Zimpapers Logo

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
Zimbabweans have expressed mixed feelings over the striking down of Section 31(a) (iii) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act that criminalised the publication of falsehoods against the law enforcement agents – the police, prisons and the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. Some analysts said the decision by the Constitutional Court posed a threat to State security while journalists hailed the judgment as a victory for their profession.

Breaching the law attracted a sentence of up to 20 years.
Political analyst Mr Gabriel Chaibva on Wednesday said there was need to amend the same supreme law to ensure it guaranteed security of the State.

“The biggest challenge is that our Constitution does not guarantee the security of the State. There is no protection and defence of national State interests in the Constitution of Zimbabwe and we need to go back to the drawing board and entrench the State security interests in our Constitution.

“The court simply interpreted what was there,” he said.
University of Zimbabwe political science lecturer Mrs Charity Manyeruke said the judgment was a danger to society and a threat to State security.
“The court applied the absolute principle of freedom of expression, which does not take into account factors such as State security and other crimes that can be committed intentionally, but in the name of freedom of expression,” she said.

“The decision puts the State in a very risky position. There is a need to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the security of the State.”

But journalists welcomed the ruling saying the Constitutional Court promoted democracy and boosted people’s confidence in the judiciary.
“We welcome the decision by the court not to criminalise the profession,” said Zimbabwe National Editors’ Forum chairperson Brian Mangwende
“As ZINEF, we view it as a victory to the profession in light of growing democracy in the country.”

Zimbabwe Union of Journalists secretary general Foster Dongozi welcomed the judgment.
“The ruling is a very positive and pragmatic one. We welcome it as it is good for democracy.
“It takes away fear from journalists when they cover stories about the uniformed forces and other law enforcement agents.”