Background Briefing

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

The Electoral Environment

Political Intimidation in Mashonaland, Manicaland and Harare

“In many of the rural areas they (ZANU PF supporters, youth militia and war veterans) don’t have to beat people up anymore, they simply have to maintain a presence without having to beat anyone up.

– MDC Secretary General, Welshman Ncube, Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, December 2004.

Section 2.1.3 of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections urges SADC member states to adhere to the principle of political tolerance.60  In line with these principles, recent statements made by President Mugabe and senior government officials that the elections will be free of violence are welcome.61  However, Human Rights Watch documented numerous incidents that point to a marked lack of political tolerance in the provinces of Mashonaland and Manicaland, and in the high density areas of Harare.

Human Rights Watch interviewed Zimbabweans in parts of Mashonaland, Manicaland and Harare who described high levels of intimidation in parts of the country.  Supporters of the opposition MDC and civil society activists in all three areas reported to Human Rights Watch that they were regularly harassed and threatened by ZANU PF supporters. They stated that police and Central Intelligence Organization (CIO) officers routinely followed members of the opposition MDC party and civil society organizations.62  Those individuals Human Rights Watch interviewed also consistently reported being forced to attend ZANU PF rallies and meetings by ZANU PF youth, and being labeled as opposition supporters if they refused to attend. Opposition activists informed Human Rights Watch that they were still unable to campaign in some parts of rural Mashonaland.63

ZANU PF continues to be the only party able to actively campaign throughout the rural areas of the provinces—where the majority of Zimbabwe’s population still lives.64  The MDC was able to campaign in some parts of the Mashonaland provinces such as Chinhoyi, but many of the rural parts of the provinces remained ‘no-go’ areas.  Persons living in these areas told Human Rights Watch that the opposition was unable to freely campaign and MDC supporters were not free to show their political affiliation.65  In areas such as Murehwa and Mutoko in Mashonaland East, well known members of the opposition including MPs were allowed to operate, but supporters and lower ranking members faced constant threats, intimidation and at times assault from ZANU PF supporters particularly the party youth, war veterans, and members of the youth militia.66  

One local human rights monitor described the situation in her home area of Zvimba in Mashonaland Central province: “The opposition has no chance to campaign.  Only the ruling party is campaigning.  MDC supporters are there but they are not showing themselves.”67  She described witnessing a group of war veterans assault a man wearing an MDC bandana (head tie) in October 2004: “The war veterans asked him why he is wearing an MDC bandana.  “You are not allowed to put on those things.”  When he tried to answer them they started hitting him and they burnt his bandana.”

In Murehwa, a local driver explained, “The MDC can’t openly show themselves here. They are afraid after the violence that happened here in 2000 and 2002.  They have small secret meetings but that’s all… If they showed themselves they would definitely be attacked.  Only senior MDC people can show themselves here.  Not just supporters.”68

In Mutoko, a ZANU PF supporter admitted that while there was peace in the area, the likelihood of violence would increase if the opposition campaigned openly.  He said, “Things are very quiet here. There are two MDC candidates contesting the elections (in two of the constituencies in Mutoko) and they are doing so peacefully.  Around the town centre the majority are MDC youth supporters but they can’t show themselves or hold public meetings.  It is still very tense.”69

When Human Rights Watch visited the town of Rusape in Manicaland province in December 2004, MDC supporters reported that they were unable to wear MDC regalia in the town centre of Rusape and surrounding rural areas, and that ZANU PF youth and supporters routinely forced them to attend ZANU PF rallies and public meetings. They stated that they held secret meetings and were afraid that ruling party supporters would infiltrate their meetings.70

According to one MDC supporter from Mashonaland Central, “Every evening youths [from ZANU PF] walk around the township checking if the opposition is gathering to hold meetings.  They do it under the pretext of security.  If you are caught you are in trouble.”71

Human Rights Watch was told that visitors to the rural parts of the provinces, especially those from the cities of Harare and Bulawayo, were also treated with suspicion by ZANU PF members and supporters and accused of belonging to the MDC.72  A local human rights monitor from Zvimba commented, “If a stranger comes they ask who they are and they want to find out if the person is opposition.  Some ruling party supporters go to the chief and will say that this family has received a visitor… So sometimes you have to go and explain.”  She described how the chief summoned her family after they received a visitor from outside the area in late January 2005:

Last time they (ZANU PF supporters) came to our house where we had a visitor late at night, my uncle. They came around 12pm and we were asked why did he come?  And at such a time?  They wanted to know if he belonged to the ruling party.  The following day they went to the chief to ask why we had such a visitor.  And so we had to go to the chief to explain.73

