HStv takes challenge to ConCourt

Heart & Soul TV (HStv) is set to challenge a recent court ruling that allowed the company to be placed on remand after it was accused of disseminating information that allegedly violated Zimbabwean law. The decision to place the media company on remand was made by Harare magistrate Learnmore Mapiye, who ruled that the grounds provided by the State were sufficient for the company's placement.

However, in a bid to protect its constitutional right to disseminate information, HStv's lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa, filed a notice to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt). Mtetwa argued that HStv cannot be stopped from fulfilling its constitutional duty to inform the public.

The application for referral to the ConCourt will be filed on May 7, with the prosecutor expected to respond the same day. In her submission, Mtetwa highlighted that HStv, represented by Olga Muteiwa, denied the allegations against it and challenged the legal grounds for the remand. She argued that the facts presented did not constitute an offence and that the company should not face prosecution for reporting public statements.

"The statements that are said to have constituted an offence relate to peaceful comments," Mtetwa stated, emphasizing the importance of upholding the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and media freedom. She contended that the press should be allowed to report on societal issues in a balanced, fair, and factual manner, without fear of prosecution.

Mtetwa further pointed to a similar situation in November 2017, when journalist Blessed Mhlanga reported on the firing of then-Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his subsequent flight from the country. Mhlanga was not prosecuted for disseminating the information, nor was NewsDay, which published similar details, held accountable. According to Mtetwa, this illustrates a double standard in how media outlets are treated under the law, particularly concerning section 61 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press.

"The public has the right to information, and the dissemination of that information should not be impeded by legal actions that may lead to self-censorship," she added. Mtetwa emphasized that HStv had merely expressed the views of the people it interviewed and should not be penalized for doing so.

In response, prosecutor Chirenje argued that the facts presented in the case did indeed disclose an offence. Chirenje highlighted that limitations exist within section 61 of the Constitution, particularly regarding the freedom of the press, and insisted that the charges against HStv were valid under Zimbabwean law.

"The accused is properly charged with a crime within the statutes of the country. This particular offence is still valid under the law and has not been repealed," Chirenje argued.

The case comes amid growing concerns about media freedom in Zimbabwe, with many calling for a broader interpretation of the constitutional protections afforded to journalists and media outlets. Mtetwa's arguments underscore the vital role of the media in ensuring that citizens are informed about political and social developments, without undue interference or fear of prosecution.

Meanwhile, journalist Blessed Mhlanga, who was involved in the reporting of similar political stories, is set to appear before High Court judge Justice Gibson Mandaza today, as he appeals for his release. Mhlanga's case, which is closely linked to HStv's, has raised significant questions about media freedom and the potential for self-censorship in the face of legal pressure.

The outcome of the Constitutional Court's decision in this case could set an important precedent for media organizations in Zimbabwe, as the country grapples with tensions between press freedom and state control.