Zimbabwe: Journalist Held on Baseless Charges
The authorities charged Mhlanga with transmitting information that incites violence or causes damage to property under Section 164 of Zimbabwe's Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The charges relate to interviews that Mhlanga did in November 2024 and February 2025 with Blessed Geza, a war veteran and leader of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party, who fought during Zimbabwe's liberation struggle in the 1970s. During one interview, Geza demanded the resignation of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, accusing him of nepotism, corruption, and incompetence.
'Zimbabwean authorities should immediately release the journalist Blessed Mhlanga and drop the charges against him for simply doing his job,' said Idriss Ali Nassah, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. 'These baseless charges are yet another stark reminder that the rights to freedom of expression and the media are under serious threat in Zimbabwe.'
On February 28, a magistrate court denied Mhlanga bail on the grounds that his release would cause national unrest and undermine peace and security. The High Court upheld the decision on March 21, leaving him languishing in prolonged pretrial detention at Harare's maximum-security Chikurubi Prison. Prison facilities in Zimbabwe are often unsanitary, overcrowded, and have no running water in cells. Hopewell Chin'ono, a renowned journalist, reported on March 18 that Mhlanga had fallen ' seriously ill ' in prison.
Since taking power in a military coup in 2017, the administration of President Mnangagwa, which initially promoted itself as a ' new dispensation ' respectful of basic rights, has arbitrarily arrested and prosecuted a number of critics of the government on baseless charges. Zimbabwe's criminal justice system has repeatedly violated the due process and fair trial rights of those arrested on politically motivated grounds, often unjustly detaining them for prolonged and arbitrary periods.
On March 12, the authorities arrested an opposition local government councilor member from Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) and charged him with undermining the authority of and insulting President Mnangagwa. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights reported that the council member had shared a TikTok video showing a woman criticizing Mnangagwa for allegedly mismanaging the economy. The councilmember was released after two days.
A leading opposition figure, Job Sikhala, who was detained in June 2022 and convicted of incitement to commit public violence, disorderly conduct, and obstruction of justice, was released in January 2024 after 595 days in custody after receiving a suspended sentence. Another opposition leader, Jacob Ngarivhume, spent eight months in detention before a court set aside his conviction in December 2023.
Zimbabwe's Constitution and two international treaties to which Zimbabwe is a party, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), protect the right to freedom of expression. Targeting journalists and political opponents for peacefully exercising those rights undermines Zimbabwe's standing as a rights-respecting country.
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) Resolution on the Safety of Journalists and Media Practitioners in Africa obligates states to ensure that the right to express oneself through the media is not subjected to undue legal restrictions. Principle 20 of the ACHPR Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa calls upon states to take measures to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention of journalists.
Additionally, the United Nations Human Rights Council in a 2017 resolution recognized the 'importance of creating a safe and enabling environment' and protecting journalists, whistleblowers, witnesses, and anti-corruption activists from 'threats arising from their activities in preventing and fighting against corruption.'
International human rights law provides that any pretrial restrictions should be consistent with the right to liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the right to equality under the law. The UN Human Rights Committee, the international expert body that provides authoritative analysis of the ICCPR, has stated that pretrial detention 'should be an exception and as short as possible.'
Many of these rights are also protected under Zimbabwe's Constitution. Section 50(1)(d) states that any person who is arrested 'must be released unconditionally or on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons justifying their continued detention.'
'The arrest and prolonged detention of Blessed Mhlanga sends a message to all journalists that their work makes them a target for mistreatment,' Nassah said. 'The Mnangagwa government should respect basic rights and stop weaponizing the law and judicial system against journalists, human rights defenders, opposition politicians, and activists.'