A local human rights activist described the situation in Kariba, Mashonaland West:

Youths from the bases (youth militia bases) are now trying to verify who the villagers in this village are. They are asking visitors who are you? Where are you coming from?  Who do you support?  They are saying every household should come and register at the base if they receive a visitor.  If you don’t tell them they will come around to your house.  If they see a vehicle around your place they need to know where you are coming from.74

Human Rights Watch interviewed a number of local activists in Mashonaland, Manicaland, Chitungwiza and Harare who stated that people who lived in the areas were also subjected to questioning whenever they visited other parts of the country especially the cities. According to one human rights activist from Mt Darwin South:

Even ourselves, to come to this workshop (in Harare) and leave the area, you must go and explain to ZANU leaders that you are going, where you are going and for how long.  Then you must report back.  If a person comes who is new, you must go to the headman and report on where he is coming from and the number of days he’ll spend in that area. You must explain that relationship between you and the people you have visiting.75

ZANU PF supporters treated NGO employees in the areas Human Rights Watch visited with equal suspicion. One employee who claimed to be non-partisan spoke of his arrival in Chitungwiza and observed, “When I first came here, in the first place, I was approached by people and they wanted to know if I was ZANU PF and I gave them my party card (ZANU).  I came here on 20th May 2004. The people who came were my neighbors, war veterans and ruling party supporters.”76

Visits and questions from ZANU PF supporters, war veterans and ZANU PF youth serve to intimidate both ordinary citizens and political activists.  Moreover, the effects of such intense questioning should be seen in the context of Zimbabweans’ past experiences, especially during the 2000 and 2002 elections.  Incidents such as the one described below remind Zimbabweans of the potential consequences of supporting the opposition or being perceived to be an opposition member or supporter.

In February, Human Rights Watch documented the case of a nongovernmental organization whose offices were closed by war veterans in Mt. Darwin, Mashonaland Central, after it was discovered that one of the organization’s employees was an MDC member.  In March 2001, twenty war veterans stormed the offices of the organization looking for an employee whom they accused of being an MDC member.  He was severely beaten, sustained severe injuries to his eyes and head, and was hospitalized for two weeks.  The war veterans at first demanded that the office should be closed, but later allowed the office to re-open on condition that the employee did not return to work.  The office was later permanently closed by the organization due to insecurity connected to the incident.77

Local human rights activists informed Human Rights Watch that in parts of Manicaland and Mashonaland, those who were labeled as MDC were sometimes forced from their rural homes by ZANU PF supporters or ended up losing their jobs due to intimidation from ruling party supporters and members.78  For example, in Chipinge South, Manicaland province, Human Rights Watch interviewed the headmaster of a local school.  On August 2, 2004, several ZANU PF youth visited his school, accused him of being an MDC supporter and beat and threatened him in front of his fellow teachers and school children.  On August 11 (Heroes Day in Zimbabwe) ZANU PF youth paraded him at a ZANU PF rally and forced him to apologize for being an MDC supporter. Although he reported his case to the police and the local education authorities, nothing was done.  He was unable to go back to the school and ZANU PF youth continued to threaten him.79

In all the places Human Rights Watch visited, local human rights activists, NGOs and oppositions supporters informed Human Rights Watch that ZANU PF youth supporters routinely forced people to attend ZANU PF rallies or public meetings. Youths from the ruling party went door-to-door forcing people out of their houses and also came around once meetings had begun to ensure that no one stayed in.  In a few instances, Human Rights Watch received reports from human rights activists and ZANU PF supporters that in some areas, ZANU PF youth no longer forced local people to go to ZANU PF rallies.80

In Chitungwiza and the high density areas of Kuwadzana and Warren Park D in Harare, MDC supporters and local human rights activists claimed that many young MDC supporters were forced to go to ZANU PF meetings for fear of reprisals from ZANU PF youth if they did not do so.81  A local human rights activist from Mt. Darwin South observed, “It’s a must (to attend ZANU PF meetings).  Its meetings, it’s a must. If you are found absent from the meeting, it’s subject to investigation.”82

Human Rights Watch interviewed many people including NGO employees, human rights activists and MDC supporters who pointed out that they owned ZANU PF cards for their own protection. A ZANU PF card ensured that they could travel to rural parts of the provinces in relative safety. According to these reports, ZANU PF youth regularly demanded ZANU PF cards and threatened and assaulted those who did not own one.  Those without ZANU PF cards were perceived to be opposition supporters even if this was not the case.83  On several occasions, Zimbabweans who claimed to be MDC or non-partisan showed Human Rights Watch researchers their ZANU PF cards.

