By Mlondolozi Ndlovu-The Zimbabwe Media Policy, approved by Cabinet in March 2025, is presented as a transformative framework to align the country’s media landscape with democratic governance, national development, and digital innovation. Titled “Promoting Media Excellence, Diversity and National Development,” the policy outlines lofty ambitions: strengthening freedom of expression, enhancing access to information, encouraging professionalism, and asserting media sovereignty.
Yet beneath these aspirations lie critical legal and democratic deficiencies, including a disregard for constitutional supremacy, the absence of broad-based stakeholder consultation, and embedded risks of media criminalization. While the policy may appear progressive, it undermines fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of Zimbabwe, replicates existing legal provisions, and risks narrowing civic space through administrative coercion masquerading as reform.
One of the most glaring omissions in the policy’s formulation is the failure to conduct meaningful consultation with key stakeholders — including media practitioners, civil society, academia, and the general public. A policy that purports to guide the rights and responsibilities of media actors must, by necessity, include the perspectives of those it regulates. The absence of such consultation not only violates principles of transparency and inclusivity but also silences relevant voices.
The policy must adhere to democratic expectations of openness and participatory governance. The rushed and top-down approach taken by the Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services further undermines the policy’s credibility and casts doubt on the genuineness of its developmental intent.
Consultative policymaking ensures that policies reflect lived realities. Excluding independent journalists, rural broadcasters, community media, and advocacy groups means the policy fails to address the practical needs of the very sector it seeks to regulate. Such exclusion amounts to the institutional erasure of relevant voices and has long-term implications for democratic trust and compliance.
Although the policy does not explicitly create new criminal offences, it effectively introduces a regulatory framework that permits punitive enforcement mechanisms resembling criminalization. Section 4.8 outlines a series of penalties for media organisations and individuals who violate undefined or vaguely framed standards. These include loss of licenses or accreditation, blocking or removal of content, mandatory apologies, disqualification from media industry awards, and legal action such as lawsuits for defamation, privacy violations, or the dissemination of so-called falsehoods.
While framed as administrative or civil measures, these tools can be easily weaponized to punish critical journalism, creating the chilling effect typically associated with criminal sanctions.
Moreover, the policy creates space for the state to impose criminal liability by relying on existing legislation such as the Cyber and Data Protection Act — a law already used to target and silence dissenting voices, particularly those expressing themselves on digital platforms. In this context, the media policy reinforces, rather than replaces, a broader trend of legal repression, where statutory and regulatory frameworks are selectively enforced to suppress criticism under the pretext of protecting national interest or digital integrity.
Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the supremacy of the Constitution over all laws, customs, and practices. It unequivocally states that “any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.” Therefore, any policy, no matter how well-intentioned, must align with constitutional provisions — particularly the Bill of Rights.
The policy purports to support freedom of expression and access to information. However, it does so selectively and conditionally, focusing more on state image and sovereignty than on the rights of citizens and journalists. This approach is at odds with Section 61(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees every person the freedom to seek, receive, and communicate ideas and other information. Section 62(1) further guarantees the right to access information held by the state or any government institution or agency. These are not privileges granted at the discretion of the executive — they are foundational freedoms that form the bedrock of a democratic society.
The loose use of the term “other information” implies that any information not harmful to society should be freely communicated — including uncomfortable truths that serve the public interest or promote accountability. A policy that dictates the type or nature of information to be communicated — such as insisting only on content that protects the image and sovereignty of Zimbabwe — undermines freedom of expression. This narrows the constitutional scope of expression and risks casting legitimate critique or investigative journalism as threats to national interest.
In doing so, the policy compromises the essence of freedom of expression guaranteed under Section 61, which protects the right to communicate diverse ideas and information — not just those aligned with state-approved narratives. The policy is therefore restrictive and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution.
The policy’s strong emphasis on “defending national image and sovereignty” may be used to suppress dissent or critical journalism under the guise of patriotism. While nation-building is important, using patriotism to police speech, journalism, or activism undermines democracy — particularly when criticism is labeled “unpatriotic.” True patriotism is not blind obedience or glorification of the state. It is loyalty to the people and values of a nation — and a willingness to hold the state accountable when it deviates from those values.
