The long awaited amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) as part of a broader process of reforming the Zimbabwe's media law and policy framework were finally gazetted on November 22, 2024.
That the negotiations for these amendments to align the broadcasting regulatory framework with the constitution enacted in 2013 have taken in excess of 10 years to take off — by way of being tabled in Parliament for debate — demonstrates the political and bureaucratic challenges in implementing the much needed media reforms.
Notwithstanding the challenges associated with navigating complex political environments such as Zimbabwe, it is worth noting that at least there is some movements towards having a broadcasting regulatory framework that would respond to the evolving media landscape and hopefully give life to Section 61 constitutional rights to freedom of expression and other such communicative rights.
Media freedoms such as free expression, access to information and academic freedoms are not an end in themselves.
They are broader and intertwined to the extent that when we clamour to have an improved policy framework for the media, the debates at the end of their value chain have everything to do with the price of bread.
An independent media is the lifeblood of democratic societies.
Though the configuration of the media has shifted with a lot more influence of the less structured digital media that is increasingly taking over audiences - legacy media, more so broadcasting platforms remain the dominant credible sources of information.
This is why it is critical for these platforms to be preserved and moreso, to ensure that the regulatory framework of these conduits of expression are in sync with democratic practices.
- Key considerations for the future of radio broadcasting in Zim
- Key considerations for the future of radio broadcasting in Zim
- What must be rejected in the broadcasting law amendments ?
Keep Reading
What in the first instance should be clear in any regulatory framework established for these platforms is that every person has a right to own them.
While it is naturally not feasible for every person to own a broadcasting enterprise, the determining factor should not be on account of any other factor outside the need to preserve the public good.
It should never be a preserve of the elite, or based on any partisan interests or any other form of human diversity.
In any event, theoretically, every person is a media owner by virtue of the medium publicly owned or by belonging to a community owned media platform.
On this account, we must never export our agency of determining how the media is regulated to those whose interests would be to further entrench executive power.
The regulatory framework of the broadcasting services should reflect the power that citizens wield in how they are governed and in how public goods are managed and maintained.
This is why in this article, I make a clarion call for citizens to reject certain proposals that have been tabled in the BSA Amendment Bill, which should be voiced in assisting legislators debate this law.
This is not to suggest that the entire amendments are retrogressive. It is positive that we will have a law that is deliberate in calling for licenses at least once annually, increases the threshold of foreign ownership to attract investment in the capital intestive sector and opens up for the participation of Zimbabweans in the diaspora.
However, the law still carries some problematic issues, which must be rejected in the legislature. These include but not limited to:
Section 38 (4) - ZBC licenses fees collection for motorists
This new provision is an administrative injustice to motorists, who are unfortunately being used as scapegoats for the state broadcaster's inability to optimise their tax collection model as compelled by the law.
Whereas the law already provides that by owning a receiver, every person is entitled to pay taxes to the ZBC, the new provision seeks to make it mandatory for motorists to pay for this tax before being issued with a vehicle license.
The rationale of targeting motorists is easy to establish given that it is easier to enforce their compliance at roadblocks than door to door checks — yet it remains an administrative injustice of targeting one sect of the citizenry over another.
The exemptions are impractical. As the law stands, an exemptions form can be issued upon evidence of the absence of a receiver.
Naturally most citizens will seek to get this exemption making the process susceptible to corruption and loopholes in how this will be managed.
The ZBC must reduce fares of their taxes as a way of promoting compliance and improve content to resonate with the public and the motorists, who should pay licenses anyway.
This clause must be rejected and a revenue collection model, possibly housed at the regulatory authority be considered.
Section 4 (2) - Executive appointment process of the regulatory authority
The appointment process of the regulatory authority must be a public process and not a preserve of the Executive.
This will ensure the independence of the regulatory authority.
Section 2 of the African Charter on Broadcasting and example of processes in South Africa and Zambia can be used as more democratic forms of appointing those that will oversee the regulation of our broadcasting services.
Alternatively we could use the process provided for in Section 237 of our Constitution in the appointment of independent commissions.
Section 10 - Exclusion of public participation in issuing of community radio licenses
The section bizarrely secludes public hearings for community radio licenses. This must be rejected. Every process to issue licenses must involve the public.
Section 18 - Opaque transfer of licenses
In this amendment there is an attempt to permit transfer of licenses in an opaque manner. In other words one could merely transfer their licenses that would have been awarded in a public process by merely notifying and getting approval from the regulator. This creates room for undercutting deals and untransparent use of a public good. This provision must be rejected.
Sections 14 and 15 - Public broadcasters licenses
The provision seeks to give licenses to the public broadcaster outside a public process. Citizens participation should be at the centre of any process of issuing licenses. This provision must be reformed to be in sync with Section 10 compelling all broadcasters to go through a public process.
In conclusion, while it is notable that the media law reform process is being sustained, it is imperative for the process to be forward looking.
In the case of the BSA, we should have been looking at restricting multiple ownership of broadcasting services given that we are now moving from plurality to diversity.
Zimbabwe should be talking convergence in regulating broadcasting cognizant of the evolving technologies and how is Zimbabwe is regulated on multiple fronts at the moment.
It is unfortunate that the amendments are silent on digitisation and continue to make reference to availability of spectrum in this digital age. We should be thinking beyond.
While we have some positives in changing the broadcasting regulatory framework, there is scope to further improve our policy framework. Citizens can use the parliamentary public hearings on the BSA Amendment Bill to demand their rights and reject unprogressive provisions in this law.
- Nigel Nyamutumbu is a media development practitioner serving as the coordinator of a network of media professional associations and support organisations the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe (MAZ). He can be contacted on njnya2@gmail.com or +263 772 501 557
