rebuked state prosecutors for abusing the country’s insult laws, which have seen over 60 people facing legal action since 2010 for allegedly ‘undermining’ the authority of the President. In May, opposition activist Solomon Madzore was arrested for allegedly calling Mr. Mugabe a “limping donkey”. He denied a charge of insulting the president. Under Section 33 of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Law Code, a person can be jailed for up to a year or fined $100 (£64) for insulting the president’s office. Malaba, while commenting on an ‘insult’ case before the Constitutional Court, admonished the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and discouraged it from “... prosecuting matters in which statements were uttered in drinking halls and other social places, as the pursuit of such frivolous matters only served to bring disrespect on the Office of the President.” Justice Malaba on the same day also moved to challenge the constitutionality of other sections of the Criminal Law Code, including one used to arrest journalists on allegations of publishing ‘falsehoods’. He made the ruling in a case in which two journalists challenged the Act, under which they were prosecuted. He said a law could not be used to restrict the exercise of freedom of expression under the guise of protecting public order when what is protected is not public order. The court also appealed to the Minister of Justice, Emmerson Mnangagwa to appear before it “to show cause why” sections of the Act should not be invalidated. Mnangagwa argued in his heads of argument that the Constitutional Court had “failed” to carefully take a correct approach by ‘confining itself’ to the particular cases before it. Although Zimbabwe witnessed a slight improvement in media plurality, for example the commissioning of community radios in 2012, the state continued its tight control over electronic media and the government did not match rhetoric with action as shall be seen in cases of violations especially arrests and detentions detailed below. One blogger aptly put it ‘there may be freedom of speech in Zimbabwe but there is certainly no freedom after speech’. On 20 November 2013 the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) invited applications for local commercial radio broadcasting services in 25 areas of the country including all major cities and towns such as Bindura, Chegutu, Chipinge, Chiredzi, Chirundu, Gwanda, Hwange, Lupane, Marondera, Plumtree, Redcliff, Rusape and Zvishavane. While MMPZ welcomed this invitation, it complained that there were several reasons why they remained sceptical of the sincerity of government’s intention to genuinely free the airwaves. Chief among them was the fact that BAZ was inviting applications under the same old discredited legal and institutional framework. This law, for instance, rules out applicants who are “wholly or partly funded by foreign donations or contributions” and compelled applications to “provide proof and particulars of source of funding”. Political parties and organizations were also barred from applying for licences, among other strict conditions. Section 61 of the Constitution declares that: “Every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive and communicate ideas and other information” and that the broadcasting and other electronic media of communication “have freedom of establishment, subject only to State licensing procedures that are necessary to regulate the airwaves and other forms of signal distribution”, and are “independent of control by government or by political or commercial interests”. The legitimacy of BAZ itself has been a subject of serious debate, as the Media and Information Minister at the time, Webster Shamu, unilaterally appointed it in September, 2009 during the existence of the coalition government. Notably, the BAZ board he constituted was made up of former military men and ZANU PF allies, thus compromising its independence from political influence. The Zimbabwean media battle was also seen within ZANU PF with the battle being centered on which faction should control information and publicity both within the party and in the country at large. The Mnangagwa faction apparently seized control of The Herald and other state media outlets. The pro-Mnangagwa, Prof Jonathan Moyo maneuvered this move by sacking the entire Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation Board and Management while the Mujuru faction seized the party’s Information and Publicity department9 . 9 http://www.thezimbabwemail.com/zimbabwe/19248-zanu-pf-succession-battle-mnangagwa-s-faction-ceases-statemedia.html 31