Human Rights Watch spoke to a number of ZANU PF supporters and members who denied that people were now being forced to attend political meetings or rallies or own ZANU PF cards.  But they were willing to admit that in previous elections people were forced to own ZANU PF cards, attend political meetings and rallies and were frequently assaulted if they did not do so.84

The lack of political tolerance demonstrated in the provinces Human Rights Watch visited and reports of political intimidation from other parts of the country do not inspire confidence that MDC candidates and their supporters will be able to operate freely in a number of provinces in the brief period that remains for campaigning.  Many Zimbabweans will continue to be afraid to openly engage in political activities, attend MDC rallies or express their political viewpoints, out of fear for their personal safety.

Freedom of Assembly, Movement and Association

The barriers that a government or other actors place in the way of holding meetings, rallies, debates and other public events have a direct bearing on the openness of elections.85  The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) severely restricts the rights to freedom of assembly, movement and association and has been consistently used by the police to arbitrarily arrest those perceived to be critical of the government.86 

Since 2002, laws such as POSA and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) have been consistently used by the Mugabe government to deny access to the opposition and civil society activists to freely assemble, and associate, and express political opinions (or even apolitical statements and activities).  For instance, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights reported that, in 2004, 950 human rights defenders were arrested under POSA and MOA.87  In 2003, Human Rights Watch reported that the government of Zimbabwe was using restrictive laws such as POSA to close the space for public debate.88

The government has inconsistently applied restrictions on public gatherings.  In the areas Human Rights Watch visited, the ruling party was able to hold public meetings and rallies without police notification or permission.  In marked contrast, MDC members were sometimes unable to hold public meetings and freely campaign due to POSA. MDC officials pointed out that although section 24 of POSA merely requires police notification to hold a public meeting, police authorities insisted on police permission to hold meetings, which was on arbitrary grounds frequently denied to them.89  MDC candidates indicated to Human Rights Watch that when they were allowed to hold public rallies, severe restrictions were placed on the meetings under POSA.90  In addition, CIO officers insisted on being present at the meetings.

The presence of government intelligence officers has an intimidating effect on opposition supporters, and therefore candidates are forced to use innovative means to hold meetings without police or CIO presence.  This meant not notifying the police and risking arrest and charges under POSA.91  For instance, one MDC candidate in Marondera described how on February 12, 2005 he tried to hold a meeting in the bush to avoid CIO presence.  The meeting dispersed after the candidate was informed that CIO officers were on their way to the meeting.  However, six of the MDC supporters attending the meeting were arrested and detained under POSA before being released without charge on February 14.  The sixth person was arrested and charged under POSA for carrying an offensive weapon, fined and later released.92  Another MDC candidate observed, “In rallies the level of CIO presence is heavy.  They are taking notes. Constituents know the CIO is there.”93 

NGO and civil society workshops do occur daily in Harare and Bulawayo.  Civil society activists report that for the most part they are unable to conduct meetings and workshops without police permission.  Nevertheless some do so, thus risking arrest or brief detention.94  On the occasions civil society activists notified the police, they were allowed to hold meetings and workshops under some of the same specific restrictions placed on opposition meetings, including the enforced presence of CIO officers.

International law permits restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly in carefully defined circumstances.95  Advance prohibitions of assemblies must always be in exceptional circumstances where there is a well-founded concern for security or public safety, and not on preventing legal opposition parties from engaging in legitimate political activity.  The measures taken by the Zimbabwe authorities to restrict freedom of movement, assembly and association clearly exceed that which may be justified on the basis of legitimate concerns for security and public order. 

MDC and civil society activists also claim that police are misapplying POSA and using it to disrupt private meetings held by members of the opposition and civil society activists.96

For example, Human Rights Watch documented the case of MDC Member of Parliament for Makokoba constituency in Bulawayo, Thokozani Khupe, who was arrested and detained under section 24 of POSA on the charge of holding a public meeting.  On January 23, 2005, the MP held a private strategic planning workshop with ward members from her constituency at her restaurant in Bulawayo.  As the meeting progressed, plain-clothes policemen approached Khupe and enquired whether she had police permission to hold the meeting.  She informed the policemen that she did not require permission to hold a private meeting.  Half-way through the meeting, up to fifty riot police entered the restaurant and arrested sixty-two MDC members including Khupe.  Khupe was detained overnight at Bulawayo Central police station, presented in court the following day and then released on bail.97