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Human Rights Watch (HRW).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
18 hours ago
- The National
Western attempts to curb criticism of Israel will come at a cost
Demonstrations over the same issue were held in London and Kuala Lumpur last weekend. In one, the authorities kept order in good cheer. In the other, heavy-handed policing led to hundreds of arrests, amid much commentary about a fearful chilling of free speech. In the past, some might have expected the second to have been the demo in Kuala Lumpur, or in Jakarta or Bangkok, where there have also been pro-Palestinian rallies. But it was in London that 522 people were arrested for protesting against the British government's decision to ban a group called Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000. What has Palestine Action done? Activists broke into a Royal Air Force base in June and sprayed two planes with red paint, but the group's co-founder Huda Ammori has quoted the UK's Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's assessment that 'Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons'. British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, however, insists that it 'is not a non-violent organisation', and has defended the proscription, which makes membership of, or support for, Palestine Action a criminal offence, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. This puts the group and its supporters in the same legal bracket as Al Qaeda or ISIS – which has been condemned by the former Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain as 'intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong'. Both the suffragettes who fought for the right of women to vote in Britain, and the anti-apartheid protests that Mr Hain led as a young man, would have been labelled as terrorist under this order, he told the House of Lords earlier this month. 'Frankly I am deeply ashamed,' he said. Mr Hain is not alone in this view. Many believe that this is yet another case of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government bending over backwards to please supporters of the Israeli administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by restricting entirely legitimate criticism of what a host of distinguished scholars and organisations have called Israel's 'genocidal' campaign in Gaza. He may not have had this issue in mind, but US Vice President JD Vance was at least partly right when he warned against Europe going down a 'very dark path' on free speech during his recent stay with UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy. 'The entire collective West got a little too comfortable with censoring rather than engaging with a diverse range of opinions,' he said. What is the proscription of Palestine Action, if not exactly that? The very obviously respectable people who have been arrested for supporting the group makes the decision appear even more draconian. No wonder Mr Hain declared that the ban would 'end in tears for the government', and if a legal challenge succeeded, it 'would be a mercy to all concerned, including the government'. European-style free speech has not been the norm in most South-East Asian countries. Nevertheless, when regional readers put forth legislation that further limits freedom of expression, they can and do defend it stoutly. In 2016, then-Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak introduced two laws on terrorism and security that critics said curtailed civil liberties. His response? 'I make no apology for placing the safety and security of all Malaysians as my foremost priority,' he said. 'The best way to protect civil liberties is to ensure national security.' Likewise, Singapore's PAP government had no qualms earlier this year about passing The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, which allows the Home Minister to issue restraining orders against individuals or entities 'for conduct that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore'. Anyone breaking an order faces up to two years in prison. Britain's Labour government, on the other hand, is currently defending what is seen by most people as indefensible. Look at who has been arrested over the proscription of Palestine Action – they include a retired magistrate, a war hero colonel, and Jonathon Porritt, a baronet and former environmental adviser to King Charles III. These are hardly dangerous revolutionaries. Pointing out that about half of those arrested over the weekend were aged 60 and above, including almost 100 in their seventies and 15 in their eighties, the editor of Prospect magazine, Alan Rusbridger, published an article headlined: 'Dubbing tame pensioners as 'terrorists' makes a farce out of the Terrorism Act – and freedom of speech.' 'It's a funny old world when Margaret Thatcher had a greater sense of individual liberty than Keir Starmer,' wrote Rusbridger, who is also a former editor of The Guardian. It's a funny old world when there is greater free speech in South-East Asia than in Europe and the US, where politicians never stop crowing about their love of liberty But Britain is far from alone. In the US and Germany, the authorities have attempted to deport pro-Palestinian activists. Social media posts are being scanned, and the possibility of being detained or put on the first plane home is no joke. A Qatari friend was recently due to attend an old associate's wedding in America, but told me he thought he'd better not risk it. His comments on X don't support terrorism, but he does repost reports critical of Israel. He was probably right not to go. So on an issue that is one of the most crucial of the day, the UK, Europe and the US have been denying the right to free speech, whereas in South-East Asian countries – so often criticised on human rights issues – citizens can have their say. And people can see why. This is very dangerous in terms of isolating Israel even further; it risks fuelling anti-Semitism, and the allegations that the so-called Israeli lobby influences western governments and western media – with honourable exceptions – is now widespread. There was a time when to state that view was to expect an accusation of anti-Semitism to follow pretty soon, and in the past, I have pushed back against anything that smacked of age-old conspiracy theories. But when an eminent Malaysian businessman and one of the country's top diplomats talked to me about the Israeli lobby's dominance over the West in the past week, I couldn't demure. They would have been incredulous if I had tried to argue to the contrary. Just take the issue of Palestine Action. To echo Rusbridger, it's a funny old world when there is greater free speech in South-East Asia than in Europe and the US, where politicians never stop crowing about their love of liberty. But liberty for whom? Not for Palestinians or their supporters, it would appear. A reckoning will come – indeed, it is already coming – and contrary to their efforts, it may hurt the state and the people that these politicians have been covering up for the most.
