How Zimbabwe’s New Media Policy and Data Protection Act Threaten the Fourth Estate
By Delicious Mathuthu
Gweru – Zimbabwe’s newly launched Media Policy, when coupled with the existing Data Protection Act, is drawing mounting concern from journalists, media watchdogs, and civil society groups who fear that the combined legislative framework could undermine press freedom, criminalise legitimate journalism, and stifle efforts to expose corruption.
While government officials, including President Emmerson Mnangagwa, have positioned the Media Policy as a vehicle to ensure national development, responsible reporting and cultural sovereignty, critics argue that its language is alarmingly broad, its implementation potentially punitive and its synergy with the Data Protection Act deeply troubling, especially for investigative journalism.
In his speech during the policy launch on the 28th of May 2025, President Mnangagwa asserted that content that harms the country and fellow citizens has no space in a constitutional democracy and warned that the law and justice system will take its course against those who infringe on others via media platforms.
While intended to curb misinformation and harmful content, some analysts say these statements raise concerns about the state’s interpretation of what constitutes “harm.”
Combined with the Data Protection Act, which criminalizes the dissemination of certain types of personal or confidential data without consent, journalists now face the risk of prosecution for publishing leaked documents or whistleblower evidence, even when such information serves the public interest.
“For an investigative reporter, this is a nightmare scenario.
“You cannot expose wrongdoing, tender fraud or abuse of office without accessing sensitive information.
“But now, simply publishing that evidence could get you arrested,” said Gweru-based freelance journalist, Lewis Kuchineyi.
The Data Protection Act, originally designed to protect citizen privacy in a digital age, has provisions that overlap precariously with journalistic duties.
Whistleblowers and sources, who often depend on confidentiality, may now fear being unmasked under surveillance or data retention laws.
Journalists could also be compelled to reveal their sources or face legal consequences for noncompliance.
Adding on, analysts say the Media Policy’s repeated emphasis on terms like “ethical journalism,” “positive storytelling” and “platform accountability” could be exploited to suppress critical or adversarial reporting.
It frames media as a partner in national branding and development terms that, while patriotic on the surface, risk sidelining journalism’s adversarial watchdog role in holding power to account.
“When government conflates journalism with propaganda, the result is a media environment that is no longer free or independent.
“The message is: report the official narrative, or else,” one media academic from one of the local universities said.
Adding to the growing body of concern, Gweru based Honourable Brian Dube, former Gweru Urban MP and a seasoned lawyer.
Speaking at a recent Median Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-Zim) Gweru Chapter World Press Freedom Day commemorations, Hon. Dube said journalist should tread carefully and look before they leap.
“There is always a very thin line between doing your work as a journalist and inadvertently committing an offense.
“That’s why I believe it is crucial to revive institutions like the Media Lawyers Network.
“These institutions can hold workshops that guide journalists in understanding at what point are you merely doing your job, and at what point does it become a criminal act?
“The danger is, if you cross that line unknowingly, people may sympathize with you, but they might not be able to help you beyond that,” Hon. Dube said.
He said the general populace should also be careful in dealing with information under the laws.
“The law as it is currently crafted is not fair. It doesn’t just criminalize the originator of a message, it also criminalizes the person who disseminates or even shares that message. That, too, is considered an offense,” Hon. Dube said.
Under such legal media environments, stakeholders say journalists may not even be aware that they are operating in legally dangerous territory until it’s too late.
Hon. Dube said the ambiguity in these laws is not accidental, but systemic.
Ironically, both the Media Policy and Data Protection Act come at a time when Zimbabwe continues to battle high-profile corruption scandals, and public trust in public institutions is waning.
Investigative journalism has historically played a critical role in uncovering graft, from dodgy procurement deals to land scandals tracking back to the mid 80s National Railways Housing Scandal, the 1988-89 Willowgate Scandal, to the recent COVID-gate scandal.
Without the legal protections to pursue sensitive investigations or protect whistleblowers, these policies risk emboldening corrupt actors and shield misconduct from public scrutiny.
“Fighting corruption without a free press is like trying to clean a house in the dark,” said one local editor from an independent news outlet, on condition of anonymity.
“We are being asked to hold officials accountable without the tools, protections or legal space to do so,” he said.
The broader fear is that laws meant to protect society could be weaponised against dissenting voices, some media representative organisations say.
They say the vagueness in the Media Policy regarding what constitutes “harmful content” or what defines “negative reporting” leaves journalists vulnerable to arbitrary arrests and intimidation.
They say the precedent is already there with several journalists having been arrested or harassed in recent years under defamation or cybersecurity charges, fresh in mind and still pending being the Heart & Soul Tv (HStv) Senior Journalist, Blessed Mhlanga’s case.
“Today it’s about ethics, tomorrow it’s about national security.
“Once these frameworks are in place, they can be used however those in power choose,” another local journalist said.
To prevent further erosion of press freedom, media stakeholders are calling for independent oversight mechanisms, clear legal definitions in both laws, and robust protections for journalists and their sources.
Transparency International Zimbabwe (TIZ) has also recommended the incorporation of public interest exemptions within the Data Protection Act to shield investigative reporting from criminal liability, and for the Media Policy to be harmonized with constitutional guarantees under Sections 61 and 62 on freedom of expression and access to information.
While Zimbabwe rightly seeks to modernise its media sector and protect citizens with the advent of new and quick advancing digital technologies, the unintended consequence, or hidden intentions, may be a regulatory chokehold on journalism itself in Zimbabwe.
“If unchecked, the combined force of these laws could reduce the media to little more than a cheerleader for state narratives, leaving the rot of corruption to fester unseen,” the media academic said.
Apart from the legal concerns, the Media Policy presents an ambitious and wide-ranging blueprint for transforming the country’s media landscape in line with Vision 2030 if implemented objectively.
Media freedom watchdog, MISA, says the policy promotes media diversity, professionalism and digital transformation, while aiming to ensure inclusive access to information across linguistic, geographic, and socio-economic lines.
The institute noted key strategic pillars cited within the policy such as economic sustainability, capacity building and local content promotion, which reflect a forward-thinking approach to both the challenges and opportunities facing the sector.
Provisions that give broad powers to penalise media practitioners, on the other hand, may deter investigative journalism.
The impact of the Zimbabwe Media Policy, thus, will depend not only on its intentions but on its implementation, that is, being impartial and upholding constitutional guarantees of media freedom.