On March 3, 2005, in an interview from Harare with the London-based SW Radio Africa, independent candidate for Harare Central constituency, Margaret Dongo complained that police had denied her permission to hold four meetings because meetings at shopping centers were prohibited.  However, she pointed out that ZANU PF candidates were able to hold rallies at shopping centers.  Dongo observed, “They (the police) are only doing it to the opposition.  I don’t know why.  It is not happening to ZANU.”98

A ZANU PF member in Murehwa confirmed the contrast between the holding of ZANU PF rallies and those of MDC rallies: “ZANU is free to hold meetings when they choose, but that’s not the case for the MDC.  They have to ask for permission from the police but we don’t.  We just hold our meetings.  I don’t know why it is different.”99

POSA has also been used to intimidate and harass civil society activists perceived to be critical of the government.  For example, on February 8, 2005, one NGO youth activist told Human Rights Watch:

Two weeks ago in Bulawayo after a workshop, I was in my hotel room when management informed me that there were guys from CID (Criminal Investigation Department) and CIO coming and I had to throw away all the materials on me.  They came and asked me “Who are you? Why have you come to Bulawayo from Harare?”  When I explained that I work for the churches they asked to search my bags and found a couple of books.  They then took me to the police station outside Bulawayo where they questioned me further and told me that their primaries had been poorly attended by the youth and “we strongly believe that you are the guys from the MDC who are telling people not to participate.”  They left me in a room for three hours.  Then they put me in an open truck (it was raining) and drove me to Harare police station where I was interrogated again.  I was accused of being MDC. They were saying “who are you to mobilize young people?  Only political parties can mobilize young people.” I told them that I was a youth leader from a Catholic church.  I was detained over night in Bulawayo at what looks like a police camp and then I was detained overnight in Harare Central Police Station.  I was driven early to Harare, around 4am.  They kept me without food until I managed to call my brother who brought me food.  They wanted to charge me under POSA for holding a meeting likely to breach the peace and then they changed their minds.100

In Harare, a local human rights activist described his arrest in late January after a workshop in Mutare:

Last week of January in Mutare, Manicaland, I was picked up and arrested.  I was asked why I didn’t notify the police under POSA.  I insisted that POSA doesn’t affect private meetings.  But they said that this is around election time.  So we have to know.  They asked who is funding me.  “Which government is funding you?”  They were plain-clothes police—those who questioned me, but I was arrested by uniformed police.  But they released me without charge.101

In February 2005, police disrupted a number of peaceful protests and meetings by opposition and civil society activists in Bulawayo and Harare. For example, on February 16, police reportedly arrested and beat members of the National Constitutional Assembly who were marching to demand free and fair elections in Harare.102  On the same day police also disrupted an MDC internal briefing for its 120 candidates in Harare, and briefly detained the MDC Director of Elections Ian Makoni.103  In a statement written in the Daily Mirror newspaper, the MDC reported that three plain clothes policemen arrived and demanded to sit through the meeting.  They later informed those gathered at the meeting that it was illegal to hold the meeting under POSA and that all those present should leave or immediately face arrest.104

Not all the marches were connected to the elections.  In a clear example of general restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly, police arrested fifty-three women including members of the women’s organization, Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) in Bulawayo on February 12. The women were marching to commemorate Valentine’s Day when police disrupted the march.  The police proceeded to arrest any women wearing red (a color the WOZA women wear to symbolize love).105  Eight of the women were released on the same day without charge, while the rest of the women were released on February 15 and made to pay admission of guilt fines under MOA.106

As Human Rights Watch has previously reported, adoption of the pending NGO Bill would substantially add to existing restrictions on the rights to freedom of movement, association and assembly.  The Bill denies local organizations involved in “issues of governance” and human rights work access to foreign funding and prohibits the registration of foreign NGOs engaged in “issues of governance” and human rights work.107  Human rights organizations interviewed by Human Rights Watch, expressed concern that the new law would force them to curtail their activities.  Although the bill is yet to be signed into law, NGO representatives believe its promulgation is already making it difficult for human rights organizations to engage in election related human rights activities, including voter education.  As one NGO representative observed, “It is alarming that even though its not law, it’s had the effect it would have had if it was law. Robert Mugabe doesn’t need to sign the bill into law, its having its effect.  Right now civil society can’t do voter education.”108  A number of human rights organizations claimed that they had been forced to scale down their work in the run-up to the elections, while a couple of NGOs reported that they had received threats from the police that they would be shut down once the NGO bill became an Act.109  The intimidation and harassment of NGOs has implications for the level of citizen participation in the elections.