Arabian Post
2 days ago
- Arabian Post
Wikipedia's Legal Battle Shapes Online Safety Act Future
A UK court recently ruled against Wikipedia's challenge to the country's Online Safety Act, yet the decision may have set a significant legal precedent. The case, which has been closely monitored by tech companies and legal experts, revolved around the implications of the new rules on platforms like Wikipedia. Despite the court's decision, legal commentators argue that the ruling still marks a pivotal moment in the debate over online regulation and platform accountability. The Online Safety Act, introduced by the UK government, is aimed at regulating harmful content across the internet, with specific focus on protecting users from illegal or harmful material. It mandates that platforms take greater responsibility for content published by users, holding them accountable for addressing and removing material that violates standards, such as hate speech, extremist content, and child exploitation. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, challenged the Act's provisions that would compel platforms to comply with stringent content moderation requirements or face heavy penalties. The platform argued that the new rules posed a direct threat to its operations, particularly its volunteer-driven model of content creation. Wikipedia contended that these regulations would force it to enforce stricter content controls, potentially undermining its core mission of providing an open space for freely shared knowledge. The nonprofit organization also raised concerns over the impact of the rules on its users' freedom of expression, especially when it came to moderating user-generated content in a way that might stifle the platform's core principles. ADVERTISEMENT However, the UK High Court ruled against Wikipedia, finding that the Online Safety Act does not directly inhibit the platform's ability to operate. The ruling stated that the platform must still comply with the law's requirements, particularly those around the removal of harmful content. Yet, the judgment also made it clear that it does not grant authorities a sweeping mandate to impose overly broad restrictions on platforms like Wikipedia. It specifically noted that the ruling did not provide Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, or the Secretary of State with the power to enforce a regime that would substantially hinder the operations of platforms that provide a public good, like Wikipedia. The court's decision was not a clear-cut victory for the UK government, nor was it an outright loss for Wikipedia. Legal experts suggest that while the ruling may have solidified the current interpretation of the Online Safety Act, it also lays the groundwork for potential future legal battles. The court effectively acknowledged the unique nature of platforms like Wikipedia, which operate as both content hosts and facilitators of free expression. This suggests that in future disputes, platforms may be able to raise concerns about overreach and the broader implications of content regulation on their operations. Industry stakeholders have expressed mixed reactions to the ruling. Some argue that the court's stance is a victory for free speech, protecting platforms from government overreach. Others, however, believe that the ruling does not go far enough in shielding platforms from the potential for disproportionate regulatory pressure. Critics contend that the Online Safety Act could pave the way for stricter enforcement mechanisms in the future, which may impact the ability of platforms to balance content moderation with user autonomy. The case also highlights the growing tensions between government regulators, technology companies, and online platforms. Governments worldwide are grappling with how best to address the spread of harmful content online without stifling the free flow of information. The UK's Online Safety Act is one of the most ambitious efforts to tackle this issue, but it also underscores the challenges of regulating the digital space in a way that respects both public safety and fundamental freedoms.
