News / Local
Fortune hunters invade Chiefs' courts
04 Aug 2024 at 14:02hrs | Views
IF you visit any social media platform today, be it Facebook, YouTube or WhatsApp, you are likely to be greeted by a video of a grueling no-holds-barred traditional court session.
This is the work of social media content creators, who are increasingly filming and broadcasting footage, at times live, from the country's traditional courts, transforming low-key proceedings into popular online content.
This trend has raised concerns over privacy and legality issues, and the impact of the practice on the justice delivery system.
One maybe forgiven to believe that all the actors at the court sessions will be playing to the gallery, as everything appears to be done to fit the small screen.
A snap survey by The Sunday Mail Society revealed that online content creators have literally set up camp at some of the traditional courts. As many as 15 local aggressive content creators, some of whom are fly-by-night producers, are travelling extensively to film court sessions and occasionally broadcast the footage.
But the public has raised concerns about this growing trend, which is taking the traditional court system into uncharted territory.
Allegations have surfaced that the filming is occurring without the consent of both the accused and the defendants. Additionally, the legality of broadcasting such productions has been questioned.
Social media users have criticised some court officials, primarily assessors, over their use of foul language. Their competence has also been questioned.
A number of such court sessions broadcast on social media platforms have been deemed unsuitable for public consumption by viewers.
Among the various criticisms, broadcasting of proceedings of the courts without the consent of the parties involved has emerged as a primary concern.
In addition, some proceedings are not filmed to completion, leaving accused persons at a disadvantage if they are eventually acquitted.
Aggrieved
John (full name withheld), a communal farmer from Rushinga in Mashonaland Central province, is a bitter man.
He has been incensed by one such broadcast.
"I was recently summoned to attend a traditional court hearing and I was filmed without my consent.
"I raised my objections with the court officials, but to my surprise, I was threatened with expulsion from the area," said John.
He said the broadcasting of the court proceedings on social media brought him unwanted attention and embarrassment.
"After the court proceedings were broadcast, I got calls from relatives who are scattered throughout the country, as well as those in the diaspora.
"I had a lot of explaining to do and I was embarrassed, to say the least," he said.
Due to the embarrassment, John eventually missed the next scheduled court session, resulting in a default judgment against him.
He had appeared before court to resolve a land boundary dispute.
Apart from unwanted media attention, embarrassment and even threats, some individuals who appeared in traditional courts claim they were mistreated and humiliated.
"The presiding officers were clearly biased against me. Instead of cross-examining me, they tried very hard to force me to admit to things I did not do," recounted one victim, who refused to be identified.
The victim alleged that the crowd, influenced by the "court assessors' unfair remarks", jeered and booed him.
"The crowd, acting like a mob, laughed and poked fun at me. One man in the crowd even threatened to beat me up, claiming I was wasting the court's time," narrated the victim.
A Gokwe woman, who also requested anonymity, recounted a distressing experience at a traditional court. She had appeared before the court for an adultery case.
"There was the use of foul language and some even called me a prostitute. I was being insulted while the cameras were rolling. I regret ever stepping foot in that court," said the woman.
Unfair
Nelson Kwembeya of Shamva believes it is unfair to film traditional court sessions.
"I question why some traditional leaders are allowing villagers to appear in these filmed court proceedings. What is the relationship between such chiefs and the social media platform owners?" he questioned.
Harare lawyer Edmore Govere said: "Numerous illegalities are occurring in traditional courts. Court sessions are being filmed and broadcast on social media platforms without the consent of those involved. This is illegal and must cease immediately."
The lawyer urged victims to seek legal recourse.
"Those compelled to appear on social media can approach the courts for redress. Some chiefs have transformed courts into commercial content creation platforms," he alleged.
Judicial Service Commission spokesperson Daniel Nemukuyu said court proceedings can be filmed, but prior permission must be obtained from the presiding officer.
"A formal request outlining the reasons for filming should be submitted to the presiding officer, who will then make a decision. In most cases, such requests are made for high-profile cases of public interest," he said.
Nemukuyu pointed out that conditions might differ in the case of traditional courts.