Patriotism should be encouraged, not mandated — just as in the United States and South Africa, where national loyalty is promoted through democratic values, not enforced narratives.
The Constitution sets high standards for media freedoms. Section 61(4) explicitly states that freedom of the media is protected and that state-owned media must be impartial. In contrast, the policy introduces vague qualifiers to freedom of expression, referencing the need to protect Zimbabwe’s sovereignty, image, and economic interests. While national sovereignty is a legitimate concern, it cannot justify blanket censorship or suppression of dissent.
President Mnangagwa’s recent warning to media practitioners against disseminating “harmful information” that could tarnish Zimbabwe’s image in the eyes of global investors reflects a broader governmental posture: that media should serve state branding rather than public accountability. Such expectations undermine the watchdog role of the media — essential for democracy, transparency, and good governance.
A media system that conforms only to patriotic narratives cannot fulfill its constitutional duty to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas — especially on issues of public interest, corruption, governance, and electoral integrity.
One of the structural weaknesses of the policy is its redundancy. Much of what it claims to introduce already exists in national law:
- Access to information is governed by the Freedom of Information Act [Chapter 10:33].
- Media regulation is managed by the Zimbabwe Media Commission Act [Chapter 10:35].
- Digital and data protection is handled under the Cyber and Data Protection Act [Chapter 12:07].
Instead of reforming or innovating on these laws, the policy merely repackages them, adding layers of bureaucratic control without addressing core sectoral needs such as funding, independence, and the safety of journalists. It introduces new administrative requirements — such as fees for foreign media practitioners and mandatory content deposits for wildlife documentaries — but offers little in terms of actual media development or rights expansion.
By failing to harmonize existing laws, the policy adds complexity to an already fragmented regulatory landscape. This may deter investment, confuse media actors, and increase the potential for discretionary abuse by state officials.
To be truly effective, a media policy must promote rights-based governance, align with constitutional protections, and foster an environment conducive to free expression, journalistic integrity, and technological innovation. This requires:
- Independent media regulation free from political interference;
- Public consultation in policy design and review;
- Legal safeguards against censorship, retaliation, or surveillance; and
- Investment in rural, community, and multilingual media platforms.
A progressive media policy should enhance pluralism, professionalism, and participation — not control. The current policy falls short of that democratic imperative.
To its credit, the policy is guided by commendable principles: media pluralism, freedom of expression, transparency, whistleblower protection, and accountability. These values reflect the language of democratic governance and align — at least rhetorically — with international standards and constitutional commitments.
However, while these principles are laudable, many remain aspirational and are not supported by concrete institutional or legal mechanisms for enforcement. This is especially concerning in areas where violations are most likely to be committed by state actors — including infringements on whistleblower safety, suppression of critical media, and lack of transparency in regulatory oversight. Without independent enforcement bodies, binding legal frameworks, or clear remedial procedures, these principles risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
That said, the policy does make some important strides toward digital modernization, professional development, and media pluralism. Initiatives such as the Media Fund, protections against workplace harassment, and efforts to promote local content and language diversity reflect a genuine attempt to align media with national development goals.
In conclusion, while articulated in developmental language, the policy ultimately prioritizes control, image management, and bureaucratic oversight over media freedom, constitutional rights, and sectoral innovation. Its failure to undergo meaningful consultation, its duplication of existing legal frameworks, and its veiled endorsement of criminalization reveal a policy more concerned with managing perception than empowering citizens and institutions.
In light of Section 2 of the Constitution, which affirms the supremacy of constitutional rights over any policy or custom, the Media Policy must be urgently revisited to ensure that it does not undermine the very rights it claims to promote. In a democratic nation, media freedom is not a threat to national sovereignty — it is its guarantor.
Mlondolozi Ndlovu is the interim MISA Harare Advocacy Chairperson. He is also a media lecturer, legal and media researcher who writes in his own capacity. He is reachable on [email protected].