Global Day of Prayer

Type of case	Broadcast Standards
Outcome	In Breach and Sanction
Service	Loveworld Television Network
Date & time	1 December 2020, 17:00
Category	Harm and due accuracy in news
Summary	Loveworld’s Global Day of Prayer featured potentiallyharmful and inaccurate statements about the Coronavirus pandemic and adequate protection was not provided to viewers. In breach of Rules 2.1 and 5.1.

Introduction 

Loveworld Television Network (“Loveworld”) is a religious channel broadcast on satellite in the UK. The licence for Loveworld is held by Loveworld Limited (“LL” or “the Licensee”).  

The Global Day of Prayer was a lengthy religious programme running from 17:00 on 1 December 2020 to 22:15 on 2 December 2020 featuring sermons and reports from Pastors around the world, as well as scripture readings, worship and hymns. The programme included both live and pre-recorded content, and included sermons from Pastor Chris Oyakhilome (“Pastor Chris”)^[1]. 

Ofcom received one complaint that this programme included potentially harmful statements that linked the Coronavirus pandemic to 5G technology. When assessing the programme, Ofcom identified additional material across the 29 hours and 15 minutes of the programme that raised further potential issues. 

Ofcom^[2] is prioritising cases related to the Coronavirus pandemic which could cause harm to audiences.

This could include:

• health claims related to the virus which may be harmful;

• medical advice which may be harmful; and,
• accuracy or materially misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it.

We therefore informed the Licensee that it was necessary for us to depart from our normal published procedures and expedite this investigation.

The Content

On 1 December 2020, The Global Day of Prayer began with a short trailer for the programme which included various Loveworld presenters who made the following statements: 

“It’s the most anticipated Global Day of Prayer with the man of God Pastor Chris. As the days draw closer, we urge you to spread the word. Let’s tell everyone to join the man of God Pastor Chris. Now it’s that time when we make tremendous power available and we are more than excited about it. Together we will bring to bear the will of the father in the earth. Remember the next few years of this world depends so much on our prayers. Set your reminders and clear your shadow. Call your loved ones. Compel them. Leave no one out. For the Lord is sure to do wonders in our midst. Are you ready? Set? Let’s go!”

A pre-recorded report was shown, which discussed events which had taken place during 2020 and included contributions from different Pastors from around the world. This included a voiceover that said:

“Like wildfire, chaos blew out, spreading swiftly across borders. The script was the same. The voices of confusion, way too many. The streets were locked down. Cities closed up. Amidst the pandemonium, gross fear and confusion, a voice arose, a voice that couldn’t be stopped. In a world of so many voices”.

The presenter followed this with:                            

“When the news of the pandemic broke out earlier this year, the whole world was in confusion and fear. The schools were affected. The church buildings weren’t left out. Confining people to their homes and making them prisoners in their own countries. The narratives kept changing, all in a bid to control the world, but who really owns this world? And who has the right to control it? This is a question we already have the answer to. Well, we have listened to only one voice, the voice of our man of God, Pastor Chris as led by the spirit of God. And so he made a call for unceasing prayers by the Church. Persistent in nature such that the wicked plans of the evil one couldn’t thrive in our world…”.

Pastor Anna Teagle, from Canada, said:  

“It has been tremendous, and I know that we’ve caused amazing changes in the world through our prayers. The Covid-19 fiasco has indeed been a fiasco. It’s been a disaster. In the month of March 2020, our year of perfection. The government started putting fear in the citizens of our nation Canada by talking about this new virus. Nobody knew what was going to happen”. 

The presenter said:           

“Did we know that in 2020 our year of perfection that the world would be subjected to unprecedented satanic deception. But while this world submerged with a deafening scream of fear, we the Church rose up together with one voice under the guidance of our man of God, Pastor Chris, to continue in prevailing prayer”. 

Pastor Leaf Amosa, from Hawaii, said:  

“Pastor was now teaching us about all this fake news that was there all along, now is being revealed. And one of the things that Pastor told us during the Loveworld Special he was revealing that the devil was trying to jump ahead of his appointed time. And that’s what happened during the Loveworld Special and during our prayer time with our man of God…”.

This introduction was followed bya live sermon delivered by Pastor Chris, in which he said the following:

“I told you at the beginning of the pandemic, which is now popularly known as the ‘plandemic’ because I told you before: it was all planned. Most people have found out eventually. Some didn’t quite agree at the beginning that what I said was right, but most have found out. Thousands of medical doctors, scientists, virologists. They’ve all confirmed what I’ve been telling you. So, I told you it was, it had nothing, what was going on, had nothing to do with the virus. I told you. It had nothing to do with the virus. And you’ve since found out. And then I told you along with this virus scare, one of the major things they plan to do. Somebody says, who are these people that planned? That means you’ve not been listening. If you’ve been listening, I’ve been telling you who have planned, because they’re not hiding it. They don’t hide it. They’re not hiding it. Event 201 who did that?^[3] You can write it down. Agenda

21^[4] what’s that? What are they doing with that? And then you got the most creepy and dangerous organisation and a whole lot of people don’t understand. They think it’s so wonderful. But that’s because you’re not reading between the lines. The World Economic Forum: it’s one of the most dangerous organisations on Earth. If you want to understand it better then read Klaus Schwab ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’. Because if you don’t understand it, it looks wonderful because all of these leaders speak nicely. They have good language; they are well educated. So, they understand exactly how to do what to do. But we’re dealing with the same people because they’re calling for a reset. Reset what? Reset the system that they created? The system that they complain about was created by them”. 

Later in the programme, at 19:20, Pastor Chris gave a live sermon as follows:

“Right now, the word tells us to pray, that the Gospel may have free cause and be glorified. There will be no free cause with the lockdown of cities. No free cause of the Gospel. With churches locked down. All the evil wearing of masks. Or the requirement of the fraudulent tests. The fraudulent Covid-19 tests. All these are hampering the spread of the Gospel…”.

Pastor Chris continued and said:

“I told you. I told you about their plans and I told you about the concentration camps that they’ve been denying for long, until this happened. When they were calling them ‘isolation camps’, they were isolating people who were supposedly infected with Covid-19. They were isolating them, and I raised my voice and I asked ‘why are you isolating them? What do you want to do to them? You said there’s no cure, why do you put them there?’ You put them there for certain death and then they tried to deny it. So, what are they doing then? You said you had no cure – doesn’t that mean that these isolation camps are extermination camps? And they had difficulty answering what I said. Thank God as we prayed, those isolation camps began to get emptied. And I think all over the world now there are hardly any isolation camps. But let me tell you something, and that’s why I began to tell you. Make no mistakes about it. They’re not very happy we got them on that one. The camps are still there, and they are building some. And what do they really want to do? I told you it wasn’t about Covid-19. I reminded you of Nazi Germany. And

I said, who were those in the concentration camps? The Jews, but not

only the Jews. Find out more. They picked those they felt where a stain to the society. They pick them from the streets. They were calling it cleaning out of the streets. What’s that? Eugenics. And you read about those who are the perpetrators. Of Covid-19 and it’s lockdown and masks and tests. You find eugenists or eugenicists. Call them one of those two names, or both. They are the same. They’re the ones behind this”.

Pastor Chris then introduced and played a clip of the Premier responding to a question from an elected representative in Ontario, Canada, discussing the use of facilities for quarantine of travellers on entering the country. After playing the clip a second time, Pastor Chris continued:

“You just heard it. In the document, the isolation camps were not limited to people with Covid. I told you before that those camps were not being built for isolation of infected people. They’ re being built for those who don’t agree with their plans. Understand it. That’s what it was in Nazi Germany. That’s what they’re planning to do. And I also read a document to you. In fact, I displayed it on the screen for you to see. A document. A government document that emphasised what I just told you. Very clearly. What these plans are? The seizure of personal property. Why? Because Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum and their ilk have planned that humans should not have personal property. So, the idea is a world where only them, by the way, because they’re gonna play by two different sets of rules; one for them and one for everybody else. So, people you will not have a car of your own. It’ll all be a service of government. You have no clothes of your own. You have nothing. This is the plan. This is the plan for the fourth Industrial

Revolution. Where everybody is nothing but owned by the government. You become a property of the government. Now, I read a document to you, a government document that stated what I just told you. It includes the seizure of property. And when they were asked: what happens if you don’t agree? Now when you take the vaccine… the plan is you take the vaccine, then you have a right to the free world, the New World. So, the vaccine is the entrance into their New World order. If you reject it then you will not participate in the world economy. Secondly, that’s the reason for the camps that they’re building. They’ll seize your property and move you to the camp. I am not telling you, you see when we talk like this, they say oh this conspiracy theory, no, it’s not a theory. It’s written. These are government documents. And I already provided you one. I put it on the screen. And now I just showed you. A video in a parliament. You can’t make this up. By the way, all of these things will eventually happen…So that’s what they’re planning. A world where you can be controlled. And so, through the vaccine you get the nanochips and by the way, apart from probably one of the companies or so, all of the companies have already boasted that their vaccines are ready. I told you, I told you. I told you they’re gonna tell you that it will take two years or more to come up with a real vaccine. They’re going to pretend, like oh it will take a long time. Then I said to you, after a while, suddenly two, three months, they’re going to come back to you and say it was a miracle. It just happened. They had to work hard. I told you what would happen. Now they have come out with the vaccines. Just as I said they would. I told you they’ll pretend. I said the vaccines were ready. They already had them. They already have them. They already knew what they wanted. Otherwise, why would these vaccines include nanochips? If they were not already tested and proven. Already scientists are checking and reporting that several of these vaccines include the nanochips that I told you about. So, this is what’s going on…I’ll tell what they’re going to do. They will not let your children go to school without the vaccine. Then they would say if you were already in school, you will not get a result without the vaccine. Then you will not get a job without the vaccine. These are all the things they are planning. You cannot travel without proof that you have taken the vaccine. All this nonsense”. 

At 22:17, Pastor Siji Dara gave a sermon in which he said: 

“Pastor unveiled to us the plan of the anti-Christ. Pastor unveiled to us the fake test kits being used for Covid. Pastor unveiled to us the mask that’s being used around the world, how it has a lot of health hazards. Pastor has unveiled to us so much. I thank god so much for Pastor”.

On 2 December at 00:00, “Global Watch News” discussed Australia’s handling of the pandemic. The presenter said:

“You’re watching Global Watch News. I am Zoe Okafor and we bring you the latest news in Australia. Stay with us. The state of South Australia implemented a circuit breaker lockdown in an attempt to stop the Covid19 outbreak that grew in the state capital Adelaide. Now the strict measures closed schools, universities, bars and cafes. The restrictions allowed for only one person from each household to leave home each day. Now, despite counter studies from several scientists showing that the lockdowns, face masks, quarantine, and social distancing are ineffective, the Government of Australia has imposed the second lock down in the bid of controlling a second wave of the Coronavirus resurgence. Residents in Melbourne City could no longer move around freely, as police officers patrolled the streets enforcing the stay home order. Medical personnel have been dispatched to carry out door-todoor testing”. 

An Australian news clip was then played, in which a newsreader said: 

“Australia has been extremely serious about its lockdowns. When the second wave hit in the summer, authorities didn’t pause. Nearly every business in Melbourne was forced to close. There are limits on how many people can return to the country and when they do, mandatory quarantine hotels guarded by soldiers. Police checkpoints to ensure no one was ever more than 25 kilometres from home and $1,300 fines readily handed out to the rule breakers”.

