By A Correspondent
HARARE – In a move widely seen as yet another assault on free expression, the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) has issued a chilling warning targeting digital content creators and online platforms. Critics say it’s nothing more than a renewed attempt to muzzle dissent and tighten state control over public discourse.
Disguised in bureaucratic jargon about “national values” and “responsible broadcasting,” BAZ’s latest statement condemned what it called the “rising trend” of internet-based broadcasting allegedly violating national regulations. It cited vague concerns over “unverified, harmful or offensive material”—terms so broad they could be used to target virtually any criticism of the government.
“These incidents represent a blatant disregard for the guidelines provided in the nation’s broadcasting laws,” the statement reads—though it notably fails to offer a single example of what constitutes such violations, raising suspicions about the real intent behind this sudden concern.
Rather than defending ethics or media integrity, BAZ’s message reads like a threat. It explicitly warns that it will continue to monitor both traditional and digital media and will not hesitate to “decisively enforce” existing laws. For many Zimbabweans, this rings alarm bells—it’s a familiar tactic in a country where freedom of speech has long been under siege.
As traditional media continues to suffer from censorship and political interference, digital platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) have become lifelines for alternative voices. The regime’s growing discomfort with these platforms signals a fear of losing control over the national narrative.
BAZ’s heavy-handed warning appears less about upholding standards and more about intimidating those who dare to speak truth to power. It’s a classic case of using vague legislation and broad interpretation to justify censorship.
Meanwhile, the real issues—press freedom, media reform, and political accountability—are ignored. Zimbabwe’s broadcasting laws remain archaic and overtly repressive, designed for an era of state monopoly over information. Instead of adapting to the realities of digital expression, BAZ seems intent on dragging the country backward.
By urging content creators to “familiarise themselves” with the Code of Conduct, BAZ reveals its true aim: silencing dissent and shielding the political elite from public scrutiny.
Until Zimbabwe confronts its outdated and authoritarian approach to media regulation, moves like these will continue to be seen not as protections—but as threats dressed in the language of law.