Middle East Eye
7 days ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel used US-made bombs in attacks on Gaza schools, HRW says
Bomb remnants found after Israeli air strikes hit two different schools in Gaza were from US-made munitions, according to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report released on Thursday. The munitions were used when Israeli forces carried out at least three air strikes on the Khadija girls' school in Deir al-Balah on 27 July 2024, killing at least 15 people; and al-Zeitoun C School in Gaza City on 21 September 2024, which killed at least 34 people, according to HRW. HRW concluded that at least two air-dropped GBU-39 small diameter bombs used in the attack on the Khadija girls' school were produced by Boeing and then 'transferred to Israel with US government approval under the Foreign Military Sales or Direct Commercial Sales programs'. Around 4,000 displaced Palestinians had been sheltering at the Khadija girls' school for months, according to the Palestinian Civil Defence, an organisation providing emergency and rescue services in Gaza. There was also a field hospital connected to the Khadija girls' school, according to testimony from the director of al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, which is located a kilometre away from the school. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters HRW's report found no clear reason for military strikes on or near the school on the day of the attack. It said there was no evidence that any of the men killed at the school were members of Palestinian armed groups, after reviewing social media pages of groups. HRW contacted the Israeli military for more information about the target but did not receive a response. Civilians were not warned that the first strike was coming on the girls' school, which is when most casualties occurred, but were apparently warned about the second and third strikes. Gaza: Family of frail boy killed at GHF site months ago still haven't received his body Read More » Four children, four women, seven men, and two others whose complete names were not identified were found to be among those who died in the attacks, according to Airwars, a nongovernmental organisation that investigates civilian harm in conflict zones. The Gaza health ministry reported at the time that 30 had been killed and 100 were injured in the attacks. HRW's report stressed that there is an 'absence' of safe places left for Gaza's displaced people after hundreds of Israeli strikes on schools sheltering displaced Palestinians, 'including unlawfully indiscriminate attacks using US munitions'. 'Recent Israeli strikes on schools-turned-shelters are part of Israeli forces' current military offensive that is demolishing much of Gaza's remaining civilian infrastructure, displacing again hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and worsening the already dire humanitarian situation,' the report says. HRW called on the US to impose an arms embargo on the Israeli government and take further measures to enforce the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. No military targets In a separate investigation of an attack on the al-Zeitoun C School in Gaza City on 21 September 2024, HRW found that at least one US-produced GBU-39 small diameter bomb directly hit one of the school buildings, killing at least 34 people. Gaza's Ministry of Health and the Gaza Media office had reported at the time that 22 people were killed, including six women and 13 children. Three men, four women, and 16 children - 23 people spanning nine families - were identified among the victims, according to Airwars, which used open source information to establish who had been killed. HRW identified and found the names of four additional people who were killed, including one woman, two boys, and one female of an unknown age. Israel guilty of 'extermination' in attacks on Gaza schools and cultural sites: UN inquiry Read More » Once again, HRW found no evidence of a military target in the school or the surrounding area, where thousands of people were said to be sheltering, according to the Palestinian Civil Defence in Gaza. Many of the victims were said to be widows and orphans. The Israeli military said it had 'conducted a precise strike on terrorists who were operating inside a Hamas command and control center ... embedded inside a compound that previously served as the Al-Falah School', but HRW did not find any evidence that the men who died had any ties to armed groups. Bombing schools during armed conflict is considered a war crime under international law. When asked by Middle East Eye whether a US investigation would be conducted over the use of US munitions in Israel's attacks on the schools, the State Department said it rejected the conclusions identified in the HRW report, saying that the human rights organisation has 'long been hostile towards Israel'. It said that it stood with Israel and that the Israeli government is investigating incidents in Gaza involving civilians. It referred MEE to the Israeli government for more information. It also added that Israel had 'the near impossible task of fighting on multiple fronts against those that want to destroy them, including in Gaza where Hamas cowards hide behind hospitals, schools, and other civilian infrastructure', adding that this is the "reason why President Donald Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio will make sure Hamas never rules Gaza again'. HRW's investigation found no evidence of any military activity at the schools or any connections between the victims and Hamas. The Department of Defence did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.