The presenter then said: 

“Pastor Chris, through the prophetic word had declared that the testing, lockdowns were all a fraud and nations are being forced to comply to a global script, which has only brought poverty and degradation to many nations”. 

This was followed by a clip of Pastor Chris, who said: 

“The testing it’s one of the biggest frauds. The testing for Covid-19 testing is one of the biggest frauds”. 

On 2 December at 05:00, “Global Watch News” discussed Brazil’s handling of the pandemic. The presenter began and said:

“This is Global Watch News. I am Elizabeth Williams bringing you the latest news on Brazil. Stay with us. After struggling for months to get its Covid-19 death toll under control, Brazil is now threatened by the nightmare scenario that has already shaken the United States and Europe. A second wave”.

This introduction was followed by an Aljazeera news clip of a member of the public and then a clip of Pastor Chris who said “we know from different countries we have seen, and I’ve received different complaints about these results. The test results. The fraudulent test result”. 

The presenter then said, “President Jair Bolsonaro, who has treated the pandemic since the onset as fraudulent, dismissed talk of a second wave”. This was followed by a clip from an external news provider, Reuters, which said “Brazil’s right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro said he will not take a coronavirus vaccine calling it his quote, ‘right’. He made statements live on social media Thursday, adding that Congress was not likely to require Brazilians to take a vaccine”. The presenter then finished the segment and said the following:

“Scientists argue that the economic impacts of the lockdown would be worse than the virus itself. The Brazilian health experts have suspended a clinical trial involving a Chinese Coronavirus vaccine test, citing serious adverse effects. Meanwhile, the Federal Health Ministry took down a website that had been showing daily, weekly, and monthly figures on infections and deaths in Brazil. Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes tweeted Saturday that manipulated statistics is a manoeuvre of totalitarian regimes. We can see that not every nation has fallen for the fraud and deception perpetrated by the deep state. We pray. We must pray for the leaders of our nations that they receive boldness to stand for the cause of justice, equity and righteousness in their nations and territories. Join the Global Day of Prayer and Saints from all over the world, as we effect changes in governments, nations, cities and circumstances around the world, bringing God’s will to fusion in every nation. Pray with us now”.  

On 2 December at 06:04, clips were played of several Pastors of the church speaking about their involvement in Pastor Chris’ prayer and fasting programmes. Pastor Akhilesh Das said:  

“After the lockdown the prayer session that started on different titles. The teaching given there I came to know the actual reality behind end times; 5G; Covid-19; and the human chip also”.

Immediately after Pastor Akhilesh Das spoke, footage of Pastor Chris delivering a sermon was shown in which he said: 

“Then you get the image everywhere. In the image He is connected by 5G. And through the microchip, because that’s the only way you can function in the earth at that time. You cannot buy, you cannot sell. We will get to it in a moment. You’re completely eliminated from the economic system of the world if you don’t have the microchip”.

This was followed by Pastor Sabrina Maria Evans, who said:

“The church received detailed guidance from the Holy Spirit through our man of God, Pastor Chris, on how to pray which is necessary to know at a time such as this”. 

On 2 December 2020 at 08:32, “Global Watch News” discussed China’s handling of the pandemic. The presenter said:

“Hello and thanks for joining us. This is ‘Global Watch News’ and I am

Henry Williams bringing you the latest news on China. Stay tuned. The Coronavirus pandemic, first begun in China in the late 2019, and it spread to various countries and regions before it was curbed. China, which is the largest populated country in the world with 1.393 billion people, still has the lowest Coronavirus figures. Over the past months it has only small, sporadic local outbreaks. The total number of confirmed cases in China stands at over 92,000 since the beginning of the pandemic. With the death toll of over 4700, according to John Hopkins University Research”. 

The report then showed footage of Pastor Chris speaking: “You see the right questions have not been asked by the right people”. The caption read: “The Lockdowns are a Fraud. The Testings are a Deception”. Further footage showed Pastor Chris speaking, as follows: 

“That’s why I’m telling you that this fraud of the test needs to stop. It’s a deception and it needs to stop. We know from different countries we have seen and have received different complaints about these results. The test results. The fraudulent test results”. 

The report moved back to the presenter:

“Top respiratory expert Zhong NanShan said that China will unlikely have a second wave of Coronavirus because of the comprehensive and strict prevention and control measures. The immediate lockdowns and mass testings, even at the first signs of infection have been used in controlling the spread of Covid-19, allowing its economy to quickly recover from the crisis, according to experts. However, experts also advised that the most effective measures for general public is to keep social distance and wear masks”.

The report then moved back to the presenter, who said: 

“There are ploys of the Deep State to keep the nation under the control of the one world government. We see the same strategy being played out across several nations as our man of God, Pastor Chris foretold”.

Further footage shown of Pastor Chris speaking with a caption which read: “Several Nations set the same script to implement the lockdowns”. Pastor Chris said: 

“I’m saying. Those people who were sending you all the scripts in which to shut down your country, lockdown everything. Don’t contact them again. They’re not going to contact you. Leave them alone. They’re gone. So, don’t contact them. Do now the wisdom what God has given you for your country. Do it right. That’s what you should do”.

The presenter said: 

“Through our prayers we are reclaiming our cities, countries and regions. We are establishing the will of the Father in every nation under heaven as we make power available. Dynamic in its working. If you’re just tuned in, you are watching the Global Day of Prayer with Pastor Chris and we are praying for all the nations of the world. Join now”.

On 2 December 2020 at 12.46 “Global Watch News” reported on events happening in India in relation to the Coronavirus. The presenter began “this is Global Watch News and I am James Cordwell. We’re bringing you the latest news on India so stay with us”. A second presenter continued “India has become the latest and largest country to introduce a nationwide lockdown in the fight against the Coronavirus. Its population of 1.3 billion has been told to stay at home”. 

There was an on-screen caption reading: “India imposes world’s biggest coronavirus lockdown”. A political correspondent said “with Covid-19 infections on the rise again after showing a considerable slump. Fields of these second wave of the pandemic are growing”. Then the presenter said: 

“India is the second most populous country in the world with more than 1.3 billion people. How can a nation with such a massive population survive the harsh realities of a second lockdown?”

Footage was then shown from India which appeared to be from another news provider. The footage included a Sky News logo with the words “Sky News Explainer” and the presenter said “her Government faced a Herculean task of locking down such massive populations spread across 2,000 miles from East to West of the nation”. Then footage was shown of people living in India with the caption: “we have problems. We have a small child and we don’t have anything to eat”. A voiceover said:

“Minister Narendra Modi has invoked the National Disaster

Management Act which applies to the whole nation. It means only those who are involved in essential services are allowed to go out to their workplaces. Everybody else needs to stay at home and only go out to buy food and medicines. Police forces have used a combination of methods of punishment. Beating, legal threatened jail term, cajoling and reprimanding, and also seizing vehicles of those who have violated these restrictions. But even before the Prime Minister’s decision, most states had already brought in complete or partial closures and restrictions covering almost 85% of the population”.

The presenter said:          

“The National Disaster Management Act was activated by the Prime Minister, which only allowed those who are on essential services to go outside their homes. Everybody else was instructed to stay at home and only to go out to buy food and medicine where necessary”. 

Footage was shown of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, speaking in Hindi with English subtitles which read:

“From midnight today, please listen carefully. From midnight today, the entire country will go under a complete lockdown”.

The presenter said:

“The use of force to ensure that citizens adhered to the rules was carried out by police officers on citizens who were struggling for food and to make ends meet amid the harsh lockdowns. Here’s another nation, subjected to untold hardships as millions of people who normally would work daily to get food, can no longer go out or provide for themselves”.

Footage was shown of a BBC Reporter reporting from India, saying:

“122 million workers have lost their jobs since March”.

Footage was shown of people living in India, speaking in Hindi, with English subtitles shown on screen: 

“If things don’t improve, we will have to kill ourselves”.

“The children stay hungry and so do we”.

“If we get one meal in a day we eat it, otherwise we sleep hungry”.

The presenter said:          

“The fraud of skyrocketing figures of increasing cases of the Coronavirus is spread through the media, creating fear and uncertainty. It’s our responsibility as the Church of God, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ to change this situation”. 

A caption read:

“The church has the responsibility to effect changes”.

There was then a clip of Pastor Chris speaking:  

“Where things have been orchestrated to frustrate the churches of Christ. Listen, the churches of God. God’s pillar of truth. They’re God’s lights administered to the nations. We are the executers of the redemption of Christ. I just told you we are the ones to execute the redemption. The price has been paid and those of us who have received the life and nature of God and have the name of Jesus Christ are the ones that have the authority to execute the judgment. Remember we’ve been praying. We’ve affected changes. Changes and several nations have reversed those evil, wicked and atrocious decrees that were called emergency decrees”. 

The presenter said:          

“God has given us the nations we will make decrees in the realms of the spirit that will cause the leaders in the cities and the nations to see the truth and apply laws that will favour the growth and the wellbeing of its citizens. Join the Global Day of Prayer and Saints from all over the world. As we affect changes in governments, nations, cities and circumstances around the world, bringing God’s righteousness to bear in every nation. Join us now”. 

On 2 December 2020 at 10:38 Pastor Lanre Alabi delivered a live sermon during which he stated:

“We are going to pray against the commonly devised laws, crafted in an attempt to subvert church activities in nations of the world. Many of the happenings around the world: the Plandemic, the Covid fiasco, Pastor told us already from the start, that it had nothing to do with the virus. It was not a health situation. The church was the focus. They wanted to stop the church. Through commonly devised policies and steps and plans, and so, that’s one of the reasons we’re praying. We’re going to pray because some of those policies have been dismantled and more would need to be dismantled. So, we’re going to pray. We’re going to come against those commonly devised laws, crafted in an attempt to subvert church activities in nations. We’re going to declare that such laws come to naught. And the voices on the powers behind them, as stifled and they lose their influence in the nation. Praise God. We’re going to declare that the Church remains victorious over all the detractors. And as the scriptures say the church will continue to march forward…”.

On 2 December 2020 at 19:20 Pastor Chris delivered a live sermon, as follows:

“I could tell you what was happening to you, what was happening in the nations of the world even when the perpetrators, collaborators and enablers were lying. I told you about what happens to your currency and why nations become poor. I said it’s not because there’s anything wrong with your currency but because there are a certain few people in the world, who have been running the financial system of the world and all they’ve been doing is manipulating the system. And just so you can understand….Ok, I’m convinced, I have here a Professor of Economics of the United States, Paul Krugman. In 1999, he made a statement, an interesting statement, and that statement was actually directed to a certain individual who he would code his names…it was obvious who he was talking about…I’m just going to give you a little part of it here”. 

Pastor Chris then appeared to quote from Paul Krugman’s book, as follows: 

“Nobody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis but actively do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not have a standard name. My proposed term is Soroi”.

Pastor Chris then continued:

“Hear what I said. He said they do their best to trigger a currency crisis.

Through such things they’ve manipulated countries, so your country is

never able to get by. The harder you work, the more they raise the bar…the harder you work, the less they get and the more they get…the manipulators and perpetrators of poverty. Why are they crying – oh we want to end poverty – they are not ending poverty, they are perpetrating it…”.