Freedom of Expression and Information

“The media of each country must be guided by the country’s ethos. If you don’t abide by the country’s ethos, you should not expect to be treated with justice.

– Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Patrick Chinamasa, addressing parliament on access to the media for the MDC on Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) television, November 2004.

Freedom of expression and access to the media under section 7.4 of the SADC guidelines, are necessary for the conduct of free and fair elections.110  Restrictions on these rights affect the media coverage afforded to various parties and candidates and the flow of information that will influence Zimbabweans’ decisions about whom to elect. Despite some improvements, there continue to be serious limits to freedom of expression and information in Zimbabwe, particularly in the form of unequal access to the media, threats of closure of independent media organizations, and the intimidation and arbitrary arrest of journalists.111

The Zimbabwe government’s actions seem primarily designed to inhibit criticism of government officials and institutions, and to muzzle independent reporting and commentary on the political situation in the country.  Legislation such as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) that requires registration and accreditation of journalists continues to be selectively used to restrict independent media activity.  As one journalist observed, “AIPPA criminalizes writing without accreditation. The law has been consistently applied to one section of the media.”112  Government restrictions on expression in Zimbabwe violate Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Zimbabwe has ratified and section 20 of Zimbabwe’s constitution.113

Intimidation and harassment of independent journalists and media organizations

The independent media in Zimbabwe is under severe strain.  According to the Media and Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe (MMPZ), up to 400 journalists were reported to have been arrested under POSA in 2004 and more than one hundred journalists have reportedly been arrested under AIPPA in the past two years.114  Five journalists working for independent media organizations told Human Rights Watch they had been arrested on more than one occasion under POSA and AIPPA.115 

AIPPA has also been used to restrict the flow and content of national and international media coverage.116  The law requires all journalists and media houses to register with the government.  While this in itself is not a problem, local and international media and information organizations such as the Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA) and Article 19 have extensively reported on how the government run Media and Information Commission (MIC) has used AIPPA to threaten newspapers with closure if they are deemed to be critical of the government.117

An amendment to AIPPA, which was put into force on January 7, 2005, tightens these restrictions and makes it an offence punishable, by up to two years imprisonment, if journalists do not register with the MIC.118  Sections 15 and 16 of POSA specifically place restrictions on the media’s ability to report freely.119  Another proposed law that has the potential to  further restrict freedom of expression is the Criminal Codification (Law and Reform) Bill, which makes it an offence, punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment, for anyone who publishes or communicates information deemed to be wholly false or prejudicial to the state.120

While in Zimbabwe, Human Rights Watch received credible reports from lawyers and human rights activists that a new weekly independent newspaper was under threat of closure, accused of violating AIPPA.121  On February 25, the paper was closed by the MIC.122  In the state-run Herald newspaper of February 26, MIC chairman Tafataona Mahoso was quoted as saying that the newspaper’s license was cancelled for a year for violating Section 71 (1) (a) of AIPPA by misleading the MIC about the nature of its publications.123

Human Rights Watch also documented one case in which a media organization was under threat of closure after the MIC claimed it was failing to meet AIPPA requirements, and another case in which a prominent journalist’s accreditation was threatened after the MIC accused him of working for the foreign press.124  Yet the law does not prohibit journalists from working for foreign media houses.  It is important to note that all these organizations and journalists were perceived to be critical of the government.

In the Sunday Mirror newspaper of February 20, 2005, the MIC reportedly warned the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper against allowing “its staffers to moonlight for foreign media houses or risk having the newspaper’s license as well as the ‘staffers’ accreditation revoked.”125  On December 1, 2004 the state-owned ZBC TV, quoted then Information Minister Jonathan Moyo as defending AIPPA and stating that it was “meant to protect the sovereignty of the country from mischievous people intending to use local media as a tool for regime change.”126 

One freelance journalist in Bulawayo described to Human Rights Watch the obstacles facing independent journalists in the country:

Operating under AIPPA requires all journalists to register.  I am supposed to apply in January (2005) for a 1-year license and pay about 1000 US dollars.  There’s no guarantee that I will get the license. Since I can't afford it I will not register and will go underground without accreditation.  This means that I can no longer work freely.  It’s very difficult to get official government positions.  Independent journalists have been accused of being pro-MDC.  Those from ZANU who approach independent journalists are those who feel the party has wronged them.  As an independent journalist I couldn’t cover the ZANU PF congress (in December).  They will probably do the same thing in the run-up to these elections and we will not be able to cover official voting procedures, electoral processes.  The coverage isn’t going to be as good as it should be.  Police refuse to give journalists an official statement on issues.127