Debate
Some of the traditional leaders interviewed by this publication expressed opposition to the recording and broadcasting of court proceedings at their courts.
Manyika Andrew Madzivachando, a headman in the Mutasa area, Manicaland, is one such leader.
"It is both legally and morally wrong for traditional leaders to coerce or intimidate subjects into doing something they do not want," he said.
He further condemned traditional leaders who ridicule and humiliate accused persons in traditional courts.
"Traditional leaders are meant to uphold our values, unify the community and resolve disputes. Those who intimidate subjects and harass innocent people are unfit for such a respected position," said Madzivachando.
A section of traditional leaders holds a different view.
Chief Ngezi (Peter Pamire) maintains there is nothing wrong with broadcasting traditional court sessions on social media platforms.
He urged Zimbabweans to "move with the times" and embrace social media as a communication tool.
"There is nothing unusual about televised court proceedings. Worldwide, court cases are aired on television. The world is now a global stage, where information is readily accessible," Chief Ngezi argued.
He refuted claims that court sessions are filmed without the consent of the major players.
"At my court, I do not coerce my subjects. These programmes are very popular and we receive calls from people across the country who appreciate our work," he said.
The president of the National Chiefs Council, Chief Mtshane Khumalo, discouraged traditional leaders from inviting the media.
"The decision to allow the media at court sessions lies with the traditional leader. Personally, I do not see the need to invite the media to cover sessions at my court," he said.
"I discourage traditional leaders from inviting the media. Unless there is a compelling reason, there is no need to broadcast court sessions."
Training
Chief Khumalo emphasised that there is need to train traditional leaders, especially those who use foul language or harass their subjects.
"Court officials should conduct themselves with dignity. The Chiefs' Council is currently seeking funds to train traditional leaders," he said.
Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Vimbai Nyemba said the Traditional Leaders Act, and the Customary Law and Local Courts Act provide the regulatory framework for the operation of traditional courts.
"While these Acts do not specifically address the recording and broadcasting of proceedings, traditional leaders have the discretion to set rules regarding the conduct of their courts, including guidelines on recording and broadcasting," she said.
To address concerns by complainants and accused persons about filming and broadcasting proceedings, specific recommendations have been made.
"Traditional courts must obtain explicit consent from all the parties involved before any recording or broadcasting is done. This respects individuals' privacy and autonomy.
"Chiefs must assess sensitive cases, such as those involving minors, domestic disputes or sexual offences, and decide whether to broadcast them to protect the dignity and privacy of those involved," said Nyemba.
While some cases might be of significant public interest, she added, this must be balanced with the right to privacy and potential harm to the parties involved.
"They should also ensure that recording and broadcasting do not interfere with the administration of justice or the accused's fair trial rights. The integrity of the judicial process must be maintained.
"Furthermore, traditional courts should consider developing clear rules and protocols regarding the recording and broadcasting of proceedings. These rules should be communicated clearly to all the parties involved to alleviate fears and ensure transparency."
Traditional courts play a vital role in the justice system by resolving community disputes in a manner consistent with customs and traditions.
But authorities believe proceedings should be conducted with dignity, fairness and respect for all the parties involved.
"Our ministry has implemented several measures to monitor and improve the conduct of traditional court officials. Monitoring allows the ministry to identify instances of misconduct and hold officials accountable for their actions," added Nyemba.
"By ensuring that proper standards of conduct are upheld, the ministry maintains public trust in the Judiciary and promotes respect for the rule of law."
Government currently conducts regular training programmes and supports initiatives for traditional court officials.
Community members, Nyemba also said, should report any instances of misconduct to the relevant authorities.
The Customary Law and Local Courts Act, Section 20 (Chapter 7:05), outlines some procedures for local courts.
"Subject to this Act, the procedure and law of evidence in local courts shall be regulated by customary law and not by the general law of Zimbabwe, and the proceedings in such courts shall be conducted in as simple and informal a manner as is reasonably possible and as, in the opinion of the person presiding over the court, seems best fitted to do substantial justice," reads part of the Act.