***

“Look. This scare in the word about Covid-19 had nothing to do with the virus. I told you. I told you it was only deception. The virus was used as a scam, a scheme to deceive. And it is scam. It is only deception. And guess what? The deception continues. Look at this. They told you how many people were going to die. They told you. They scared so many with the news that millions were going to die. Let me tell you, they were not playing, they meant it. Had we not prayed, millions would have died, just as they said. But we leaked out their secret. We prayed and leaked out the secret. We cast out demons, brought down the Prince of Assyria. Got off his influence. And they didn’t know what to do. That’s the reason not many died. It wasn’t the virus that was going to kill them. They had a plan. They already announced to you and nations, governments around the world were told to go get burial grounds because they’re going to be burying people like mad. That’s what they were told, and the Heads of nations, presidents and prime ministers were scared to death. They got lands prepared for burials. Because those who perpetrated this evil meant it. But I told you what they were going to use. I told you what the plan, I told you. But some didn’t quite agree with me then. I don’t even know they didn’t agree ’cause I wasn’t following what they’re doing. I heard later. I don’t listen, you know, to what people say like that. I heard later. Somebody tried to draw my attention to it. Because I told them that 5G was what they were using. For the killing of people. And not many, quite agreed. But the weeks and months have come and gone, and many scientists, biologists. A lot of them have woken up to the reality of what I said. And they’re telling the whole world. The same thing. What I told you back then”. 

***

“And they’re telling the whole world the same thing what I told you back then. I told you that where it started in China in Wuhan, where they was showing videos of people falling down in the streets and dying and then it showed you some places in Europe where people were just dying, dying by the numbers. I told you it was not the virus. I told you, it was the 5G. And they didn’t want to hear it. But that was what was planned. That was the killing machine that was arranged. That’s why they were so sure people were going to die. Now, when I raised my voice against the 5G, and called for moratorium on the 5G, and we got to praying all over the world, and slowed down the installation and roll out of 5G, where were the deaths? The deaths were gone. But the virus? How come the virus – they said the virus was still there – why did the virus not kill as many people anymore? Because it was never the virus. It was the 5G. I was right all the time”.

At approximately 19:37, Pastor Chris introduced a video featuring someone he described as having worked at the United Nations “for years”. A video was then shown in which the speaker, identified in the caption as Claire Edwards, said she was going to read out from her paper which was entitled “the Covid-19 genocide of 2020”. She said: 

“Covid-19 was long pre-planned in documents and simulation exercises emanating from the eugenicist Bill Gates and the Rockefeller

Foundation. A platform with 200 detailed levels is provided by the World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab, a technocrat and promoter of transhumanism, in order to provide detailed instructions on how the Covid-19 pandemic is to be used to implement a global monetary, research and digital currency technocracy and totalitarian government worldwide under the guise of socialism and environmentalism with China as the model, and enslave humanity through a sinister vaccine conspiracy. Earlier attempts were made to engineer pandemics, but none succeeded. This time, the World Health Organisation changed its pandemic criteria in advance so that it could declare a pandemic on spurious grounds. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a terrorist and accused genocide-ist, was appointed head of the World Health Organisation in order to orchestrate the pandemic and facilitate the totalitarian takeover. Wireless technology suppresses the immune system. 5G is implicated in Covid-19 through correlations between the locations of the 5G rollout and morbidity, morbidity and mortality as well as the prior administration of flu vaccinations in Wuhan and Milan. The symptoms of Covid are virtually identical to the symptoms of exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Extensive military research over many decades was kept secret and regulatory agencies were co-opted in order to prevent the public learning about the extreme dangers of electromagnetic radiation. Doctors receive no training on the risks to health of exposure to electromagnetic radiation and therefore misdiagnose electromagnetic radiation exposure symptoms. Hospitals are extensively equipped with 5G, putting patients’ lives at risk. 5G serves many purposes. It is a depopulation and military weapon and facilitates the introduction of technocracy and totalitarian control by enabling surveillance, facial recognition, 24/7 monitoring of individuals mind and body control, and in combination with vaccines and chemtrails containing nanoparticles, the torture or murder of targeted individuals.

Electromagnetic radiation can be used to simulate pathogens and overwhelm the immune system and cell phones may be being used to simulate Covid-19 contagion among co-workers or family members”.  Following the video of Claire Edwards, Pastor Chris said: 

“Now I’m sure if you followed us, especially in the earlier weeks of the broadcast, everything this woman just said, I had stated all of them. Everything she said. I told you all about the electromagnetic radiation (the EMR). I told you how it works. I told you how it attacks the human immune system. I told you all those things. Now she’s telling you this whole truth”.

We considered that the content raised potential issues under the following Code rules: 

Rule 2.1:	“Generally accepted standards must be applied to the content of television and radio services…so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.”
Rule 5.1:	“News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.”

Ofcom requested comments from the Licensee about how the content complied with these rules.

Response

LL apologised for “this slip” and said it had expected this to be a programme specifically focused on prayer, “hence the oversight”.  

Referring to an earlier breach decision, the Licensee said that it was “aware there have been concerns raised in the past regarding comments relating to Coronavirus and 5G that were deemed to have been contentious and labelled potentially harmful”.^[5] It added that in response to those concerns it had closely monitored its programmes and when these issues had been raised and it had acted swiftly “to either cut the program or our presenters have provided the view as advised by you”.

LL said it had made significant progress in safeguarding the public by putting appropriate systems and protocols in place, and had continued training with their presenters “to avoid and mitigate against such scenarios”.

With regards to this specific programme, LL explained that, during sections of prayer, some of the ministers featured in the programme “made various passing comments which [Ofcom had] raised concerns about in relation to Coronavirus and 5G”. The Licensee said these statements were “quite

brief and, in most instances, unexpected leaving very little time for us to respond by terminating the transmission as we have done previously in order to comply with [Ofcom’s] guidelines”.

LL also said: 

• there have been no further complaints recently in relation to the above issues and it has fully complied its content;
• it was expecting this programme to be strictly a prayer programme and that is why it had missed cutting off the broadcast;
• it has put measures in place to ensure it does not happen again;
• most of the content was live content from different parts of the world by ministers who joined and moderated various prayer segments during the programme; and
• it was aware of Ofcom regulations and always sought to comply with them.

Finally, the Licensee said that it had reviewed all of the content about which Ofcom had raised concerns and said “the only way we feel these could have been averted was to not have transmitted the program[me] at all in its entirety but as seeing this was a live program[me] for which we had been informed would be all about prayer, some of the controversial comments and contents raised could not have been predetermined or foreseen”.

Having considered the Licensee’s initial comments, Ofcom provided LL with its Preliminary View that the Rule 2.1 and 5.1 had been breached and requested its comments. In response, the Licensee reiterated that the programme was “originally intended to be prayer centric” and “was intended for good, rather than malevolent reasons”. LL said, “the current global crisis warrants the need for prayers” adding that “while numerous viewers have sought solace in such program[mes], we regret that this particular one fell below Ofcom compliance”.

LL explained it “did not envisage what each speaker would say prior to commencing their prayer segment. Furthermore, with various moderators from different parts of the world, it became rather difficult to regulate their utterances, given that it was a live transmission”.

LL said it had since been monitoring the station “even more closely” to prevent any reoccurrence in subsequent broadcasts and added it was “currently exploring tighter mitigative measures to avert any such occurrences in the future”.

The Licensee also explained “[t]he short News segments which were intended to be News Analysis segments, were actually aimed at enlightening viewers on global events/situations…to help them channel their prayers more specifically”. LL said the presenters were experienced and knowledgeable and therefore “we didn’t envisage they will anchor any segment during the Global Day of Prayer with information containing potentially harmful material as explained in your Preliminary View. Also, in our view, the speakers did not seem to make any utterances found to be inappropriate.”

Finally, LL added that while it understood “seriousness of this matter”, the broadcast “was never intended to be malicious”. It apologised “for any shortcomings” and requested “that leniency be applied”.

Decision

Reflecting our duties under the Communications Act 2003, Section Two of the Code provides protection for members of the public from the inclusion of harmful and/or offensive material. Section Five of the Code reflects the impartiality requirements of sections 319 and 320 of the Act and requires that news must be reported with due accuracy and due impartiality.

Ofcom takes into account a broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the audience’s right to receive information and ideas as set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Where applicable, we also have regard to Article 9 of the ECHR which states that everyone “has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. 

Rule 2.1

The Code enables broadcasters to include challenging or contentious viewpoints in programmes. However, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from the inclusion of potentially harmful material. It is for the broadcaster to decide how to secure such protection where necessary.^[6]

When considering a programme’s compliance with Rule 2.1, Ofcom must assess the nature of the content and whether there is a reasonable likelihood of it causing members of the public actual or potential harm. Context is important and the extent of any protection required will depend on all the relevant circumstances, including the service on which the material is broadcast, the degree of harm likely to be caused and the likely expectation of the audience. 

We recognise that measures introduced by various governments to deal with the Coronavirus crisis have resulted in restrictions on public freedoms in the UK and across the world. This has led to considerable debate about the various strategies adopted by governments to tackle the pandemic. Reflecting the fundamental importance of freedom of expression, it is clearly legitimate for broadcasters to question public policy and the rationale behind it and to robustly hold governments to account. However, in performing that function, broadcasters should be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the Coronavirus, which could include: harmful health claims; harmful medical advice; and misleading statements about the virus or public policy on it. 

This broadcast was a programme of over 29 hours duration, which took place on 1 and 2 December 2020 when: the global number of confirmed cases of Coronavirus had reached 65million^[7]; 59,051 people had died of Coronavirus in the UK^[8]; and the UK was living under a second Government imposed lockdown. Confirmed new cases of Coronavirus, hospital admissions and deaths with the virus in the UK were recorded as being at a high level compared with the summer and early autumn. The lockdown restrictions, which curtailed individual freedoms, were introduced on the basis that they were intended to slow the spread of the Coronavirus and prevent health services from being

overwhelmed. People were advised to wear a face covering in certain circumstances and remain socially distant from people who were not members of their immediate household. In the preceding weeks, updates regarding potential vaccine developments were widely reported^[9], and on 2 December 2020, during the broadcast of this programme, it was reported that the Pfizer vaccine had been approved for use in the UK^[10]. 

Ofcom examined the statements made in the Global Day of Prayer to assess whether they were potentially harmful to viewers. In considering the potential for harm, Ofcom takes into account a number of factors, such as: the severity of the situation; whether the material was targeted at a particularly vulnerable audience; and whether the claims were made by a speaker who is portrayed as having authority. We also take into account factors such as contextual information; whether there was a degree of challenge; and whether opposing views were included.

In our view, it was clear that topics described above were particularly sensitive given the global Coronavirus pandemic. People’s lives in the UK, and worldwide, were subject to severe restrictions, with considerable social and economic consequences. Daily reporting of Coronavirus cases and related deaths, and the statistics underlying these reports, were likely to lead people to be fearful of their own health and wellbeing, and that of others. In a developing situation, it is likely that people would be looking for reliable information on the effectiveness of measures to protect their health, and that of others, particularly given that, at the time of this particular programme, vaccinations were in the process of being made available. Within this context, we considered that viewers would have been particularly vulnerable to any misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the Coronavirus that could be potentially harmful to them.

We took into account that Loveworld is a religious television service with a global audience but also that the programme contained statements which appeared in news reports. Viewers place a high level of trust in the news to help them understand what is going on in the world. Further, the news reporters and presenters related the reports to the teachings of Pastor Chris, who was portrayed as a figure of knowledge and authority. For instance, he was repeatedly described by other Pastors as “the man of God, Pastor Chris” which showed he was held in high esteem. Ofcom’s research indicates^[11] that if potentially harmful claims about health are made by a speaker who is perceived by the audience as having authority, there is more chance of the audience treating those claims as credible and making decisions based on them.

