13 May 14 | News and features, Religion and Culture, Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe barred the South Africa band Freshlyground from entering the country.
Members of the South African band Freshlyground were denied entry to Zimbabwe just hours before they were set to play at the closing night of the Harare International Arts Festival (HIFA) last week. The county’s political leaders “have yet to find a sense of humour” the band said.
The group was turned away at Harare International Airport. They were told there was no official reason given or required for sending them back home.
The state-owned daily, The Herald, has subsequently quoted regional immigration officer Francis Mabika saying the band did not have valid work permits. However, organisers at HIFA confirmed in a statement that all the performers at this year’s festival, including Freshlyground, had made payment and received clearances from the National Arts Council, and had obtained temporary work permits.
It is believed the group’s 2010 song Chicken to Change, which accuses president Robert Mugabe of being too afraid to relinquish power, is the primary factor for Freshlyground being turned away even though the song is almost four years old. Days after it first hit airwaves, Freshlyground’s visas to perform at a concert at the Wild Geese Lodge in Harare were revoked. The Zimbabwean authorities do not seem to have changed their minds about the message in the music.
The catchy tune starts off praising Mugabe for being a “superhero” and “noble” in his early years but then takes a critical look at his rule. The accompanying video, which was made in collaboration with the satirical political cartoon show ZANEWS, features a caricature of Mugabe cruising the streets in a limousine, reading Bob’s Times and ignoring his surroundings, save for winding down his window when his car runs over a chicken to observe what appears to be poor people on the side of the road holding other chickens, and then rolling it back up.
Towards the end of the song, lead singer Zolani Mahola concludes with: “You promised always to open the doors for us. Indeed it is you and only you who sleeps with the key. You are chicken to change,” as Mugabe’s head transforms into a chicken’s in the back seat of the vehicle. The rooster is symbolic as it is on the logo of Mugabe’s party, ZANU-PF, which has ruled Zimbabwe for more than three decades but was also a way of depicting poverty in the country because poultry was used as a currency during hyperinflation.
In an interview with Public Radio International (PRI) Mahola explained the crisis in Zimbabwe during the mid-2000s inspired the band, which has one Zimbabwean member in flutist Simon Atwell, to write the song. “It’s been very obvious to see the degradation and how bad the situation is, and how fearful people had become, more and more, under the government of Mugabe. And so, we wrote the song,” Mahola said.
Their approach contrasts with the overall stance coming out of South Africa, especially from political figures, which has been to sidestep the Zimbabwean issue. Although South Africa is home to more than a million Zimbabweans who fled their homeland, the country’s politicians have refused to condemn Mugabe. Instead they have opted for quiet diplomacy, the term coined during Thabo Mbeki’s presidency, which essentially referred to ignoring the Zimbabwean problem.
The artistic corner has also been relatively silent on Zimbabwe apart from DJ Cleo, a kwaito performer, who was banned from performing in Bulawayo in 2006 after he questioned Mugabe’s economic management. Freshlyground, whose music is known for being uplifting and includes the 2010 World Cup anthem Waka Waka, are unlikely candidates to take up the cause but as their bass player, Josh Hawks, explained to PRI, they are willing to be advocates on occasion. “We’re musical-political as opposed to political-musical. But, we are affected by what goes on around us.”
Apart from a few tweets on their departure and a brief statement, the band have refused to comment further on the incident but assured supporters in Zimbabwe they remain committed to visiting the country again. Freshlyground had previously played in Zimbabwe at HIFA in 2004 and the National Arts Merit Awards in 2009 but have not been back since.
Their statement reads: “The band are hugely disappointed at the missed opportunity to return to one of their favourite performance venues, and is left saddened that once more Freshlyground were unable to connect with their fans in Harare. Freshlyground remain undeterred however, and hope that in the not too distant future will be allowed to celebrate a love of music and a freedom of expression with the people of Zimbabwe.”
HIFA’s director Manuel Bagorro called it a “sad day” for Zimbabweans and the festival organisers refunded tickets to the closing night, which were valued at £14 each. They also claim to have received an assurance from the government that the group would be allowed back into Zimbabwe in future.
Freshlyground was not the only source of controversy at this year’s HIFA. A play titled Lovers in Time caused a stir because the two spirit mediums from the 1800s switch sexes and race as they come back to modern Zimbabwe. The final showing of the play was delayed by half-an-hour and played out in with police present.