Section 20 of Zimbabwe’s constitution guarantees the rights of an individual to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.128  The legal obstacles placed on journalists infringe upon these rights. As one newspaper editor observed, “As media organizations we need to provide information to the electorate but empowerment of the electorate is being hampered by lack of information because of the legal obstacles.”129

A ZANU PF supporter in Mutoko confirmed some of the obstacles placed before journalists visiting the rural areas of Zimbabwe: “Journalists who come here have to first talk to the DA (District Administrator), the council, and then the person at the council responsible for information and then if they confirm you are from the state media, you are allowed.  They can’t just come and question people.”130

The government has also restricted reporting by the international media and expelled all foreign correspondents from the country.  On February 14, 15 and 16, 2005 government intelligence officers raided the offices of three local journalists reporting for the Associated Press, the Times (London) and Bloomberg economic news.  On February 14, the journalists were interrogated for two hours and accused of spying and practicing without proper accreditation under AIPPA.  The three journalists eventually went into hiding and then fled the country after they were tipped off that police were planning to arrest them on allegations of spying.131

Equal access to the public media

Most of those in rural Zimbabwe listen to the radio as their main source of political news.  This reinforces the importance of the broadcast media in the run-up to elections. In Zimbabwe all radio and television stations are government controlled.

Section 2.1.5 of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections calls on SADC member states to adhere to the principle of: “equal opportunity for all political parties to access the state media.”132  Although the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings (ZBH) carried some brief footage of opposition members electioneering133, organizations such as ZESN and MMPZ informed HRW that equal access to the public media was limited.134  A former newspaper editor observed, “There is very little access for opposition candidates to the so-called public media which is partisan and doesn’t provide a platform to those who oppose government… this prevents the public from making a choice.”135

During Human Rights Watch’s mission in Zimbabwe, MDC members and media organizations reported that the opposition was not being accorded equal access to the state media.136  The government defended through the media the lack of equal access and pointed out that media coverage would only be given to parties contesting the election during election time.137  According to MDC candidates and media organizations interviewed by Human Rights Watch, state radio and television continued their biased coverage of the electoral environment even after the election date was set and the MDC announced it would participate in the elections.138 

In a welcome move, on February 16 the government gazetted regulations to govern access to the broadcast media by political parties for campaigning purposes.139  The state-run Herald newspaper reported that under the regulations, all political parties and candidates contesting the elections would be entitled to airtime on all ZBH radio and television stations.140

Human Rights Watch received reports that after these regulations were put into place, the level of access to the media for the opposition increased on state radio and television.141  In a letter written to the MDC, ZBH informed the MDC that they would be given ninety-one minutes of advertising time on radio and ninety-one minutes of advertising time on television although the MDC would have to pay for these adverts. While this move was welcomed by the MDC, they reported that they were still unable to get equal access during news coverage.  For example, when ZANU PF launched its campaign it was given four hours of airtime.  In contrast the MDC’s election launch got a four minute mention.142

Biased coverage in the state-run print media

The new regulations governing access to the broadcast media are a positive step towards equal access to the media for all parties.  However, these regulations do not take into account the state-owned print media.  Under the SADC Principles and Guidelines, equal access to the media means that all public media including the print media should give equal access to all political parties.

Unequal access and biased coverage of the elections is a serious concern in the public print media.  State-run newspapers such as the Herald and The Chronicle continue their biased coverage of the elections.  The Daily News, which previously provided an alternative voice, remains closed, despite a decision by the Supreme Court on March 14, 2005, allowing the paper to re-apply for a license to publish.143  Of the remaining independent newspapers, only the Independent andthe Standard (both weekly newspapers) provide a truly alternative and unbiased voice to the Herald newspaper.

Although independent newspapers are distributed in many parts of the country, it remains difficult for those who want to read them to do so.  In some of the provinces Human Rights Watch visited, a number of people reported that they furtively read independent newspapers because of threats and harassment from ZANU PF youth and war veterans.144  They described incidents from past elections in 2000 and 2002 that made them wary of openly reading independent newspapers.  Even ruling party supporters felt intimidated.  One ZANU PF supporter in Mutoko told Human Rights Watch that since fellow ZANU PF supporters had questioned him for carrying a copy of the Daily News in 2002 he had stopped reading independent newspapers.145  MDC supporters in Rusape informed Human Rights Watch that they were forced to hide their copies of the Independent newspaper inside copies of the state-owned Herald newspaper.146 Such intimidation makes it difficult for Zimbabweans to receive a balanced and informed view point on election conditions in the country.