Throughout the Global Day of Prayer, we consider that a number of highly contentious, false and potentially harmful claims about the Coronavirus pandemic were made. We address each of these claims below.

The theory that the global coronavirus pandemic was “planned”

During the programme, there were repeated references to the Coronavirus being “planned” and it was frequently referred to as a “plandemic” by Pastor Chris and others. In his opening sermon on 1 December 2020 Pastor Chris said: 

“I told you at the beginning of the pandemic, which is now popularly known as the ‘plandemic’ because I told you before: it was all planned”. 

Pastor Chris also suggested that the Coronavirus pandemic had “nothing to do with the virus” and that the “virus was used as a scam, a scheme to deceive”. Pastor Chris implied that Event 201, a pandemic simulation exercise which involved 15 global business, government and public health leaders – and Agenda 21, a non-binding UN resolution which promotes sustainable development^[12] – were in some way involved in its conception: “I’ve been telling you who have planned, because they’re not hiding it”. Pastor Chris also cast doubt on the motivations behind governments imposing lockdowns by suggesting that nations were sent “scripts” to implement lockdowns: “lockdowns were all a fraud and nations are being forced to comply to a global script…”.

Pastor Chris sought to justify his allegations by saying that: “Thousands of medical doctors, scientists, virologists. They’ve all confirmed what I’ve been telling you”. Further, Pastor Chris introduced a video of a person he described as having worked in the United Nations “for years”. In the video a caption identified the speaker as Claire Edwards, who is shown reading out from her paperwhich she entitled

“the Covid-19 genocide of 2020”. The claims made by Claire Edwards largely centred around the Coronavirus pandemic being “long pre-planned” to “implement a global monetary, research and digital currency technocracy and totalitarian government worldwide” by: governments; the World Health Organisation (“WHO”); the co-founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates; the Rockefeller Foundation^[13]; and the founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. The claims made by Claire Edwards in this video have been widely discredited^[14]. Pastor Chris, who we considered to have been portrayed on the programme as a figure of knowledge and authority, then fully endorsed Claire Edwards’ comments stating: “she’s telling you this whole truth”.

Ofcom recognises that there has been widespread legitimate debate about the various strategies used by governments to combat the threat of the Coronavirus. However, Ofcom is not aware of any evidence from a reputable source to suggest the Coronavirus was planned. In our view Pastor Chris’ theory concerning the ‘plandemic’ was presented as fact without any context or challenge. We were concerned that the claims presented by Pastor Chris were also repeated by others throughout the programme, including in the “Global Watch News” segment on China where the presenter said:

“There are ploys of the Deep State to keep the nation under the control of the one world government. We see the same strategy being played out across several nations as our man of God, Pastor Chris foretold”.

Pastor Lanre Alabi also repeated these claims while leading his own prayer segment:

“The Plandemic, the Covid fiasco. Pastor told us already from the start, that it had nothing to do with the virus. It was not a health situation. The church was the focus. They wanted to stop the church. Through commonly device policies and steps and plans, and so that’s one of the reasons we’re praying”.

We were concerned that these statements, which were provided without any scientific or other credible source, and without challenge, had the potential to undermine confidence in public health measures put in place to tackle the Coronavirus. We were concerned they could lead viewers to act against advice from public authorities intended to protect public health because they asserted not only that the measures were flawed, but that the motives of public authorities for imposing various restrictions were nefarious and without basis.

5G conspiracy theories

The programme included claims that there is a link between 5G technology and the Coronavirus. A number of attacks had been carried out on mobile phone masts in the UK since the start of the pandemic as a result of the claim that 5G technology had caused, or was in some way linked, to the Coronavirus^[15]. These attacks caused serious damage to communications links, and therefore significant harm to the public at a time of national crisis. 

There is no scientific evidence to corroborate the claim that there is a link between 5G technology and the Coronavirus. Conversely, such a claim is contradicted by all official advice and information, both in the UK and internationally, about the Coronavirus^[16]. 

During the programme, there were repeated references to 5G and its alleged role in the Coronavirus pandemic. Pastor Akhilesh Das outlined that through Pastor Chris’ teachings, he “came to know the actual reality behind end times; 5G; Covid-19”. This was emphasised by footage of Pastor Chris himself, in which he unequivocally attributed the global pandemic to 5G and said:

“I told you it was not the virus. I told you, it was the 5G…when I raised my voice against the 5G, and called for moratorium on the 5G, and we got to praying all over the world, and slowed down the installation and roll out of 5G, where were the deaths? The deaths were gone. But the virus? How come the virus – they said the virus was still there – why did

the virus not kill as many people anymore? Because it was never the virus. It was the 5G”.

There was also content linking 5G to the Coronavirus in footage shown of Claire Edwards:

“Wireless technology suppresses the immune system. 5G is implicated in Covid-19 through correlations between the locations of the 5G rollout and morbidity, morbidity and mortality as well as the prior

administration of flu vaccinations in Wuhan and Milan. The symptoms of Covid are virtually identical to the symptoms of exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Extensive military research over many decades was kept secret and regulatory agencies were co-opted in order to prevent the public learning about the extreme dangers of electromagnetic radiation”.

As noted above, Pastor Chris, who was portrayed as an authoritative figure by the programme, then fully endorsed Claire Edwards’ comments adding:  

“I had stated all of them. Everything she said. I told you everything about the electromagnetic radiation. I told you how it attacks the human immune system. I told you all those things. Now she’s telling you this whole truth”.

We considered the claims in this programme about 5G had the potential to cause significant harm to audiences because they attributed deaths, which public health authorities around the world had reported as being due to the Coronavirus, to 5G. The programme therefore contained unsubstantiated and false claims that the source of the risk to health was the effect of 5G rather than viral transmission of Covid-19. This, in our view, raised the risk that viewers’ trust in public health advice, such as the wearing of masks, social distancing and lockdown measures, could be undermined, with potentially serious consequences for their own and others’ health.  

Concentration camps

Pastor Chris described Government quarantine facilities for travellers entering a country as “concentration camps” which he claimed were “not limited to people with Covid”. He said: 

“I told you before that those camps were not being built for isolation of people with Covid. They’re being built for those who don’t agree with their plans. That’s what it was in Nazi Germany”. 

Pastor Chris also said that given there is “no cure” for Coronavirus, people were being put into quarantine “for certain death” and referred to the quarantine facilities as “extermination camps”.

Ofcom understands that, at the start of the pandemic in early 2020, several countries required travellers entering the country from specific locations to quarantine in self-isolation facilities. For example, travellers returning to the UK from Wuhan – which was the epicentre of the Coronavirus^[17] –

were quarantined in an isolation facility for 14 days in Milton Keynes in February 2020^[18]. The purpose of the isolation facilities was to ensure that anyone potentially infected with the Coronavirus was not passing it on to others when they were not showing any symptoms. In the UK, the use of self-isolation facilities was largely replaced with a national lockdown in March and then at home self-isolation periods for travellers entering the UK^[19] from certain counties. Ofcom understands that other countries around the world had similar policies in place^[20]. 

Given that the purpose of self-isolation facilities during the early stages of the pandemic was to protect the general public, isolate potential cases of Coronavirus, and assist in slowing the spread of the virus, Ofcom was concerned with how their use was interpreted and presented in the programme. Ofcom is not aware of any credible evidence that there have been any Covid isolation facilities built in the UK, or anywhere else in the world, for purposes other than isolating potential cases of the Coronavirus in order to slow transmission rates. Ofcom considered that the assertion in the programme that such facilities are “extermination camps” intended to cause “certain death”, in the same vein as concentration camps used by the Nazi regime during the Second World War to implement ethnic cleansing to be extremely harmful and likely to undermine viewers trust in official guidance. This is because it implied that the guidance was not only flawed but designed to cause death. In Ofcom’s view, this was compounded by the potentially harmful narrative which ran throughout the programme that the Coronavirus pandemic was an event planned by a form of “deep state” for nefarious purposes and therefore, could have led to viewers disregarding official health advice at a time when the number of Coronavirus cases were growing in many parts of the UK. 

Face masks

We were also concerned that, linked to the claim that the Coronavirus pandemic is a planned event and that Government measures related to it are fraudulent, Pastor Chris several times referred to the wearing of face masks as “evil”. He also referred to the “the perpetrators of Covid-19 and…masks” as “eugenicists”. Pastor Siji Daraalso described how Pastor Chris had “unveiled to us the mask that’s being used around the world, how it has a lot of health hazards”.

Ofcom acknowledges that the scientific and medical advice on the efficacy of face masks in controlling the spread of the Coronavirus has evolved during the pandemic^[21] and it is legitimate for broadcasters to debate the efficacy of this and other measures. However, we were concerned that viewers would be particularly vulnerable to the unsubstantiated and contentious allegation that face masks are “evil” and pose “a lot of health hazards” at a time when Coronavirus infections were rising. In our view, these statements (none of which were subject to any challenge or context) had the potential to

encourage viewers not to follow current Government guidance, which requires the wearing of face coverings in certain settings to help reduce the transmission of the disease^[22] .

Coronavirus testing 

Over the course of the programme, Pastor Chris made several allegations about Coronavirus testing including that “testing is one of the biggest frauds”. During the “Global Watch News” for China segment, a clip of Pastor Chris was broadcast in which he said:

“That’s why I’m telling you that this fraud of the test needs to stop. It’s a deception and it needs to stop. We know from different countries we have seen and have received different complaints about these results. The test results. The fraudulent test results”. 

During the “Global Watch News” for Australia, the presenter described how “the prophetic word” of Pastor Chris had “declared that the testing…were all a fraud and nations are being force to comply to comply to a global script, which has only brought poverty and degradation to many nations”. A clip of Pastor Chris was then shown, in which he said: “The testing, it’s one of the biggest frauds. The testing for Covid-19 testing is one of the biggest frauds”.  

Ofcom recognises that there has been considerable and legitimate debate about Coronavirus testing over the course of the pandemic including concerns about the availability of tests and their reliability. Ofcom stresses that legitimate debate about issues such as these is fundamental to holding public authorities to account during a global health crisis. However, we are unaware of any evidence to suggest that testing has been used fraudulently to deceive the public about the scale of the pandemic or about the existence of the virus itself. We were concerned that these statements had the potential to undermine people’s trust in public health advice and could potentially dissuade people from getting tested if they experience Coronavirus symptoms. 

Vaccinations and nanochips

There were also statements made throughout the programme relating to theories about Coronavirus vaccines. These claims suggested that a potential vaccine was part of a plan to introduce a “New World order”. 

Pastor Chris said:

“Now when you take the vaccine…the plan is you take the vaccine, then you have a right to the free world, the New World. So, the vaccine is the entrance into their New World order…So that’s what the plan is. A world where you can be controlled. And so, through the vaccine you get the nanochips and by the way, apart from probably one of the companies or so, all of the companies have already boasted that their vaccines are ready. I told you, I told you. I told you they’re gonna tell you that it will take two years or more to come up with a real vaccine. They’re going to pretend, like oh it will take a long time. Then I said to you, after a while,

suddenly two, three months, they’re going to come back to you and say it was a miracle. It just happened. They had to work hard. I told you what would happen. Now they have come out with the vaccines. Just as I said they would. I told you they’ll pretend. I said the vaccines were ready. They already had them. They already have them. They already knew what they wanted. Otherwise, why would these vaccines include nanochips? If they were not already tested and proven. Already some is checking and reporting that several of these vaccines include the nanochips that I told you about. So, this is what’s going on…I’ll tell what they’re going to do. They will not let your children go to school without the vaccine. Then they would say if you were already in school, you will not get a result without the vaccine. Then you will not get a job without the vaccine. These are all the things they are planning. You cannot travel without proof that you have taken the vaccine”.