This article was posted on May 13, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
18 Nov 13 | Magazine, News and features
It is an astonishing fact that Zimbabwe, after 20 years of a rule that has starved libraries and schools of books, is full of people who yearn for books, who see them as a key to a better life, and whose attitude is similar to that of people in Europe and the USA up to 50 years ago who read because they agreed with Carlyle’s dictum ‘the real education is a good library’ — and aspired to be educated.
There are libraries and libraries. Some I am involved with would not be recognised as such in more fortunate parts of the world. A certain trust sends boxes of books out to villages which might seem to the illinformed no more than clusters of poor thatched mud huts, but in them may be retired teachers, teachers on holiday, people with three or four years of education who yearn for better. These villages may have no electricity, telephone, running water, but they beg for books from every visitor. Perhaps a hut may be set aside for books, with a couple of shelves in it, or shelves or a trestle may be put under a tree. In a bush village far from any big town, or even a little one, such a trestle with 40 books on it has transformed the life of the area. Instantly study groups appeared, literacy classes — people who can read teaching those who can’t — civic classes and groups of aspirant writers.
A letter from there reads: ‘People cannot live without water. Books are our water and we drink from this spring.’
An enterprising council official in Bulawayo sends out books by donkey car — ‘our travelling library’ — to places where ordinary transport cannot go, because there are no roads, or roads that succumb to dust or mud.
A friend of mine, known to be involved with organisations that supply books, was approached .by two youths in a bush village near Lake Kariba who said, ‘We have built a library, now please give us the books.’
The library was a shelf in a little lean-to of grass and poles, but the books would never succumb to white ants or the book-devouring fish-moth, because they would always be out on loan.
A survey was made in the villages and it turned out that what these book-starved people yearn for are romances, detective stories, poetry, adventures, biography, novels of all kinds, short stories.
Exactly what a survey in this country would reveal — that is, among people who still read.
One problem is that these people do not know what is available that they might like if they tried. The Mayor of Casterbridge was a school set book one year and was read by the adults, and so people ask for books by Hardy.
The most popular book everywhere is George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Another that has queues waiting for it is World Tales by Idries Shah, and it is not only the tales themselves, but the scholarly footnotes attached to them which people enjoy. They say of a story, perhaps from the Sudan or the USA, ‘But we have a story just like that.’
One problem is that people, hearing of this book hunger, at once offer to donate their cast-off books. These are not always suitable. Donations would be better. Book Aid International, based in London, sends books out to book-starved countries.
This article was originally published in Index on Censorship magazine, March 1999.
Click here to subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine, or download the app here
01 Nov 13 | News and features, United Kingdom
State control of the press is hot topic. On Wednesday, Queen Elizabeth signed off a Royal Charter which gives politicians a hand in newspaper regulation. This come after David Cameron criticised the Guardian’s reporting on mass surveillance, saying “If they don’t demonstrate some social responsibility it will be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act”.
But what does state control of the press really look like? Here are 10 countries where the government keeps a tight grip on newspapers.
Bahrain
Press freedom ranking: 165
The tiny gulf kingdom in 2002 passed a very restrictive press law. While it was scaled back somewhat in 2008, it still stipulates that journalists can be imprisoned up to five years for criticising the king or Islam, calling for a change of government and undermining state security. Journalists can be fined heavily for publishing and circulating unlicensed publications, among other things. Newspapers can also be suspended and have their licenses revoked if its ‘policies contravene the national interest.’
Belarus
Press freedom ranking: 157
In 2009 the country known as Europe’s last dictatorship passed the Law on Mass Media, which placed online media under state regulation. It demanded registration of all online media, as well as re-registration of existing outlets. The state has the power to suspend and close both non-registered and registered media, and media with a foreign capital share of more than a third can’t get a registration at all. Foreign publications require special permits to be distributed, and foreign correspondents need official accreditation.
China
Press freedom ranking: 173
The country has a General Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television and an army official censors dedicated to keeping the media in check. Through vaguely worded regulation, they ensure that the media promotes and toes the party line and stays clear of controversial topics like Tibet. A number of journalists have also been imprisoned under legislation on “revealing state secrets” and “inciting subversion.”