"Subject to the Courts and Adjudicating Authorities (Publicity Restriction) Act (Chapter 7:04), all cases in a local court shall be heard in open court."
This is the work of social media content creators, who are increasingly filming and broadcasting footage, at times live, from the country's traditional courts, transforming low-key proceedings into popular online content.
This trend has raised concerns over privacy and legality issues, and the impact of the practice on the justice delivery system.
One maybe forgiven to believe that all the actors at the court sessions will be playing to the gallery, as everything appears to be done to fit the small screen.
A snap survey by The Sunday Mail Society revealed that online content creators have literally set up camp at some of the traditional courts. As many as 15 local aggressive content creators, some of whom are fly-by-night producers, are travelling extensively to film court sessions and occasionally broadcast the footage.
But the public has raised concerns about this growing trend, which is taking the traditional court system into uncharted territory.
Allegations have surfaced that the filming is occurring without the consent of both the accused and the defendants. Additionally, the legality of broadcasting such productions has been questioned.
Social media users have criticised some court officials, primarily assessors, over their use of foul language. Their competence has also been questioned.
A number of such court sessions broadcast on social media platforms have been deemed unsuitable for public consumption by viewers.
Among the various criticisms, broadcasting of proceedings of the courts without the consent of the parties involved has emerged as a primary concern.
In addition, some proceedings are not filmed to completion, leaving accused persons at a disadvantage if they are eventually acquitted.
Aggrieved
John (full name withheld), a communal farmer from Rushinga in Mashonaland Central province, is a bitter man.
He has been incensed by one such broadcast.
"I was recently summoned to attend a traditional court hearing and I was filmed without my consent.
"I raised my objections with the court officials, but to my surprise, I was threatened with expulsion from the area," said John.
He said the broadcasting of the court proceedings on social media brought him unwanted attention and embarrassment.
"After the court proceedings were broadcast, I got calls from relatives who are scattered throughout the country, as well as those in the diaspora.
"I had a lot of explaining to do and I was embarrassed, to say the least," he said.
Due to the embarrassment, John eventually missed the next scheduled court session, resulting in a default judgment against him.
He had appeared before court to resolve a land boundary dispute.
Apart from unwanted media attention, embarrassment and even threats, some individuals who appeared in traditional courts claim they were mistreated and humiliated.
"The presiding officers were clearly biased against me. Instead of cross-examining me, they tried very hard to force me to admit to things I did not do," recounted one victim, who refused to be identified.
The victim alleged that the crowd, influenced by the "court assessors' unfair remarks", jeered and booed him.
"The crowd, acting like a mob, laughed and poked fun at me. One man in the crowd even threatened to beat me up, claiming I was wasting the court's time," narrated the victim.
A Gokwe woman, who also requested anonymity, recounted a distressing experience at a traditional court. She had appeared before the court for an adultery case.
"There was the use of foul language and some even called me a prostitute. I was being insulted while the cameras were rolling. I regret ever stepping foot in that court," said the woman.
Unfair
Nelson Kwembeya of Shamva believes it is unfair to film traditional court sessions.
"I question why some traditional leaders are allowing villagers to appear in these filmed court proceedings. What is the relationship between such chiefs and the social media platform owners?" he questioned.
Harare lawyer Edmore Govere said: "Numerous illegalities are occurring in traditional courts. Court sessions are being filmed and broadcast on social media platforms without the consent of those involved. This is illegal and must cease immediately."
The lawyer urged victims to seek legal recourse.
"Those compelled to appear on social media can approach the courts for redress. Some chiefs have transformed courts into commercial content creation platforms," he alleged.
Judicial Service Commission spokesperson Daniel Nemukuyu said court proceedings can be filmed, but prior permission must be obtained from the presiding officer.
"A formal request outlining the reasons for filming should be submitted to the presiding officer, who will then make a decision. In most cases, such requests are made for high-profile cases of public interest," he said.
Debate
Some of the traditional leaders interviewed by this publication expressed opposition to the recording and broadcasting of court proceedings at their courts.