The footage of Claire Edwards also included references to a “sinister vaccine conspiracy” that would signal the: “introduction of technocracy and totalitarian control by enabling surveillance, facial recognition, 24/7 monitoring of individuals mind and body control, and in combination with vaccines and chemtrails containing nanoparticles, the torture or murder of targeted individuals”. As noted above, Pastor Chris fully endorsed the comments of Claire Edwards immediately after the video of her was shown.

As outlined above, during the broadcast of this programme it was announced that the Pfizer Coronavirus vaccine had been approved for use in the UK^[23]. The development and rollout of a vaccine has been considered by many, including official UK public health information^[24], to be an important step in protecting vulnerable people and potentially ending the pandemic and associated lockdown restrictions. Therefore, we considered that the development of a vaccine was a topic of high public interest about which audiences were likely to look to broadcast services for information. We recognised there had been scepticism from some sources surrounding the rollout of the Coronavirus vaccine, with some protests being staged in the UK and theories purporting to discredit vaccine development being shared widely online^[25]. Under the Code, programmes can cover and debate contentious topics, such as the development of vaccines, as a means to tackle the Coronavirus pandemic. Ofcom emphasises that views can be aired which are different to, or question, official authorities on public health information. Legitimate challenge and debate is essential, particularly when public freedoms are curtailed and complex policy decisions are being made. However, we considered that these claims about vaccinations went far beyond reasonable scrutiny. The statements about Coronavirus vaccines and the footage of Ms Edwards’ claims amounted to allegations that the steps being taken by national and international authorities were orchestrated as part of a “New World

order” which would inject citizens with “nanochips” in order to monitor and control the population and torture or murder individuals. 

Ofcom was concerned that the claims were broadcast without sufficient context or any challenge, despite the fact they had been widely and consistently debunked^[26]. We were concerned that viewers would be particularly vulnerable to the unsubstantiated allegation that a vaccine was part of a “sinister” plan that would control and harm people. We considered that the statements made in the programme had the potential to cause significant harm to viewers by discouraging people from trusting and receiving a Coronavirus vaccine at the point it was about to be offered to those most vulnerable to contracting the virus. 

Further contextual factors 

Global Day of Prayer was a religious programme on a religious service and was introduced as a whole day of content, in which Pastors and viewers from around the world joined together to “make tremendous power available” through prayer. A Loveworld press release^[27] also described the event as “the unique quarterly prayer program” which taught “Christianity and the preaching of Jesus Christ”. We therefore considered that the presentation of Coronavirus conspiracy theories in the programme would not have been within the likely expectations of the audience. Indeed, the Licensee’s response to Ofcom’s request for comments confirmed that the Licensee itself did not expect the programme to present theories about the Coronavirus, suggesting this is why the material had not been flagged by its monitoring processes.

Further, we considered that viewers may have been more likely to trust the harmful theories and claims that were put forward by Pastors of the Christ Embassy, who were likely to be considered as authoritative figures due to their status as leaders of the Church. In particular, we considered that Pastor Chris would have been perceived as a powerful figure of authority and therefore influential both as the high-profile presenter of a television programme and also as the founder and leader of the Christ Embassy Church, the Christian denomination by which this channel is run. His influence and status would have been further strengthened by the numerous references to Pastor Chris as “man of god”, “prophetic” and as someone who “received detailed guidance from the Holy Spirit”. Ofcom’s research^[28] indicates that if potentially harmful claims about health are made by a speaker who is perceived by the audience as having authority, the audience is more likely to treat those claims as credible and make decisions based on them. We were also concerned about the unsubstantiated claims advanced in the segment involving Claire Edwards, who was described as having worked for the United Nations and who was therefore likely to have been considered a trustworthy source of information due to the prestige associated with holding a position in the United Nations and the direct endorsement of her theories by Pastor Chris.

Ofcom was particularly concerned that pre-recorded clips of Pastor Chris making misleading and potentially harmful claims about the Coronavirus pandemic were inserted into segments which were presented as news. Audiences place a high level of trust in news content and rely on it to gain knowledge about events in the world. We considered that during a global pandemic, the content broadcast in news programming is particularly important due to the high level of public interest in the topics being discussed and the fast pace at which events develop. We considered viewers would have been likely to trust this information and potentially amend their behaviours based upon it. 

Therefore, we considered the broadcast of the theories in this programme without sufficient contextualisation had the potential to be extremely harmful to viewers.

Adequate protection from harm

Ofcom went on to consider whether the Licensee provided adequate protection to viewers from this potentially harmful material. It is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how adequate protection might be achieved and our published guidance states that there are various methods broadcasters can consider. 

We took into account that Loveworld is a religious service and that some of the statements were made in the context of live sermons. The Licensee’s representations also highlighted that the programme was live and “it was too late before we could respond to the comments made”. There were, however, large segments of this programme that had been pre-recorded. Some of these prerecorded reports also contained potentially harmful statements, as highlighted above. While live programming presents a different set of demands for broadcasters in ensuring content complies with the Code, it remains their responsibility to ensure audiences are adequately protected from harm. 

There are a number of ways broadcasters can ensure live programming is compliant with the Code, for example, some broadcasters may choose to include a warning about potentially harmful or offensive material by showing on-screen slates during live programming, or run programmes with a short delay to ensure problematic material can be quickly removed before it is broadcast. However, given the absence of any credible evidence for the potentially harmful theories broadcast in this programme, we considered that any challenge and context would have needed to be substantial and robust to provide protection to audiences from this particular harm.

The Licensee also said that the potentially harmful statements were “brief” and “passing comments”. Ofcom disagreed. Whilst this was a lengthy programme, significant amounts of which did not include references to the Coronavirus, as outlined above there were numerous potentially harmful statements which were repeated and ran throughout the programme, right from the outset. In several cases, the statements were more than “passing comments” and made significant allegations that the

Coronavirus itself and associated public health measures were part of a scheme to harm the public. 

We noted that the Licensee expected the programme to be dedicated wholly to prayer, and its explanation that it “did not envisage what each speaker would say prior to commencing their prayer segment”. The Licensee also described how “with various moderators contributing from different parts of the world it became rather difficult to regulate their utterances, given that it was a live transmission”. We acknowledged that the programme was live, but it was still the Licensee’s responsibility to ensure that the content complied with Rule 2.1 of the Broadcasting Code. We were extremely concerned that LL did not appear to have any editorial oversight of the content included in this lengthy broadcast, noting that the potentially harmful content recurred throughout the course of the programme. We were therefore extremely concerned that the Licensee did not have adequate compliance procedures in place to adequately protect audiences from harm. 

We acknowledged that Loveworld’s viewers may have expected the programme to bring a religious perspective to current issues affecting their lives, such as the Coronavirus pandemic. Ofcom does not seek to curb or limit the ability of a broadcaster to present programmes from a religious perspective, or to transmit programmes which express views that may be considered controversial and challenge established thinking. However, we were concerned that the programme did not include any challenge or context to the potentially harmful statements made. Further, we considered that Pastor Chris presented his viewpoint as unequivocal fact to viewers by repeatedly saying “I told you” which, in our view, emphasised the position that the potentially harmful theories he put forward were correct and based in truth. We were concerned that given Pastor Chris’ position of influence and authority as the main presenter on the channel and as the leader of the Christ Embassy Church, viewers would be likely to find his statements credible. 

We noted that the Licensee said it was aware of Ofcom’s Code and had “appropriate systems and protocols in place” to ensure compliance with it. We acknowledged that LL said it has put in place further measures “to ensure it does not happen again”, that it had since been “monitoring the station even more closely” and was exploring “tighter mitigative measures to avert any such occurrences in future”. However, the Licensee did not provide Ofcom with any details of the additional measures it had put in place or planned to implement in future. In any event, Ofcom considered that any systems and protocols in place at the time of this broadcast had failed to provide adequate protection to viewers from potentially significant harm. Moreover, we were concerned that the Licensee commented that it had relied on the expectation that content “was originally intended to be prayer centric” and that this presumption appeared not to change over the course of the 29 hour programme as it became clear that potentially harmful statements were being made. As such, the Licensee’s procedures did not in this case appear to result in any intervention as it became clear that the material was not as originally expected by the Licensee. 

Our Decision is therefore that the Licensee did not provide adequate protection for the audience from the inclusion of the potentially harmful material in this programme, in breach of Rule 2.1

Rule 5.1

Ofcom sought the Licensee’s comments on the application of Rule 5.1 to the various “Global Watch News” segments included in this programme. LL said that these were “intended to be News Analysis segments…aimed at enlightening viewers on global events” and did not dispute that this content was, in the wording of Rule 5.1, “news, in whatever form”. Ofcom noted that the “Global News Watch” segments were interspersed within the wider Global Day of Prayer programme rather than being standalone programmes. We also considered the licensee’s representations that the news segments were intended to help viewers “channel their prayers more specifically”. However, we considered that the “Global News Watch” segments were presented as being separate from the wider, religious affairs broadcast, featuring their own presenters, music and idents; and beginning by presenting current world events before going on to include comment from the presenter on what had been shown. We therefore considered the material was likely to be regarded by viewers as constituting news under Rule 5.1 of the Code and assessed it on that basis. 

The obligation under Rule 5.1 to report news with due accuracy applies to any matter covered in a news segment. In judging whether material complies with this rule, the Code makes clear that “due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the content broadcast. For example, where a matter is of particular public interest, the requirement to present that matter with due accuracy will be correspondingly higher.

As with Rule 2.1, context is a key consideration when applying Rule 5.1. We took into account the contextual factors outlined in the above section in our consideration of the programme’s compliance with Rule 5.1. We also had regard to the heightened sensitivity around information relating to the Coronavirus at the time of broadcast, and the particular need for news to be presented with due accuracy in those circumstances.

Under the Code, news can cover topics that are contentious and subject to debate. However, in covering such topics, the Licensee is required to comply with the requirements of Rule 5.1.

There were several “Global Watch News” segments which were broadcast during the course of The Global Day of Prayer which focused on different countries and their approach to the Coronavirus pandemic. We have taken them in turn below.

“Global Watch News: China”

This news report provided an update on news from China. After discussing the rate of total cases, deaths and the measures taken by China during the pandemic, footage of Pastor Chris was shown with a caption that read: “The Lockdowns are a Fraud. The Testings are a Deception”. Meanwhile, Pastor Chris said: 

“That’s why I’m telling you that this fraud of the test needs to stop. It’s a deception and it needs to stop. We know from different countries we have seen and have received different complaints about these results. The test results. The fraudulent test results”. 

The report then moved back to the presenter, who referenced the theory that the Coronavirus had been planned and said: 

“There are ploys of the Deep State to keep the nation under the control of the one world government. We see the same strategy being played out across several nations as our Man of God, Pastor Chris foretold”.

