The Criminal Code criminalizes the publishing of or communicating false statements prejudicial to the state.38 The elements of this crime include, inciting or promoting public disorder or public violence or endangering public safety; or adversely affecting the defence or economic interests of Zimbabwe or undermining public confidence in a law enforcement agency, the Prison Service or the Defence Forces of Zimbabwe; or interfering with, disrupting or interrupting any essential service. Many artists have fallen prey to the use of this section of the criminal code especially by the police force. Another section of the law that has been used to censor freedom of artistic expression is the one of undermining the authority of or insulting the President.39 The ingredients of this insult law include, publicly making a statement (words, by an act or by a gesture) which could mean even publishing a statement in any print or electronic medium for reception by the public. It is important to note that in most cases prosecution before the courts has been unsuccessful, and the Constitutional Court has ruled that the provisions used contravene the constitutional freedom of a person to express themselves. However, censorship continues and has also had a chilling effect on the ability of artists to develop material on political and civic affairs due to the risk of action being taken against them by the State. Artists should be able to freely criticise public figures without being fearful of criminal action being taken against them. It is therefore important to advocate for the removal of provisions that criminalise insulting the office of the President and provisions that criminalise making false statements prejudicial to the State. Section 96 of the Criminal Code creates the offence of ‘criminal defamation’. Publication of a false statement about another person, intentionally or with the likelihood that their reputation would be injured would be guilty of that offence. This offence flies in the face of freedom of artistic expression in that a person who packages public criticism in works of art faces prosecution merely on the likelihood that such a message would tarnish someone else’s 38 39 Section 31 of the Criminal law and Codification and Reform Act 2004 Section 33 of the Criminal Law and Codification and Reform Act 2004 28 | P a g e