ZBC Zimbabwe: Constitutional Compliance Fails Impartiality Mandate

• The ZBC Board Chairperson's remarks on institutional quality overlook the critical need for constitutional compliance.
• Funded by citizens, the ZBC is constitutionally mandated by Section 61(4)(b) and (c) to maintain impartiality and provide fair access for diverse views.
• Despite this, the ZBC operates as a partisan extension of the ruling ZANU-PF, exhibiting systemic bias.
• The SADC Election Observer Mission specifically cited ZBC for failing to provide balanced coverage to the opposition after the 2023 elections.
• This conduct directly violates Section 155(1)(d) of the Constitution, which guarantees equitable media access for all political parties and candidates.

In a constitutional democracy, operational efficiency or administrative rhetoric cannot substitute for robust ZBC constitutional compliance Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) Board Chairperson, Ms. Helliate Rushwaya, recently articulated a perspective on public institutions, suggesting their true quality extends beyond mere policy formulation to encompass effective, consistent, and humane implementation. While seemingly reasonable, this viewpoint, however, sidesteps the fundamental requirement for any public entity's legitimacy: strict adherence to the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional democracy, operational efficiency or administrative rhetoric cannot substitute for robust ZBC constitutional compliance Zimbabwe.

The ZBC, as a publicly funded entity, derives its financial sustenance directly from Zimbabwean citizens through mandatory broadcast licensing fees and national tax revenues. Consequently, its operational mandate is explicitly defined and governed by Section 61(4)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This crucial provision legally obligates state-owned media to maintain strict Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation impartiality and to ensure fair and equal opportunities for the presentation of diverse viewpoints and dissenting opinions. These are not optional guidelines but binding constitutional directives.

Despite these clear constitutional directives, the ZBC and its state media counterparts have historically operated as if these provisions were discretionary. Rather than serving as a neutral national platform, the broadcaster frequently functions as a partisan extension of the ruling ZANU-PF party. This pattern of Zimbabwe state media bias is evident in its unwavering loyalty to those in power, its failure to scrutinize the alleged looting of national resources by well-connected elites, and its reluctance to question flawed government policies or accurately portray the daily struggles of ordinary citizens.

This systemic partiality is not merely a perceived grievance but a well-documented reality, recognized internationally. Following the 2023 harmonized elections, the SADC Election Observer Mission ZBC specifically highlighted the corporation's failure to provide fair and balanced coverage to the main opposition. The limited airtime granted to opposition voices was consistently characterized by bias, hostility, or outright misrepresentation. Such conduct represents a direct violation of Section 155(1)(d) Zimbabwe Constitution, which explicitly guarantees all political parties and candidates contesting an election equitable access to public electronic and print media.

The persistent disregard for these constitutional provisions raises significant questions about the integrity of Zimbabwe's democratic processes. If the political establishment genuinely perceives divergent views and dissenting opinions as unpatriotic or detrimental to national development, then the continued existence of constitutional guarantees like ZBC Section 61(4) Constitution and Section 155(1) appears disingenuous. This situation creates a prolonged deception regarding the presence of a free press and genuine democracy within the nation.

Furthermore, the current administration has previously demonstrated a willingness to modify the supreme law to serve its political agenda, as evidenced by constitutional amendments extending presidential terms without the legally required national referendum. This history underscores a broader pattern of undermining constitutional principles.

The ZBC's operational model starkly contrasts with genuine public broadcasters such as the BBC or SABC, which, despite their own criticisms, routinely feature robust debates, direct interrogations of state policies, open platforms for opposition views, and fearless exposure of government corruption. These international benchmarks illustrate how public media can serve as a voice for the voiceless, rather than merely echoing the powerful, thereby upholding true ZBC constitutional compliance Zimbabwe.

Lawyers advising political parties, civil society, or media organizations in Zimbabwe should note the documented constitutional breaches by ZBC regarding impartiality and fair access. This article highlights potential grounds for legal challenges or advocacy related to media freedom and election integrity, particularly concerning Sections 61(4) and 155(1)(d) of the Constitution.

Source: Original reporting via legal commentary.