This was followed by footage of Pastor Chris speaking with a caption reading: “Several Nations set the same script to implement the lockdowns”. Pastor Chris said: 

“Those people who were sending you all the scripts in which to shut down your country, lockdown everything. Don’t contact them again. They’re not going to contact you. Leave them alone. They’re gone”.

Ofcom acknowledged that there has been debate and discussion throughout the pandemic about the accuracy of Coronavirus test results^[29] and the origin of the Coronavirus^[30]. It is legitimate for a broadcaster to produce content discussing these topics and any other topics of a contentious nature in news programming. However, in this case, we considered that the report went far beyond reflecting debates on the accuracy of Coronavirus test results and the origin of the Coronavirus and made specific, unsupported and unchallenged assertions that Coronavirus tests were fraudulent and that the Coronavirus pandemic had been planned. This involved not only the airing of comments from Pastor Chris without context or challenge, but also their endorsement by the news presenter.

“Global Watch News: Brazil”

In a news segment about Brazil’s handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, the presenter said that “Brazilian health experts have suspended a clinical trial involving a Chinese Coronavirus vaccine test, citing serious adverse effects”. Brazil did temporarily suspend a clinical trial involving a Chinese Coronavirus vaccine on Monday 9 October 2020^[31] following the death of one of the trial participants. However, the trial was resumed on Wednesday 11 October 2020, after the incident was announced to have had nothing to do with the vaccine being trialled^[32] and the death was attributed to another cause. 

The news segment continued by stating that: “Meanwhile, the Federal Health Ministry took down a website that had been showing daily, weekly, and monthly figures on infections and deaths in Brazil”.

Brazilian officials did controversially remove Coronavirus data showing infections and deaths from a Government website^[33] in June 2020. However, the data was restored days later, and has since remained on the website^[34]. The reporter continued by saying that: “Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes tweeted Saturday that manipulated statistics is a manoeuvre of totalitarian regimes”. However, Gilmar Mendes’ tweet was published and reported at the time by major news outlets, back in June 2020^[35]. 

The presenter went on to repeat assertions referred to above regarding the allegedly fraudulent nature of the Coronavirus pandemic and measures to respond to it saying, “We can see that not every nation has fallen for the fraud and deception perpetrated by the deep state”.

We were concerned that all three stories described above had moved on significantly at the time of the broadcast, and this was not made clear to audiences. We were also concerned that this segment

asserted as fact that the Coronavirus pandemic was part of a conspiracy perpetrated by the “deep state”. 

“Global Watch News: India”

This news report was introduced by the presenter by saying “we’re bringing you the latest news on India so stay with us”. The report then went into detail about the lockdown in India: 

“India has become the latest and largest country to introduce a nationwide lockdown in the fight against the Coronavirus. Its population of 1.3 billion has been told to stay at home”. 

The report went into detail about how the lockdown was affecting India’s population, including reports of police officers enforcing restrictions by using force and montage footage of people who were explaining that they were hungry and struggling to survive: “If things don’t improve, we will have to kill ourselves”, “[t]he children stay hungry and so do we” and “[i]f we get one meal in a day we eat it, otherwise we sleep hungry”. The report also included footage of Prime Minister Modi delivering his national address confirming the nationwide lockdown. 

The presenter asserted as fact that the scale of the Coronavirus pandemic was being deliberately exaggerated saying: 

“The fraud of skyrocketing figures of increasing cases of the Coronavirus is spread through the media, creating fear and uncertainty. Is our responsibility as the Church of God, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ to change this situation”.

Ofcom understands that India did impose a nationwide lockdown which came into force on 24 March 2020. Prime Minister Modi’s address, referred to above, was delivered four hours before the lockdown started which caused people to panic buy food and medical supplies^[36]. We acknowledged that the report appeared to show India’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic, albeit that the events described had occurred some time previously. However, the programme asserted as fact without context or challenge that the scale of the pandemic had been deliberately exaggerated as part of a “fraud”.

Summary under 5.1

In Ofcom’s view, the statements alleging that the lockdowns and testing were fraudulent, and that the scale of the pandemic had been exaggerated, were likely to have been interpreted by viewers as not merely explaining or acknowledging the existence of theories, but as statements of fact. This was particularly so in the context of a news programme in which viewers have a high level of trust. Many of the statements concerned important public health topics and were made without challenge, and entirely unsupported by any factual evidence at a time when compliance with government health advice was critical. In view of the high level of public interest associated with news about the Coronavirus, we considered that the corresponding level of accuracy required was also high. 

Moreover, given the nature of the Coronavirus crisis and how the global handling of it has developed considerably over the past ten months, Ofcom was concerned that LL had advanced a theory that the Coronavirus pandemic was part of a “deep state” conspiracy, and that this had been broadcast as part of a news segment. 

When reaching our Decision on the application of Rule 5.1 to the above “Global Watch News” reports, Ofcom took into account that the Licensee’s representations that the Global Day of Prayer was “a live program[me] for which we had been informed would be all about prayer” and that “some of the controversial comments and contents raised could not have been predetermined or foreseen”. We noted the reports also included pre-recorded content, such as clips of Pastor Chris speaking and news reports from other channels. We acknowledged that the news programmes were live but it was still the Licensee’s responsibility to ensure that the content of the news programmes complied with Rule

5.1 of the Broadcasting Code. 

We went on to consider the Licensee’s representations that the presenters in the “Global Watch News” segments were “experienced and knowledgeable” and that it did not expect them to include information in their reports that contained potentially harmful material. In our view, the Licensee was responsible for ensuring the content complied with the Code, regardless of the experience of the presenters included in the programme.

We also noted the Licensee’s view that the speakers “did not seem to make any utterances found to be inappropriate”. Ofcom disagreed. As outlined above, we considered that these reports included unchallenged statements about lockdown measures and testing, and unevidenced assertions that the Coronavirus pandemic was part of a “deep state” conspiracy. 

Our Decision is the Licensee failed to preserve due accuracy in the news sections of this programme in breach of Rule 5.1

Conclusion

Ofcom was very concerned that LL broadcast potentially harmful conspiracy theories about the

Coronavirus without providing adequate protection for viewers during a worldwide health emergency. Throughout a programme of over 29 hours, which the Licensee said was intended to be dedicated wholly to prayer, a platform was given to individuals to present misleading and potentially harmful claims about the Coronavirus that had been widely discredited elsewhere, without challenge or sufficient context. Inaccurate news content was broadcast, which reported conspiracy theories about the Coronavirus pandemic as fact, which Ofcom considered would have compounded the harm to audiences. 

Ofcom emphasises that broadcasters can portray views which are different to, or question, official authorities or public health information. However, given the potential harm to viewers, it was LL’s responsibility to ensure that audiences were adequately protected and that news was presented with due accuracy. 

Ofcom’s Decision is therefore that the Licensee did not adequately protect listeners from potential harm, in breach of Rule 2.1; and news was not presented with due accuracy in breach of Rule 5.1. We considered these breaches to be serious. 

Breaches of Rules 2.1 and 5.1 

Sanction

Given that these breaches are serious, and in order to remedy the potential harm caused as quickly as possible, Ofcom directs the Licensee not to repeat the programme and to broadcast a summary of our Decision in a form and manner to be decided by Ofcom. 

We are concerned that these serious breaches have been repeated following assurances given by the Licensee following a previous statutory sanction for similar breaches^[37]. Therefore, Ofcom is also considering whether to impose any further sanction in addition to the direction.

The Ofcom Sanctions Panel will consider the matter further, following due process which provides for the Licensee to make written and oral representations to the Panel before reaching its decision.

---

[1] Pastor Chris Oyakhilome is the founder and president of Loveworld Incorporated, also known as Christ Embassy. It is an Evangelical Christian denomination with a global network of churches. It runs seven television channels.

[2] Ofcom has published guidance on Broadcast standards during the Coronavirus pandemic. Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin

15 January 2021

[3] Event 201 was a pandemic simulation exercise hosted by the John Hopkins Center for Health Security in October 2019. It included a series of scenario-based facilitated discussions associated with response to a hypothetical pandemic. 15 global business, government and public health leaders took part in the simulation exercise. 

[4] Agenda 21 is a non-binding UN resolution that suggests ways for governments and NGOs to promote sustainable development. Theorists argue that it is the linchpin in a plot to subjugate humanity under an ecototalitarian regime. 

[5] This refers to an earlier breach and sanction decision and related decision on further sanction in relation to material broadcast on 7 April 2020. 

[6] Ofcom has published guidance on this to assist broadcasters.

[7] See https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus–cases/#total–cases. 

[8] See https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/.

[9] For example, a report on data about the Moderna vaccine, a report on the effectiveness of the Oxford University vaccine and a report about Pfizer’s application for authorisation in the US.

[10] See New Scientist article.

[11] See Ofcom’s Health and wealth claims in programming research.

[12] See footnotes 3 and 4.

[13] The Rockefeller Foundation is an American based foundation established in 1913 by the prominent Rockefeller family from New York. Its mission, taken from its website, is to promote the well-being of humanity throughout the world: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/.

[14] Reuters fact checking article dated 3 November 2020.

[15] See Guardian article published in May 2020, article published in The Verge from June 2020 and most recently the Birmingham Mail in July 2020.  

[16] The World Health Organisation has stated that “5G mobile networks DO NOT spread COVID-19” and Full Fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, has published research articles analysing and debunking the theory and has stated that “[t]here is no evidence that 5G WiFi networks are linked to the new coronavirus”.  

[17] Devex and ABC News articles for timeline of the early stages of the outbreak. 

[18] See Guardian article.

[19] See Gov.uk info on entering the UK.

[20] See Euronews.com article detailing quarantine facilities in the UK; France; Russia; Germany; and Spain.

[21] See advice from WHO published on 5 June 2020.

[22] Government guidance relating to face masks and face coverings.

[23] See footnote 6.

[24] See NHS information page. 

[25] See Guardian article.

[26] See Fact check: The coronavirus pandemic is not a hoax or a conspiracy to control the general public; Investigating the most convincing COVID–19 conspiracy theories; and Debunked: the conspiracy claiming there has ‘been no Covid pandemic’.

[27] See WFMJ article.

[28] See footnote 11.

[29] The UK Government has published information on this: https://post.parliament.uk/interpreting–covid–19–testaccuracy/.

[30] See Guardian article.

[31] See FT and Telegraph articles.

[32] See Reuters article.

[33] See Guardian article.

[34] See Aljazeera article.

[35] See ABC News article.

[36] See Guardian article published on 24 March. 

[37] See Loveworld Limited breach and sanction Decision and further sanction Decision. 

Get vaccinated to protect yourself, protect your family and  protect your community and save your health system. Together well informed we can do it. @SouthernBMA @ProfKunoz @geemurie @LisaMcCabe73 @AkenkideE @EAnionwu @yvonnecoghill1 @Prerana_Issar @MunatsiEdgar @NikkiKF pic.twitter.com/U9OEhkn0JW

— Brighton Chireka (@Docbeecee) February 7, 2021

If Mnangagwa appoints CIO boss to SB Moyo's job, what will UK do since he's on sanctions?

— ZimEye (@ZimEye) February 7, 2021

– ORIGINAL ARTICLE BELOW –

By Dr Masimba Mavaza | The United Kingdom of Britain imposed sanctions on three security chiefs plus a minister of state security. The most likely to be appointed to the post, the Director General of the Central Intelligence, a respected career diplomat will face the UK head on.