[60] SADC Guidelines and Principles Governing Democratic Elections, 2004

[61] “ZANU PF to perform better,” Herald online, February 21, 2005

[62] Human Rights Watch interviews with opposition and civil society leaders, Harare and Bulawayo, December 2004 and February 2005.

[63] Human Rights Watch interviews with civil society activists, opposition members, candidates and supporters, Harare and Bulawayo, December 2004 and February 2005.

[64] Human Rights Watch interviews with ZANU PF and MDC supporters, human rights activists, church representatives and lawyers, Harare and Bulawayo, December 2004 and February 2005.

[65] Human Rights Watch interviews provinces of Mashonaland Central, East and West, February 2005.

[66] Human Rights Watch interviews with ZANU PF members and supporters, MDC supporters, NGO representatives, human rights activists, Harare and Mashonaland, February 2005.

[67] Human Rights Watch interview, Chinhoyi, February 17,2005.

[68] Human Rights Watch interview, Murehwa, February 14, 2005.

[69] Human Rights Watch interview, Mutoko, February 14, 2005.

[70] Human Rights Watch interview, Rusape, December 18, 2004.

[71] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 16, 2005.

[72] Human Rights Watch interviews with human rights activists, ordinary Zimbabweans, Harare and Bulawayo, December 2004 and February 2005.

[73] Human Rights Watch interview, Chinhoyi, February 17, 2005.

[74] Human Rights Watch interview, Chinhoyi, February 17, 2005.

[75] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 11, 2005.

[76] Human Rights Watch interview, Chitungwiza, February 15, 2005.

[77] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, December 16, 2004.

[78] Human Rights Watch interviews with local human rights activists, Manicaland, Mashonaland West and Harare, December 2004 and February 2005.

[79] Human Rights Watch interview, Chipinge South, December 18, 2004.

[80] Human Rights Watch interviews, Harare and Bulawayo, December 2004 and February 2005.

[81] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, December 16, 2004.

[82] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 11, 2005.

[83] Human Rights Watch interviews with local activists, opposition members and residents of Harare, Chitungwiza, Bulawayo, and Manicaland and Mashonaland provinces, December 2004 and February 2005

[84] Human Rights Watch interviews with ZANU PF members and supporters in Murehwa and Mutoko, February 2005

[85] Article 21 (1) of the Zimbabwe constitution states: “Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in his freedom of assembly and association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties or trade unions or other associations for the protection of his interests.”

[86] For more on these restrictions, see Amnesty International report, “Rights under Siege,” May 2003 and Human Rights Watch report, “ Under a Shadow: Civil and Political Rights in Zimbabwe,” June 2003

[87] Human Rights Watch interviews with Arnold Tsunga, Director Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) and Otto Saki Lawyer, ZLHR, February 8, 2005.

[88] See Human Rights Watch report, “Under a Shadow: Civil and Political Rights in Zimbabwe,” 2003.

[89] Section 24 of POSA requires the organizer of a public meeting or gathering to notify the regulating authority (in this case the police) of intention to hold a public gathering. The organizer of a public gathering is required to give at least four clear day’s written notice of the holding of the gathering to the regulating authority for the area in which the gathering is to be held.

[90] Sections 23-31 of POSA provide the police with extensive powers to regulate and control any public gatherings, including banning or breaking up meetings if they are deemed to endanger public order.

[91] Human Rights Watch interviews with MDC members and candidates, Harare, February 2005; See the Public Order and Security Act for more on sections 23 –31 of POSA.

[92] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 14, 2005.

[93] Human Rights Watch interview with MDC candidate for Gutu South, Masvingo, Harare, February 14, 2005.

[94] Human Rights Watch interviews with civil society activists and lawyers, Harare and Bulawayo, February 2005.

[95] Article 21 of the ICCPR states: “The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

[96] POSA specifically refers to public gatherings and not private meetings.

[97] Human Rights Watch interview, Thokozani Khupe, MDC MP for Makokoba, Harare, February 9, 2005

[98] SW Radio Africa interview with Margaret Dongo, March 2, 2005

[99] Human Rights Watch interview, Murehwa, February 14, 2005

[100] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 8, 2005.

[101] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 7, 2005.

[102] “Police crush protest in Harare,” ZimOnline February 17, 2005; “Protestors in Zimbabwe beaten up by police,” Mail and Guardian online, February 18, 2005.

[103] “Police disrupt opposition party meeting in Harare,” The Daily Mirror, February 17, 2005.

[104] Ibid.

[105] Human Rights Watch interview with the women’s lawyers, Bulawayo, February 13, 2005.

