Supportive examples: 20. A case illustrating the lack of transparency and arbitrariness of the Censorship Board's decisions is the ban on the play No Voice No Choice. In 2012, the Censorship Board issued a notice that the play had been banned in Zimbabwe. The director and producer, Tafadzwa Muzondo, had undertaken to perform at the Intwasa Arts Festival on 18 September 2012. Because of the ban, the play could not be performed. The director had approached the Censorship Board seeking a censorship certificate to enable his play to be performed to public audiences. He was advised to pay $25.00 for the application fee and the certificate fee, as the assessors at the Board had first assured him that his play would not be prohibited. Tafadzwa Muzondo was not given the opportunity to appeal before the Appeals Board. He subsequently resorted to challenging the failure of the Minister to convene the Appeal Board as a violation of his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by taking the matter to the High Court. However, High Court Judge, Justice Gurainesu Mawadze, ruled that the urgent chamber application filed to lift the ban before the Intwasa Arts Festival could not be treated as urgent. 8 21. In 2015, the Censorship Board denied certification to screen the international film 50 Shades of Grey in its original form. Cinemas decided not to show a heavily censored version of the film according to SterKinekor, a local film distribution company. The cinemas argued that the heavy censorship would compromise the integrity of the film. Shortly after the global release of the film, pirated copies of the film were widely available on the black market. THE CRIMINAL LAW (CODIFICATION AND REFORM) ACT General statement: 22. Being the premier criminal statute in Zimbabwe, the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act9 has been interpreted consistently to criminalize artistic expression that is viewed as critical of political leadership and other state institutions and actors, such as the police. 23. Section 31 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act) criminalizes the publishing of or communicating false statements prejudicial to the state and provides for the imposition of a fine of up to $5000 or imprisonment of up to 20 years. 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”. The police often refer to section 31 in connection with the detention of an artist or the ban of an act of artistic expression, according to artists interviewed for this report. 24. Section 33 of the law criminalizes artistic and other expressions “undermining the authority of or insulting the President”. 8 See Tafadzwa Muzondo & EDZAI ISU Theatre Arts Project v Board of Censors & Co-Ministers of Home Affairs HC 10 024/12 and http://archive.kubatana.net/html/archive/artcul/121025tm.asp?sector=ARTCUL&year=2012&range_start=1 9 Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act), https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/zwe/2006/criminal_law_codification_and_reform_act_html/criminal_law_cod ification_and_reform_act.pdf 5