VIDEO LOADING BELOW….

This will surely cause a headache as he will be diplomatically expected to lead all and any engagement with the former colonial power.

The development comes as there is already a tiff between UK and Zimbabwe with the London based High Commissioner, His Excellency Ret’ Col Christian Katsande refusing to assist UK with releasing travel documents for Zimbabweans on a British list of returnees being sent back home. Alreadyour ambassador in the UK has failed to even issue a travel document to Zimbabweans willing to return home putting already damaged relations with England on another level.

Ambassador Katsande’s bitterness is all concerning the UK’s failure to address him as High Commissioner, His Excellency Ret’ Colonel Katsande. The British are calling him by his work title, of ambassador.

Zimbabweans numbering five so far are stranded in UK as a result of the ambassador’s standoff with UK.

In other forums, the question is asked what these targeted sanctions slapped against the four security chiefs will achieve.

Targeted sanctions are intended to be directed at individuals, companies and organizations, or restrict trade with key commodities. … Financial sanctions (freezing of funds and other financial assets, ban on transactions, investment restrictions.

Sanctions are one of the tools utilised to address human rights violations. They are also an increasingly prominent tool in the European Union’s foreign policy. International sanctions policy is part of a global trend towards individualisation: rather than affecting the state as a whole, bans nowadays are targeted at individuals identified as responsible for the abuses.

Originally developed within the context of the United Nations the practice of applying sanctions against individuals has become commonplace in EU foreign policy.

Sanctions against individuals represent the narrowest expression of a targeted sanction, discriminating clearly between targets and non-targets, while other types tend to display effects on non-targeted populations to different degrees.
Although traditionally highly targeted, EU sanctions (including those applied against individuals) are gradually becoming less discriminating, largely as a result of frequent litigation.

Despite the increasing trend towards individualisation of sanctions, few instances are known as yet in which the behaviour of targets has been affected, at least in a way that incites compliance with the sender’s aims.

Still, a comprehensive inquiry into UN individually targeted sanctions found a compliance ratio of about 20 %, which does not deviate from common estimates for comprehensive embargoes.
Nevertheless, even the most optimistic assessments concede that the performance of individual sanctions could be improved beyond present compliance ratios with the help of better informed targeting policies.

In his 1997 report on the work of the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed the importance of economic sanctions: the Security Council’s tool to bring pressure without recourse to force. At the same time Annan worried about the harm that sanctions inflict on vulnerable civilian groups, and their collateral damage to third states.

He acknowledged that “[i]t is increasingly accepted that the design and implementation of sanctions mandated by the Security Council need to be improved, and their humanitarian costs to civilian populations reduced as far as possible.”

Widely shared concerns about humanitarian and third country effects can undermine the political unity required for the effective implementation of multilateral sanctions. The case of Iraq stands as Exhibit A. With the erosion of support for the embargo against Iraq, it is becoming clear that the effectiveness of a sanctions regime partly depends on how it addresses humanitarian issues.

Although virtually all sanctions regimes launched during the 1990s allow trade in humanitarian goods, the “blunt weapon” of comprehensive embargo inevitably hurts those at the bottom of the economic heap. Given the poor track record of sanctions in achieving their foreign policy goals, the conventional wisdom that civilian pain leads to political gain is being questioned. Many ask whether the costs of sanctions are worth the results.

Despite sanctions conveniently called targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe the lives of Zimbabwean citizens has become worse.

“Targeted sanctions” or “smart sanctions”, like “smart bombs”, are meant to focus their impact on leaders, political elites and segments of society believed to be responsible for objectionable behaviour, while reducing collateral damage to the general population and third countries.

Zimbabwe has been under the cruel jaws of the West and as the West chews and grinds the life out of every Zimbabwean life they try to beautify the evil act and call it targeted sanctions.

Before taking a closer look at certain measures, it may be useful to draw a distinction between “targeted” and “selective” sanctions. “Selective” sanctions, which are less broad than comprehensive embargoes, involve restrictions on particular products or financial flows. “Targeted” sanctions focus on certain groups or individuals in the target country and aim to directly impact these groups. But this has failed as it only cause strife on every Zimbabwean already groaning under the hard economic conditions.

The United Kingdom has slapped more sanctions on four Zimbabwean security officials over alleged human rights abuses, in a move that will restrict their travel to Britain and freeze their assets. They are being accused for stopping a marauding gang of thugs who wanted to storm the election command centre and change the election results. This is the same violence shown in America which Britain condemned. Why is it now condemning the enforcer and praising the hooligans. These people who tried to execute an electoral coup in Zimbabwe in 2018 were described as “stupids” by Nelson Chamisa the then president of the MDC A. The opposition United with security leaders in condemning the hooligans who are now being used as the source of the targeted sanctions.
Applying a new sanctions regime following its exit from the European Union, the UK on Monday cited a crackdown on protests in January 2019 which killed 6 people even though the UK puts the figure are 17 in order to justify the illegal sanctions. as it introduced the sanctions on Minister for State Security Owen Ncube, as well as heads of police and intelligence organisations Britain purported to be working on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe.

This was a very shameful action by the United Kingdom. Zimbabwe is trying its best to re engage but we have countries like the UK undermining the efforts of the new dispensation.

We wonder what will the UK do if the Director General of Central Intelligence is appointed the minister of Foreign Affairs. He is a celebrated diplomat with diplomatic soft but forceful and fair approach to things. How would the former coloniser engage the minister of Foreign Affairs who is on their sanction list.

This shows that the effectiveness of arms embargoes in ending conflicts remains elusive.

This is particularly true when the targeted group does not controls valuable natural resources.

The assumption that targeted sanctions exert minimal humanitarian impact will not hold, Zimbabweans have a different story to tell. The so called targeted sanctions have ravaged and savaged our economy.

We must always remember that
In August 1996, the Security Council voted to impose a flight ban on the government of Sudan for its suspected support of international terrorism. Implementation of the ban was delayed, however, and the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs subsequently issued a report on its possible humanitarian effects. The report showed that even a selective flight ban could cause humanitarian suffering.

The present study conceives of sanctions as measures imposed by an individual or collective sender that interrupt normal relations or benefits that would otherwise be granted in response to perceived misconduct by the target. This broad understanding includes economic and financial restrictions as well as diplomatic sanctions. In the EU context, sanctions have traditionally been referred to as ‘restrictive measures’ or méasures negatives in French, even though in recent times the term ‘sanctions’ is gaining currency also in EU parlance.

Despite targeted sanctions having first appeared in the context of the United Nations (UN), their origin is European, which explains their subsequent adoption in the EU context. The idea of targeted measures emerged in response to negative experiences with comprehensive trade embargoes in the mid-nineties, which led to hardship for whole populations due to the blanket interruption of all trade and finance. Following the international outcry over the Iraqi humanitarian catastrophe which was provoked by the UN embargo, in particular the high mortality rate among children, it became clear to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that the employment of similar measures would be politically untenable. This is the situation in Zimbabwe. Sanctions have destroyed whole communities and it is a wonder why the UK is so heartless as to impose more sanctions on a bleeding nation.

It’s human not to kick a man while he is down.

The anger exhibited by both America and the UK in imposing more sanctions is best described as witchcraft. Five people were killed in America in a political violence caused by a sitting president. The UK does not see this as a sanctionable act. Their eyes are fixed on Zimbabwe. Their regime change mantra has started again.

They find themselves hobbled in conducting business with us but sanctioning our leaders giving them the travel ban cuts them off from their companies and bank accounts. All for what? World wide the, travel bans seem to have had limited results.

In recent years, however, we have observed a few instances of targeted financial sanctions. These include measures such as a freeze on foreign assets of specifically designated individuals, state-owned companies and governments. Selective asset freezes were imposed on Haiti, Serbia-Montenegro, the Bosnian Serbs, and UNITA. The primary challenge facing these asset freezes is the identification of funds belonging to the individuals, governments and companies targeted. Although the means of tracking financial assets have greatly improved, so have the means of deception.

The record indicates that targeted sanctions have been used either as a “warm-up” for broader measures or as the supposed “knock-out” punch.
To summarize, targeted sanctions may satisfy the need in sender states to “do something”, they may slake humanitarian concerns, and they may serve to unify fraying coalitions. But they are not a magic bullet for achieving foreign policy goals. Again quoting UN Secretary General: “The international community should be under no illusion: these humanitarian and human rights policy goals cannot easily be reconciled with those of a sanctions regime. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that sanctions are a tool of enforcement and, like other methods of enforcement, they will do harm. This should be borne in mind when the decision to impose them is taken, and when the results are subsequently evaluated.”

Did the UK consider the plight of Zimbabweans in piling more sanctions? This shows a typical disregard of the plight of Zimbabweans. The UK is only concerned with the regime change. But to whose benefit? Does it not please only  Biti and his thick heads? The sinister reason behind the targeted sanctions is clear.

[email protected]

If Mnangagwa appoints CIO boss to SB Moyo's job, what will UK do since he's on sanctions?

— ZimEye (@ZimEye) February 7, 2021

 

By Dr Masimba Mavaza | The United Kingdom of Britain imposed sanctions on three security chiefs plus a minister of state security. The most likely to be appointed to the post, the Director General of the Central Intelligence, a respected career diplomat will face the UK head on.

VIDEO LOADING BELOW….

This will surely cause a headache as he will be diplomatically expected to lead all and any engagement with the former colonial power.

The development comes as there is already a tiff between UK and Zimbabwe with the London based High Commissioner, His Excellency Ret’ Col Christian Katsande refusing to assist UK with releasing travel documents for Zimbabweans on a British list of returnees being sent back home. Alreadyour ambassador in the UK has failed to even issue a travel document to Zimbabweans willing to return home putting already damaged relations with England on another level.

Ambassador Katsande’s bitterness is all concerning the UK’s failure to address him as High Commissioner, His Excellency Ret’ Colonel Katsande. The British are calling him by his work title, of ambassador.

Zimbabweans numbering five so far are stranded in UK as a result of the ambassador’s standoff with UK.

In other forums, the question is asked what these targeted sanctions slapped against the four security chiefs will achieve.

Targeted sanctions are intended to be directed at individuals, companies and organizations, or restrict trade with key commodities. … Financial sanctions (freezing of funds and other financial assets, ban on transactions, investment restrictions.

Sanctions are one of the tools utilised to address human rights violations. They are also an increasingly prominent tool in the European Union’s foreign policy. International sanctions policy is part of a global trend towards individualisation: rather than affecting the state as a whole, bans nowadays are targeted at individuals identified as responsible for the abuses.

Originally developed within the context of the United Nations the practice of applying sanctions against individuals has become commonplace in EU foreign policy.

Sanctions against individuals represent the narrowest expression of a targeted sanction, discriminating clearly between targets and non-targets, while other types tend to display effects on non-targeted populations to different degrees.
Although traditionally highly targeted, EU sanctions (including those applied against individuals) are gradually becoming less discriminating, largely as a result of frequent litigation.

Despite the increasing trend towards individualisation of sanctions, few instances are known as yet in which the behaviour of targets has been affected, at least in a way that incites compliance with the sender’s aims.

Still, a comprehensive inquiry into UN individually targeted sanctions found a compliance ratio of about 20 %, which does not deviate from common estimates for comprehensive embargoes.
Nevertheless, even the most optimistic assessments concede that the performance of individual sanctions could be improved beyond present compliance ratios with the help of better informed targeting policies.

