Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe Regulations); the Broadcasting Services Bill;1 and the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. In all three cases the PLC found clauses that contravened freedoms and rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Broadcasting Services Act (3/2001, Cap 2:06) was very little changed from its parent Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Broadcasting) Regulation 2000.2 Its coverage was expanded to include satellite3 and cable broadcasting, and ‘webcasting’ (meaning ‘a computermediated broadcasting service’). The Minister’s discretion to appoint the Broadcasting Authority board was brought under the ‘directions’ of the State President, but the minister was given new authority to ‘stop, scramble, obliterate or interfere with’ any broadcast to Zimbabwe from beyond our borders and extensive control of licensing. The minister’s patronage potential was expanded by adding to the objectives of the Broadcasting Fund the possibility of providing grants and financial assistance to Zimbabwean creative artistes. He was later reportedly accused by artists of ‘trying to use the BAZ to fund, control and govern artistic productions for political ends.’4 The Act was fast-tracked through Parliament against the recommendation of the Parliamentary Legal Committee (PLC) and tough opposition. Sections 6, 7, 8 (3) and (5), 9, 11 (3), (4) and (5) plus the Sixth Schedule, 19 (1)(b) and (2), 20 and 21 of the Bill were found by the PLC to be in conflict with s20 of the Constitution.5 Police and others investigating breaches of the Act have extensive (and arguably also unconstitutional) powers of entry, search and seizure, based largely on any ‘opinion’ they may have formed about what may be going on (s 42), but this issue will await testing in the courts. The PLC stressed as ‘paramount’ the rights of viewers and listeners, rather than broadcasters. Eddison Zvobgo as PLC chair rejected the regulation of programme content in the ‘national interest’, ‘national outlook’ or ‘African outlook’ as ‘not a laudable purpose at all’. He reminded the house that ‘In a democratic society, Government has no greater right to be heard than anybody else. The imposition of Government’s views on every broadcast is an unconstitutional infringement of the right of freedom of expression.’6 The PLC found the enforced splitting of transmission and broadcasting licences, together with their limited number, in particular, to negate freedom of expression, noting that ‘A broadcasting licence becomes a licence simply to record one’s programmes without the concomitant right to relay those programmes’.7 It also regarded a legislated duopoly as similarly unconstitutional to 1 On this bill, reincarnating SI 255A/2000, the only non-lawyer on the PLC, Kumbirai Kangai (Zanu-PF, Buhera South), dissented from the majority opinion (Parliamentary Debates 27,60:6249). 2 Regarding SI 255A/2000, the Speaker of Parliament, on the urging of the leader of the House, ruled that the PLC had violated constitutional provisions and standing orders in delivering a report that was out of time (thus it could be assumed, constitutionally, that the PLC had approved SI 255A/2000). He discharged it from the Order Paper, thus preventing Parliamentary discussion of its contents while presuming PLC consent to this SI (against clear evidence to the contrary) under Schedule 4 s 2(1) of the Constitution (Parliamentary Debates 27,55:5612-9). 3 S39(5): ‘Every subscription satellite broadcasting licensee shall transmit an unencoded signal from a public broadcaster’. 4 The Daily News 7.7.01. 5 Parliamentary Debates 27,60:6260-1. 6 Parliamentary Debates 27,50:5078-9. 7 Parliamentary Debates 27,50:5074. 11