ection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).
This latest turn of events follows the High Court’s ruling on 9 May 2007 in which it dismissed an application by ANZ in which they were seeking an order to be duly licensed. In her judgment Justice Anne-Mary Gowora, however, still reaffirmed the inability of the state-controlled Media and Information Commission (MIC) to consider the application.
Justice Gowora, however, refered to Justice Rita Makarau’s (now Judge President) judgment in February 2006 in which she ruled that the MIC board chaired by Dr Tafataona Mahoso was biased against the ANZ.
The judge said the MIC’s impartiality was tainted by the proven bias of its chairman, thereby barring all members of the Commission’s board from involvement. What was left was for the Minister to consider putting in measures to ensure that an impartial commission was in place. She also noted then that the responsible Minister of Information and Publicity had no intentions of putting in such measures or even change the composition of the (MIC).
“Clearly, this would be in violation of the applicant’s rights in terms of the Act and Constitution, ” she said in her judgment in May 2007.
It is against this background that the weekly Financial Gazette citing documents it had seen, reported in its 9-16 August edition that the Minister of Information Dr Sikhanyiso Ndlovu had reportedly accepted the advice of the Attorney-General’s Office to appoint the special committee to adjudicate over the ANZ application.
background
In her judgment in May 2007 Justice Gowora found that it is the Minister who is mandated to act as an administrative authority and do all that is possible to ensure compliance with the Act. She found that despite the fact that there was bias found on the part of the MIC and its chairperson, no such findings could be alluded against the Minister.
She therefore advised that the most appropriate course would be to apply for an order for the Minister to be directed to take such administrative action as would put in place conditions and a legal framework for the application for registration by ANZ to be considered and determined.
ANZ had applied to the High Court for an order that it be declared duly registered as a mass media service in terms of Section 66 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and that the MIC be ordered to issue to issue the publishing company with a certificate of registration as a mass media service in terms of the same section of AIPPA.
The MIC, represented by Harare lawyer Mercy Chizodza, had opposed the application arguing that only the MIC has the power to licence mass media service providers as the Administrative Authority. She had stated that for the court to issue the order prayed for, it would have usurped the powers of the MIC.
Nelson Mutsonziwa of the Attorney General’s Office, appearing on behalf of the Acting Minister of Information and Publicity, had pleaded with the court to refer the matter back to the Minister describing the actions by ANZ as pre-mature. He had argued that ANZ had approached his Ministry to enable it to deal with the issue arising out of Justice Makarau’s judgment in 2006.
End
For any questions, queries or questions, please contact:
Nyasha Nyakunu
Research and Information Officer
Media Institute of Southern Africa – Zimbabwe
84 McChlery Ave
Eastlea
P.O Box HR 8113
Harare
Zimbabwe
Tel/Fax: 263 4 776165 / 746838
Cell: 263 11 602 448 misa@misazim.co.zw
www.misazim.co.zw