In his 1997 report on the work of the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed the importance of economic sanctions: the Security Council’s tool to bring pressure without recourse to force. At the same time Annan worried about the harm that sanctions inflict on vulnerable civilian groups, and their collateral damage to third states.

He acknowledged that “[i]t is increasingly accepted that the design and implementation of sanctions mandated by the Security Council need to be improved, and their humanitarian costs to civilian populations reduced as far as possible.”

Widely shared concerns about humanitarian and third country effects can undermine the political unity required for the effective implementation of multilateral sanctions. The case of Iraq stands as Exhibit A. With the erosion of support for the embargo against Iraq, it is becoming clear that the effectiveness of a sanctions regime partly depends on how it addresses humanitarian issues.

Although virtually all sanctions regimes launched during the 1990s allow trade in humanitarian goods, the “blunt weapon” of comprehensive embargo inevitably hurts those at the bottom of the economic heap. Given the poor track record of sanctions in achieving their foreign policy goals, the conventional wisdom that civilian pain leads to political gain is being questioned. Many ask whether the costs of sanctions are worth the results.

Despite sanctions conveniently called targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe the lives of Zimbabwean citizens has become worse.

“Targeted sanctions” or “smart sanctions”, like “smart bombs”, are meant to focus their impact on leaders, political elites and segments of society believed to be responsible for objectionable behaviour, while reducing collateral damage to the general population and third countries.

Zimbabwe has been under the cruel jaws of the West and as the West chews and grinds the life out of every Zimbabwean life they try to beautify the evil act and call it targeted sanctions.

Before taking a closer look at certain measures, it may be useful to draw a distinction between “targeted” and “selective” sanctions. “Selective” sanctions, which are less broad than comprehensive embargoes, involve restrictions on particular products or financial flows. “Targeted” sanctions focus on certain groups or individuals in the target country and aim to directly impact these groups. But this has failed as it only cause strife on every Zimbabwean already groaning under the hard economic conditions.

The United Kingdom has slapped more sanctions on four Zimbabwean security officials over alleged human rights abuses, in a move that will restrict their travel to Britain and freeze their assets. They are being accused for stopping a marauding gang of thugs who wanted to storm the election command centre and change the election results. This is the same violence shown in America which Britain condemned. Why is it now condemning the enforcer and praising the hooligans. These people who tried to execute an electoral coup in Zimbabwe in 2018 were described as “stupids” by Nelson Chamisa the then president of the MDC A. The opposition United with security leaders in condemning the hooligans who are now being used as the source of the targeted sanctions.
Applying a new sanctions regime following its exit from the European Union, the UK on Monday cited a crackdown on protests in January 2019 which killed 6 people even though the UK puts the figure are 17 in order to justify the illegal sanctions. as it introduced the sanctions on Minister for State Security Owen Ncube, as well as heads of police and intelligence organisations Britain purported to be working on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe.

This was a very shameful action by the United Kingdom. Zimbabwe is trying its best to re engage but we have countries like the UK undermining the efforts of the new dispensation.

We wonder what will the UK do if the Director General of Central Intelligence is appointed the minister of Foreign Affairs. He is a celebrated diplomat with diplomatic soft but forceful and fair approach to things. How would the former coloniser engage the minister of Foreign Affairs who is on their sanction list.

This shows that the effectiveness of arms embargoes in ending conflicts remains elusive.

This is particularly true when the targeted group does not controls valuable natural resources.

The assumption that targeted sanctions exert minimal humanitarian impact will not hold, Zimbabweans have a different story to tell. The so called targeted sanctions have ravaged and savaged our economy.

We must always remember that
In August 1996, the Security Council voted to impose a flight ban on the government of Sudan for its suspected support of international terrorism. Implementation of the ban was delayed, however, and the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs subsequently issued a report on its possible humanitarian effects. The report showed that even a selective flight ban could cause humanitarian suffering.

The present study conceives of sanctions as measures imposed by an individual or collective sender that interrupt normal relations or benefits that would otherwise be granted in response to perceived misconduct by the target. This broad understanding includes economic and financial restrictions as well as diplomatic sanctions. In the EU context, sanctions have traditionally been referred to as ‘restrictive measures’ or méasures negatives in French, even though in recent times the term ‘sanctions’ is gaining currency also in EU parlance.

Despite targeted sanctions having first appeared in the context of the United Nations (UN), their origin is European, which explains their subsequent adoption in the EU context. The idea of targeted measures emerged in response to negative experiences with comprehensive trade embargoes in the mid-nineties, which led to hardship for whole populations due to the blanket interruption of all trade and finance. Following the international outcry over the Iraqi humanitarian catastrophe which was provoked by the UN embargo, in particular the high mortality rate among children, it became clear to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that the employment of similar measures would be politically untenable. This is the situation in Zimbabwe. Sanctions have destroyed whole communities and it is a wonder why the UK is so heartless as to impose more sanctions on a bleeding nation.

It’s human not to kick a man while he is down.

The anger exhibited by both America and the UK in imposing more sanctions is best described as witchcraft. Five people were killed in America in a political violence caused by a sitting president. The UK does not see this as a sanctionable act. Their eyes are fixed on Zimbabwe. Their regime change mantra has started again.

They find themselves hobbled in conducting business with us but sanctioning our leaders giving them the travel ban cuts them off from their companies and bank accounts. All for what? World wide the, travel bans seem to have had limited results.

In recent years, however, we have observed a few instances of targeted financial sanctions. These include measures such as a freeze on foreign assets of specifically designated individuals, state-owned companies and governments. Selective asset freezes were imposed on Haiti, Serbia-Montenegro, the Bosnian Serbs, and UNITA. The primary challenge facing these asset freezes is the identification of funds belonging to the individuals, governments and companies targeted. Although the means of tracking financial assets have greatly improved, so have the means of deception.

The record indicates that targeted sanctions have been used either as a “warm-up” for broader measures or as the supposed “knock-out” punch.
To summarize, targeted sanctions may satisfy the need in sender states to “do something”, they may slake humanitarian concerns, and they may serve to unify fraying coalitions. But they are not a magic bullet for achieving foreign policy goals. Again quoting UN Secretary General: “The international community should be under no illusion: these humanitarian and human rights policy goals cannot easily be reconciled with those of a sanctions regime. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that sanctions are a tool of enforcement and, like other methods of enforcement, they will do harm. This should be borne in mind when the decision to impose them is taken, and when the results are subsequently evaluated.”

Did the UK consider the plight of Zimbabweans in piling more sanctions? This shows a typical disregard of the plight of Zimbabweans. The UK is only concerned with the regime change. But to whose benefit? Does it not please only  Biti and his thick heads? The sinister reason behind the targeted sanctions is clear.

[email protected]

MDC Alliance Weekly Health Alert

3rd Edition

06 February 2021

Zimbabwe needs the covid-19 vaccine now.

Welcome to our weekly covid-19 update. In our fight against the covid-19 pandemic, we have emphasized the tools currently available to us, namely social distancing, masking up, avoiding super-spreader events like funerals, overcrowding in ZUPCO buses, uncalled for incarceration in prison cells for minor offenses, parties & weddings, and promoting hand washing and sanitizing, quarantine and isolation. These tools are aimed at preventing covid-19 infection from happening at all in the first place. Now we have a new kid on the block, called a covid-19 vaccine. It works by training our bodies to fight and defeat covid-19 when it enters our bodies. This is not a new tool in our fight against viral infections. It has given us great success against diseases like small pox, measles, polio, and many others.

There are things we must do right as a government and its people to benefit from the explosion of knowledge and vaccine technologies that we are witnessing today.

Firstly, we expect the government to do some due diligent processes to instill confidence into the population and allay the myriad of anxieties that presently cloud our minds. We want to know:
Are the vaccines on offer safe?
Are they better than the disease we are trying to prevent?
Are they efficacious (i.e. do they work)?
Do we have verifiable scientific data on safety and effectiveness, and have our own scientists verified the claims of the manufacturers?
This is a good opportunity for Zimbabwe to start building capacity for vaccine manufacture. It’s doable.

It was exciting news to learn that the government has set aside a sum of USD100 million for vaccine procurement, and that all those who meet the clinical criteria will receive the vaccine for free. We were further tickled by the proposed roll out plan, to front line workers first, and then to the elderly and those with co-morbidities, reaching out to other sectors next. We await the detailed roll out plan that must be made public.

We also want to know:
Is the government tapping into the COVAX facility, and are we going to work with other reliable partners we have worked with before in the field of immunization?
What is the breakdown of government’s budget for this immunization effort, considering important pillars such as procurement, logistics, storage, distribution, administration, training and human resources?
What is our current level of preparedness in terms of the cold chain?
How is this going to affect the other immunization programs already in place, and how much money has the government set aside for research? The government should commission and fund research into covid-19 without delay. There is urgent need to understand how our vaccine choice will be impacted by emerging new variants like the so-called South African variant.

We need to raise awareness on the benefits and risks of vaccines in general, and of the covid-19 vaccine more specifically, and demystify conspiracy theories and other myths doing the rounds. There is need to involve other stakeholders like church leaders, traditional leaders, healthcare providers, workers’ unions, captains of industry, students, telecommunication companies, civil society, the United Nations family, and other partners, right from the beginning. We consider it prudent for the government to set up a multi-stakeholder advisory board on covid-19 vaccination, and give it both authority and responsibility. Transparency is extremely important in this venture, in light of our past experiences with covid-19 designated funds.

We urge all Zimbabweans to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available to us, but until such a time as enough people have been vaccinated to reach the so-called herd immunity, there is need to contain the pandemic aggressively through existing means. These include eliminating all super spreader events, cushioning citizens and businesses economically, ensuring scientifically informed targeted lockdown measures, and providing adequate support to schools to open safely as the pandemic will be with Zimbabwe for most of 2021. We need to go a gear up in terms of testing, contact tracing and isolation. There is need to improve our services to those who get the infection. This means increasing the number of admission facilities, equipping healthcare workers properly with PPE, and conducting continuous training of health workers because information on this disease is continuously evolving.

Lastly, we wish to implore Zimbabweans to listen to our healthcare professionals for advice on vaccination. Let’s leave our prophets to concentrate on spiritual matters. We have been here before, and we all probably know some friends or relatives who lost their lives prematurely to HIV because of prophets in the past.

Here are a few key facts we all need to know about the covid-19 vaccine:

• Over 100 million covid-19 vaccine doses have already been administered globally.
• The covid-19 vaccine will help prevent you from getting sick with covid-19.

• People who have already gotten sick with covid-19 may still benefit from getting vaccinated. We do not know yet how long immunity from natural infection will last.
• Covid-19 vaccines cannot give you covid-19 disease. More on this next time.
• Covid-19 vaccines will not cause you to test positive on covid-19 viral tests.
• Covid-19 vaccine will NOT alter your DNA. We will explain this next time.
• There is no microchip in the covid-19 vaccine. This is only a malicious rumour. It is the job of our regulatory authorities to verify the safety of all medicines, including vaccines.
• Remember, after getting your vaccine you must continue to observe all the other prevention measures like masking up, social distancing, hand washing, sanitizing, etc. till the pandemic is over. The job of the vaccine is simply to prevent you from getting sick if you contract the virus.

More information on vaccines next week.

Many thanks to the MDC-Alliance Health Portfolio Committee for their input.

Dr H. Madzorera.
Secretary for Health and Childwelfare.
MDC-Alliance.