34. Numerous provisions of the Act breach the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by international instruments. These include provisions seriously limiting the independence of the broadcast regulator (Part II of the Act), provisions granting the Minister vast direct powers in the area of broadcast regulation (Section 46 of the Act), provisions restricting, rather than promoting, pluralism and diversity in broadcasting, and provisions imposing unrealistic or unwarranted restrictions on the content of what may be broadcast. 35. The Act has not promoted freedom of artistic expression and diversity. Instead it has led to the monopolization of the airwaves resulting in pre-censorship of artistic expressions. Artistic content risks being excluded from broadcasting if it is viewed as against the vested interests of the ruling party. 36. Amnesty International on 20 May 2015 stated that “not only have the government supporters been the only ones to receive licences, but those attempting to set up independent services have been arrested and targeted simply for trying to educate, inform and offer a platform for debate. This is a violation of freedom of expression.”11 37. The Broadcasting Services Act under Section 10(1)(a) states that a community radio or television station “shall not broadcast any political matter.” This clause aims at restricting community radios to nonpolitical programming only. The definition is overbroad and risks limiting artistic and other legitimate expressions. PUBLIC ORDER AND SECURITY ACT (POSA) General statement: 38. The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) was adopted to implement the constitutional provisions on freedom of assembly and association. The State, represented by the police, has abused this legislation to ban artistic and theatrical presentations on account of the fact that people would gather to participate in such exhibitions or performances. 39. The police, working together with other security agents, such as the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) and the President’s Office, have continuously restricted freedom of artistic expression, largely relying on statutes that provide for related offences, such as POSA, which stipulates that police should be notified of a public gathering, or any form of gathering, falling under the purview of the POSA. Supporting examples: 40. The film Kumasowe concerns the violent clashes in May 2014 between members of an apostolic sect and Zimbabwean police. In August 2014 the police banned the premiere of the film because it dealt with a “sensitive issue”. 12 The day before the scheduled premiere, the police “advised” the filmmaker to approach the Censorship Board, which in practical terms equalled a ban because the dysfunctional Censorship Board would not be able to issue a decision in time. 11 12 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/zimbabwe-radio-stranglehold-gagging-freedom-of-expression/ http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/236634.pdf 7