Ecuador
Press freedom ranking: 119
In 2011 President Rafael Correa won a national referendum to, among other things, create a “government controlled media oversight body”. In July this year a law was passed giving the state editorial control and the power to impose sanctions on media, in order to stop the press “smearing people’s names”. It also restricted the number of licences will be given to private media to a third.
Eritrea
Press freedom ranking: 179
All media in the country is state owned, as President Isaias Afwerki has said independent media is incompatible with Eritrean culture. Reporting that challenge the authorities are strictly prohibited. Despite this, the 1996 Press Proclamation Law is still in place. It stipulates that all journalists and newspapers be licensed and subject to pre-publication approval.
Hungary
Press freedom ranking: 56
Hungary’s restrictive press legislation came into force in 2011. The country’s media outlets are forced to register with the National Media and Infocommunications Authority, which has the power to revoke publication licences. The Media Council, appointed by a parliament dominated by the ruling Fidesz party, can also close media outlets and impose heavy fines.
Saudi Arabia
Press freedom ranking: 163
Britain isn’t the only country to tighten control of the press through royal means. In 2011 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia amended the media law by royal decree. Any reports deemed to contradict Sharia Law, criticise the government, the grand mufti or the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, or threaten state security, public order or national interest, are banned. Publishing this could lead to fines and closures.
Uzbekistan
Press freedom ranking: 164
The Law on Mass Media demands any outlet has to receive a registration certificate before being allowed to publish. The media is banned from “forcible changing of the existing constitutional order”, and journalists can be punished for “interference in internal affairs” and “insulting the dignity of citizens”. Foreign journalists have to be accredited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Vietnam
Press freedom ranking: 172
The 1999 Law on Media bans journalists from “inciting the people to rebel against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and damage the unification of the people”. A 2006 decree also put in place fines for journalists that deny “revolutionary achievements” and spread “harmful” information. Journalists can also be forced to pay damages to those “harmed by press articles”, regardless of whether the article in question is accurate or not.
Zimbabwe
Press freedom ranking: 133
The country’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act gives the government direct regulatory power over the press through the Media and Information Council. All media outlets and journalists have to register with an obtain accreditation from the MIC. The country also has a number of privacy and security laws that double up as press regulation, The Official Secrets Act and the Public Order and Security Act.
This article was originally posted on 1 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorship.org.
19 Mar 13 | Newswire
This is a guest post by Nani Jansen, Senior Legal Counsel, Media Legal Defence Initiative
Beatrice Mtetwa is one of Zimbabwe’s most high profile lawyers. Renowned for her lack of fear she has long been the go-to lawyer for human rights activists, politicians and journalists threatened by the hard hand of Robert Mugabe’s regime.
She has won international awards aplenty — the Index on Censorship Law Award 2006, CPJ’s Press Freedom Award in 2005; Ludovic-Trarieux International Human Rights Prize of the European Bar Human Rights Institute in 2009, and the International Human Rights Award of the American Bar Association in 2010 — but at home, her defence of Mugabe’s opponents has won her few friends among the regime. In 2003, she was arrested on spurious allegations of drunk driving and beaten by police; and in 2007, Ms Mtetwa and three of her colleagues were beaten by police at a protest against police harassment of lawyers in Harare.
Now she has been arrested again — this time for allegedly “obstructing the course of justice”.
Last Sunday, she was arrested, together with three senior MDC officials, at the house of one of Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s advisers — Thabani Mpofu. She had been called to Mpofu’s house in the morning, when he was arrested and his house was being searched. Upon arrival, Ms Mtetwa asked the police officers conducting the search to produce a search warrant, which they refused. When she protested against continuation of the search, the officers tried to take away her cell phone and purse. Upon resisting this attempt, she was placed under arrest for “obstructing the course of justice.”
After the arrest, Mtetwa was taken to Rhodesville police station in Harare. An urgent petition for her release was filed by the human rights group Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, which was granted just before midnight. However, police have refused to comply with the court order and Ms Mtetwa is still being held in detention. She is reportedly being moved from one police station to the other prevent her lawyers from officially serving the court order and has been denied access to counsel.
The Media Legal Defence Initiative, on whose international advisory board Ms Mtetwa serves, has now filed a formal petition with the African Union and United Nations’ special mandates for the protection of human rights defenders, the independence of lawyers and freedom of expression for their urgent intervention. While Zimbabwean police refuse to comply with court orders, international pressure — including from the African Union — is hoped to have a result.
