Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |121 sincerely believes that it is true, although it happens to be false. It is assumed in every case that the accused person had reasonable opportunity to investigate the accuracy of the statement and knowing that it was false, deliberately chose to publish it. This assumption ignores the fact that news media often work in situations in which information changes fast, denying even the most responsible journalist time to verify the accuracy of the information received. An accused person may not be in a position to prove at the trial the facts that gave rise to his belief that the statement is true. This could lead to the inference that he knew or “must have known” that the statement was false and intended to use it to undermine public confidence in the security service institution concerned. A person who voices a genuine concern about selective or discriminatory enforcement of the law by the law enforcement agency may find himself charged and convicted of the offence because of the difficulty of proving the truth of the allegation in a court of law. Genuine criticism of the way law is enforced may be suppressed. The suppression may be justified by labelling the statement a false statement published or communicated with intent to undermine public confidence in the law enforcement agency. Information confirmatory of the truth of a statement may in some cases be in the possession of the institution, which may withhold the information, resulting in a situation where the statement is labelled as false. A statement may also be regarded as false because a journalist feels compelled to uphold the principle of confidentiality protecting the sources of his information within the institution from disclosure. Draconian penalty for offence The maximum penalty for this offence (a fine of “up to or exceeding [sic] level fourteen or imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years or both”) is, the Court said, draconian and disproportionate in relation to the harm to the public interest which the offence seeks to prevent. Every penalty imposable must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the seriousness of the offence. The only inference is that the punishment is intended to have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression, as opposed to merely deterring the occurrence of the prohibited acts. Because of the