Manyika Andrew Madzivachando, a headman in the Mutasa area, Manicaland, is one such leader.
"It is both legally and morally wrong for traditional leaders to coerce or intimidate subjects into doing something they do not want," he said.
He further condemned traditional leaders who ridicule and humiliate accused persons in traditional courts.
"Traditional leaders are meant to uphold our values, unify the community and resolve disputes. Those who intimidate subjects and harass innocent people are unfit for such a respected position," said Madzivachando.
A section of traditional leaders holds a different view.
Chief Ngezi (Peter Pamire) maintains there is nothing wrong with broadcasting traditional court sessions on social media platforms.
He urged Zimbabweans to "move with the times" and embrace social media as a communication tool.
"There is nothing unusual about televised court proceedings. Worldwide, court cases are aired on television. The world is now a global stage, where information is readily accessible," Chief Ngezi argued.
He refuted claims that court sessions are filmed without the consent of the major players.
"At my court, I do not coerce my subjects. These programmes are very popular and we receive calls from people across the country who appreciate our work," he said.
The president of the National Chiefs Council, Chief Mtshane Khumalo, discouraged traditional leaders from inviting the media.
"The decision to allow the media at court sessions lies with the traditional leader. Personally, I do not see the need to invite the media to cover sessions at my court," he said.
"I discourage traditional leaders from inviting the media. Unless there is a compelling reason, there is no need to broadcast court sessions."
Training
Chief Khumalo emphasised that there is need to train traditional leaders, especially those who use foul language or harass their subjects.
"Court officials should conduct themselves with dignity. The Chiefs' Council is currently seeking funds to train traditional leaders," he said.
Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Vimbai Nyemba said the Traditional Leaders Act, and the Customary Law and Local Courts Act provide the regulatory framework for the operation of traditional courts.
"While these Acts do not specifically address the recording and broadcasting of proceedings, traditional leaders have the discretion to set rules regarding the conduct of their courts, including guidelines on recording and broadcasting," she said.
To address concerns by complainants and accused persons about filming and broadcasting proceedings, specific recommendations have been made.
"Traditional courts must obtain explicit consent from all the parties involved before any recording or broadcasting is done. This respects individuals' privacy and autonomy.
"Chiefs must assess sensitive cases, such as those involving minors, domestic disputes or sexual offences, and decide whether to broadcast them to protect the dignity and privacy of those involved," said Nyemba.
While some cases might be of significant public interest, she added, this must be balanced with the right to privacy and potential harm to the parties involved.
"They should also ensure that recording and broadcasting do not interfere with the administration of justice or the accused's fair trial rights. The integrity of the judicial process must be maintained.
"Furthermore, traditional courts should consider developing clear rules and protocols regarding the recording and broadcasting of proceedings. These rules should be communicated clearly to all the parties involved to alleviate fears and ensure transparency."
Traditional courts play a vital role in the justice system by resolving community disputes in a manner consistent with customs and traditions.
But authorities believe proceedings should be conducted with dignity, fairness and respect for all the parties involved.
"Our ministry has implemented several measures to monitor and improve the conduct of traditional court officials. Monitoring allows the ministry to identify instances of misconduct and hold officials accountable for their actions," added Nyemba.
"By ensuring that proper standards of conduct are upheld, the ministry maintains public trust in the Judiciary and promotes respect for the rule of law."
Government currently conducts regular training programmes and supports initiatives for traditional court officials.
Community members, Nyemba also said, should report any instances of misconduct to the relevant authorities.
The Customary Law and Local Courts Act, Section 20 (Chapter 7:05), outlines some procedures for local courts.
"Subject to this Act, the procedure and law of evidence in local courts shall be regulated by customary law and not by the general law of Zimbabwe, and the proceedings in such courts shall be conducted in as simple and informal a manner as is reasonably possible and as, in the opinion of the person presiding over the court, seems best fitted to do substantial justice," reads part of the Act.
"Subject to the Courts and Adjudicating Authorities (Publicity Restriction) Act (Chapter 7:04), all cases in a local court shall be heard in open court."
Source - The Sunday Mail