[106] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Jenny Williams of Women of Zimbabwe Arise, London, March 3, 2005.

[107] See Human Rights Watch briefing paper, “Zimbabwe’s Non-governmental organizations bill: Out of synch with SADC standards and a threat to civil society groups,” December, 2004.

[108] Human Rights Watch interview, Bulawayo, February 11, 2005.

[109] Human Rights Watch interviews with NGO representatives in Harare and Bulawayo, December 2004 and February 2005.

[110] SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections

[111] Human Rights Watch interviews with media organization representatives, editors and journalists, December 2004 and February 2005.

[112] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, December 15, 2004.

[113] Constitution of Zimbabwe Section 20 (1); Section 20(1) states: “Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.”

[114] Human Rights Watch interviews, Harare, December 2004.  For the effects of AIPPA see also Article 19/ MISA report, “The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Two years on,” September 2004.

[115] Human Rights Watch interviews with journalists in Bulawayo and Harare, December 2004 and February 2005.

[116] Human Rights Watch report, “Under a shadow: civil and political rights in Zimbabwe,” June, 2003, Amnesty International report, “Rights under siege,” May 2003.

[117] Article 19/ MISA report, “The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Two years on,” September 2004.

[118] See AIPPA Amendment Act, 2004. In an amendment to section 83 of CAP10:27 of AIPPA , any journalist who is found guilty of operating without accreditation shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

[119] Section 15 of POSA makes it an offence to publish or communicate false statements which may be prejudicial to the state. Section 16 of POSA makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment of up to a year to make statements construed as endangering feelings of hostility towards the president.

[120] Human Rights Watch interviews with representatives from MISA and MMPZ, December 2004 and February 2005.

[121] Human Rights Watch interviews, Bulawayo, February 2005. See also “MIC’s axe hovers over Weekly Times,” The Financial Gazette, February 17-23, 2005.

[122]   “Zimbabwe media law claims another independent newspaper,” Mail and Guardian online, February 27, 2005; “Media bodies angry over paper’s closure,” Zimbabwe Standard, February 27, 2005; “Government bans new newspaper,” The Daily News online, February 28, 2005.

[123] “The Weekly Times closed,” Herald online, February 26, 2005; Section 71 (1) (a) of AIPPA states that the commission may suspend or cancel the registration certificate of any mass media service if it has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact by the mass media owner concerned.

[124] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 2005.

[125] MMPZ “Media Weekly Update,” February 20, 2005

[126] From MMPZ “Media Weekly Update,” November 29 – December 5 2004.

[127] Human Rights Watch interview, Bulawayo, December 13, 2004.

[128] Constitution of Zimbabwe, section 20.

[129] Human Rights Watch interview with Vincent Kahiya, Editor, Zimbabwe Independent, February 16, 2005.

[130] Human Rights Watch interview, Mutoko, February 14, 2005.

[131] Human Rights Watch researchers were informed of the raid by other independent journalists on 16 February. See also “Journalists forced to flee the country fearing for their safety,” IFEX, February 23, 2005; “Four journalists flee the country”, The Daily News Online,  February 23, 2005; “Three journalists flee Zimbabwe,” New York Times online, February 21, 2005

[132] SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections.

[133] Human Rights Watch interview, Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe, February 4, 2005.

[134] See MMPZ briefing paper 1, “Media and the 2005 Parliamentary Election” February 16, 2005.

[135] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, February 16, 2005.

[136] Human Rights Watch interviews Harare, February 2005.

[137] The Daily Mirror, January 5, 2005.

[138] Human Rights Watch interviews with  Dumisani Ghandi and Andy Moyse, MMPZ, Harare, February 2005.

[139] “All parties granted TV, radio access,” The Herald, February 17, 2005.

[140] Ibid.

[141] Human Rights Watch telephone interview researcher MMPZ, London, March 1, 2005.

[142] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Dumisani Ghandi, MMPZ, and MDC Director of Information, London, March 1, 2005.

[143] Despite the ruling, the Supreme Court refused to declare key sections of AIPPA unconstitutional as requested by the paper’s lawyers. See also “Zim Court scraps ban on paper,” News 24 online, March 14, 2005, “Zimbabwe paper refused permission to publish,” VOA news, March 14, 2005.

[144] Human Rights Watch interviews with residents in Murehwa, Mutoko and Rusape, December 2004 and February 2005.

[145] Human Rights Watch interview, Mutoko, February 14, 2005.

[146] Human Rights Watch interview, Rusape, December 18, 2004.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>March 2005