Taking photographs can be a high-risk occupation in Zimbabwe for journalists and sometimes for other people, including tourists. (Pictured: Andrison Manyere has been arrested several times for taking photographs)
Last month a freelance photojournalist, Andrison Manyere, was arrested for taking photographs of arriving prisoners at the Harare magistrate court, without the permission of the Commissioner of Prisons. Although, this is not against the law, he was detained, questioned by the police and charged with disorderly conduct, according to Veritas, which analyses the countrys legislation.
The general rule is that everyone is free to take photographs of anything and anyone they like, except where the law specifically forbids photographs to be taken. This is one aspect of freedom of expression, which is protected by the Constitution and which includes freedom to receive and impart ideas and information. One of the laws prohibiting or restricting taking photographs includes the Defence Act. Under section 94 of the Defence Act, the Minister has the power to declare any area to be a protected area and to give directions banning the taking of photographs. Taking photographs in contravention of section 94 attracts a fine of US$200 or six months imprisonment or both.
Under section 25 of the Electoral Regulations, 2005, it is a criminal offence to take a photograph of anyone inside a polling booth or a polling-station without permission from the officer in charge of the station. Anyone who contravenes the section is liable to a fine of US $700 or a years imprisonment or both. There is nothing wrong, however, with taking photographs of the outside of polling stations, noted Veritas.
According to Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, anyone who takes a photograph which, is calculated or intended to be, or which might be useful to an enemy of Zimbabwe, is guilty of espionage and liable to imprisonment for up to 25 years. Section 3 of the Act is couched in very broad terms and could afford a pretext for the arrest of anyone who tried to photograph defence installations and other places believed to be of strategic importance, said Veritas.
Section 168 of the Prisons (General) Regulations, 1996, does not allow the taking of photographs inside a prison unless permission is given. A contravention of the section attracts a years imprisonment.
Taking photographs of the outside of a prison, on the other hand, seems to be perfectly all right, unless the photographer loiters when taking it, in which event he or she may be arrested and charged with loitering within 100 metres of a prison and failing to move on when requested to do so, in contravention of section 85 of the Prisons Act. If guilty, the photographer, is liable to a US$100 or three months imprisonment or both.
If premises are declared to be a protected place, the declaration usually includes prohibitions or restrictions on taking photographs on the premises. Anyone who takes a photograph in contravention of such a provision risks a fine of US$400 or two years imprisonment or both. Similarly, if an area is declared to be a protected area, the taking of photographs within the area is usually prohibited and anyone doing so is liable to the same penalty.
Note that the Act does not make it an offence to take photographs of a protected place or area, merely within the place or area.
The following places and areas are listed in the Index to Legislation as being protected under the Act: the Aurex Factory, Goromonzi; the Beitbridge border-post; the Chimanimani Restricted/Reserved Area [presumably the Marange diamond fields]; the Zimbabwe Defence Industries factories in Domboshawa; Fidelity Printers and Refinery in Harare; an underground fuel depot in Mabvuku; a fuel depot in Masasa; the National Heroes Acre; the Presidential retirement home in Borrowdale, Harare; the environs of State House, Harare; and the Wilton Pipe Station.
Taking photographs of the proceedings of the Senate or the House of Assembly is contempt of Parliament unless permission has been obtained. Although not stated specifically in the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act or in Parliamentary Standing Orders, it is established practice of both Houses to prohibit visitors from filming or taking photographs of their proceedings. The prohibition does not extend to taking photographs outside the Parliament building.
Similarly, filming or taking photographs of court proceedings without permission from the presiding judge or magistrate amounts to contempt of court. So far no court in Zimbabwe has ever given permission for criminal or civil proceedings to be filmed or photographed, apart from the ceremonial opening of High Court sessions. Again, there is no prohibition against photographing the outside of court buildings.
If a court has prohibited disclosure of the identity of a party or witness to criminal or civil proceedings, then it would be unlawful, and punishable as contempt of court, for a journalist to photograph the party or witness entering or coming from the court in connection with the proceedings.
In all other cases journalists and other people can generally take photographs of what and of whom they choose.
It is not necessary to get the consent of a person before taking his or her photograph. If the person objects, he or she can take civil proceedings to prevent publication but cannot normally invoke the assistance of the police to prevent the photograph being taken. The police can become involved only if taking the photograph seriously impairs the dignity of the person concerned or seriously invades his or her privacy, in which event it will amount to criminal insult, which is punishable by a fine of US $300 or a years imprisonment or both. The police can also intervene if the taking of the photograph leads to intentionally engaging in disorderly or riotous conduct in a public place, in which case it will amount to disorderly conduct in a public place. The crime is punishable by a fine of US $200 or six months imprisonment or both.
In some other cases people can be prevented from taking photographs and the police may be called on for assistance. For example, if a person enters private land or premises in order to take a photograph, he or she can be told to leave and, if he or she does not do so, will be guilty of criminal trespass and liable to a fine of US $200 or six months imprisonment or both. The police may be called upon to eject the person from the premises.
But in such a case the essence of the crime would be failing to leave the premises rather than taking photographs. Much the same applies if a person takes photographs of a meeting such as a company meeting without permission from the person presiding: he or she may be asked to leave and may be ejected if he or she refuses, said Veritas.
Veritas said the prisoners photographed by Manyere were a group of alleged coup plotters being brought to court to face charges of attempting to escape from prison and the photojournalist was pursuing his legitimate professional job covering a case of public interest.
In January the same photojournalist was arrested and detained by the police for two hours for filming a public protest march in Harare by members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise [WOZA]. He was released without charge.
The following month a group of Zanu (PF) youth unlawfully apprehended and detained him for filming their public protest against sanctions. Manyere was handed over to State security agents who, unlawfully, forced him to delete all footage in his camera before they released him.
Previously, State security agents seized Manyere at his home in Norton in December 2008. Without search warrants or any legal justification, they raided his house and confiscated his work equipment, including a camera and two laptops, which have never been returned to him.
While in police custody, Manyere, was threatened with death and accused of taking and sending images of victims of human rights abuses to international media. He was charged with banditry, sabotage and terrorism, together with other abductees. He was kept in prison for months, and was only finally released on bail in May, 2009. His case is pending before the courts.
Veritas said: Any limitation on peoples constitutional rights and freedoms must be in accordance with the law. A person should not be stopped from taking a photograph unless there is a given law that prohibits him or her from doing so. And the law must comply with section 20 of the Constitution. The polices duty is to uphold the law, not to act outside the parameters of the law.
Post published in: Opinions