appointment to a
judicial position is merely one of them. That’s why you can
find judges on the bench who are junior to lawyers in practice
or to professors at a school of law.”
The Daily News (4/10) duly followed the story, with Chinamasa
standing by what he had said.

3. POLITICAL VIOLENCE: ZBC continues to suppress incidents
of violence

There was a notable decline in the incidence of politically motivated
violence reported in the press during the week. Farm violence
continued to receive attention in the private press, while the
government-owned media ignored it. Fresh farm invasions and the
conflict within the MDC were the two conspicuous aspects of
political violence covered in the print media. The Daily News and
The Herald (2/10) covered the second attack on the home of MDC
MP for St Mary’s, Job Sikhala. The incident was given front-page
prominence in The Herald. In both reports the MP alleged “well
known Zanu PF supporters” had instigated the second attack.

In a front-page story under the headline, Farm invaders burn down
workers’ houses, The Daily News (2/10) reported fresh invasions at
Barrymore Farm in Macheke in which farm foreman, Loiter
Mariyano, blamed the government for the lawlessness. While the
paper corroborated its report with comments from the farm owner,
the foreman and a worker, there was no comment from the police.
Neither The Herald nor The Chronicle reported the incident.
Readers of The Herald were only told about it in its Friday edition
(5/10), in a report that attempted to exonerate war veterans from
the invasion. Relying on a ZIANA report, the paper exploited the
commonly misused description of farm invaders as war veterans to
claim in it headline that 'Farm workers exonerate war veterans,' and
blame the violence on thugs. However, the paper failed to edit out
the last part of a comment from a farm foreman that made
nonsense of the headline. He was quoted as saying: "Some of the
people claiming to be war veterans are very young. If there
were war veterans in the violence they were not more than
two.”

The Financial Gazette (4/10) continued to report government’s
failure to adhere to the Abuja Agreement. The weekly carried
Commercial Farmers Union reports of continued farm invasions.
The report provided important statistics that have been absent in
the media. The story revealed that since the signing of the
agreement on 6th September, there had been 30 new farm
invasions, according to the CFU.

Like Zimpapers, ZBC continues to suppress incidents of political
violence unless it can be ascribed to the MDC. As a result, these
media institutions provide an entirely distorted picture of what is
actually happening. Other incidents of political violence are usually
only referred to in ZBC news items through denial reports by police
spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena, or statements that the police are
investigating and in some cases arrests have been made. Rarely
does the ZBC follow up these arrests.
During the week Bvudzijena was quoted (ZTV, 2/10, 11pm) saying
the police were investigating incidents of violence in Mashonaland
East. Bvudzijena accused the media of misrepresenting facts to
give the impression that the Abuja Agreement was under threat:
“The media would like to maintain the hype that the Abuja
agreement might be derailed. But what we are doing on the
ground is that we would like to ensure that every case that is
reported is adequately investigated…as police we are doing
everything…”

As proof that the police were doing their job, ZBC reported the
following day (ZTV & Radio 1/3, 3/10, 8pm) that the police had
arrested six people in connection with the Barrymore Farm
incident, which was initially ignored by the broadcaster. Bvudzijena
accused "people who are bent on disrupting the Abuja
agreement…" of perpetrating the violence.

ZBC (ZTV & Radio 1/3, 8pm, 7/10) accused the MDC of initiating
violence in Epworth. A ZANU PF Epworth official, Peter Sibanda,
was quoted stating that violence erupted when the MDC insisted on
holding a rally at ZANU PF offices. Television viewers were shown
sticks, axes, and catapults among other items as exhibits of MDC
weapons. No comment was sought from the MDC.
MMPZ notes that ZBC’s tendency to get only ZANU PF’s version of
events in incidents of political violence grossly compromises the
truthfulness of their stories and starves audiences of accurate and
reliable information.

In the same Epworth story, ZBCTV quoted ZANU PF Harare
Provincial Secretary for Security, Mike Moyo, calling on ZANU PF
supporters in Epworth to defend themselves and identify their
neighbours’ party affiliation to be sure who their enemies were. This
grossly inflammatory statement was not subjected to any analysis.
There was no comment from the police about whether they would
arrest Moyo as a result of this blatant incitement.

4. MDC ROW: Private press maintains low-key tone

The conflict between rival MDC MPs continued to dominate press
coverage, with both Zimpapers and the privately owned press
covering the developing story. The Zimbabwe Independent (5/10)
was the only paper not to follow the issue.
Generally, the private press either maintained a low-key tone or
accepted the rivalry as healthy for the party’s development, as
expressed by Masipula Sithole’s analysis in The Financial Gazette
and in its news story claiming that the MDC had now put “its
house in order”.
The Daily News’ lead story (1/10), ‘MDC vows to end divisions’, was
more realistic and factual. But The Standard (7/10) quoted Brian
Raftopolous, of the University of Zimbabwe’s Institute of
Development Studies saying “it’s just growing pains within the
MDC…” which also helped to minimize the danger of the divisions
within the party.
In contrast, Zimpapers continued to report the conflict prominently,
providing its readers with a wealth of unsubstantiated claims. But it
also quoted the party’s youth chairman in Chitungwiza, Tendekai
Masiwata as saying that MP Job Sikhala, was not giving an
accurate picture of the reasons for the attacks on his home.
For three consecutive days, from Monday through to Wednesday,
The Herald gave the MDC’s conflict front-page prominence, a
status it only accords the opposition when the paper can report
news that impacts negatively on the party’s image. As in the
previous week, reportage continued to be generalised, speculative,
and relied heavily on unnamed sources.
In spite of MDC statements issued to give its official view of the
strife, the government-controlled media continued to report its
speculative rhetoric as fact. For example, The Herald (3/10)’s front-
page article titled, Sikhala, Jongwe, Musekiwa can go says
Tsvangirai, was entirely based on obscure “inside” and
“unnamed sources.” In the report, the paper continued to peddle
the idea it had initiated the previous week that senior party
members were challenging Tsvangirai’s authority as fact, even after
the allegation had been categorically refuted.
The Daily News story (2/10) quoted Sikhala alleging “well known
Zanu PF supporters” were responsible for the violence. As a
result of this conflicting coverage, readers of both papers would
have found it difficult to decide what was factual. And while
Boniface Manyonganise was arrested in connection with the attack
on Sikhala’s home, it remains unclear from the press whether he is
affiliated to Zanu Pf or the MDC given his multiple defections
between the two parties.
Notably, ZBC did not feature much coverage of the rivalry within the
opposition and even accorded the MDC airtime to explain what was
happening within its rank and file. MDC secretary-general,
Welshman Ncube, (ZBC, 3/10, 8pm) was quoted stating that his
party had appointed a committee to investigate alleged reports of
clashes and would act on facts on the ground. He also took the
opportunity to dismiss state media reports alleging that his party
was divided over their presidential candidate with one camp
supporting him and the other supporting Morgan Tsvangirai.
Ends

The MEDIA UPDATE is produced and circulated by the Media
Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ), 15 Duthie Avenue,
Alexandra Park, Harare, Tel/fax: 263 4 703702. Send all queries to
the Project Coordinator, E-mail: [email protected] [2] Previous
reports can be accessed at http://www.icon.co.zw/mmpz [3]