297/05: Scanlen & Holderness / Zimbabwe
Summary of Facts
1. The Complainants are the Independent Journalists Association of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rights and the Media Institute of Southern Africa. The Respondent State is the
Republic of Zimbabwe, a State Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the
African Charter).
th
2. The Complainants submit that on 18 March 2002, the Respondent State enacted a legislation
known as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), Chapter 10:27. Section 79
1
subsection 1 of the Act provides that: “No journalist shall exercise the rights provided in Section 78 in
Zimbabwe without being accredited by the Commission.” The Commission being referred to here is
the Media and Information Commission (MIC) established under AIPPA, the Zimbabwe legislation,
subject of this communication.
3. According to the Complainants, the Media and Information Commission (MIC) is managed by a
Board appointed by the Minister of Information and Publicity, or [any] other Ministers the President
assign the administration of the AIPPA. Complainants allege that the Minister acts in consultation and
in accordance with directions from the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.
4. It is also alleged that no journalist may practice journalism unless he/she is accredited by the MIC
and that Section 80 of the AIPPA provides that a journalist found guilty of abusing his or her
journalistic privilege is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.
5. It is further submitted by the Complainants that Sections 79 (1) and 80 (1) (b)] of the AIPPA
contravene Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which provides
that: “[e]very individual shall have the right to receive information. Every individual shall have the right
to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.”
6. According to the Complainants, compulsory accreditation of journalists, irrespective of the quality
of the accrediting agency, interferes with freedom of expression. They state that accreditation fees
provided for under the law are an additional restriction on freedom of expression. They allege that
compulsory accreditation of journalists by a Commission which lacks independence interferes with
professional independence and the autonomy of the journalism profession. The Complainants submit
further that, the MIC is not democratically constituted. Its constitution and control is not consistent with
democratic values.
7. The Complainants submit further that self-regulation is a central feature of an independent
profession and that the AIPPA is inherently inimical to freedom of expression and has no justification
in a democratic society.
8. The Complainants claim further that they have a real and substantive interest in the matter as they
were established to protect human rights and the freedom of expression.
9. They submit finally that they have exhausted local remedies and that they have litigated the issues
in the highest court in Zimbabwe, whereby the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe declined to declare
unconstitutional, the intentional publication of falsehoods and compulsory accreditation of journalists.
Complaint
10. The Complainants allege that Section 79 (1) and Section 80 of the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act of Zimbabwe contravene Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights.
Procedure
11. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights acknowledged receipt
of the communication on 10 February 2005 and informed the Complainants that the communication
was registered as Communication 297/2005 – Scanlen & Holderness (on behalf of Independent