Zimbabwe Independent editors challenge constitutionality of Criminal Law

swradioafrica.com
Zimbabwe Independent editors, Vincent Kahiya and Constantine Chimakure on Tuesday appeared before magistrate Moses Murendo applying for a referral to the Supreme Court where they seek to challenge the constitutionality of section 31 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which they are charged under.

Media watchdog, Misa-Zimbabwe, reports the two appeared along with Michael Curling who is representing the Zimbabwe Independent. The matter has however been postponed to 9 July to enable the prosecution to file its response.

Their lawyer Innocent Chagonda asked the magistrate for a referral to the Supreme Court stating that section 31 of the Criminal Codification Act, which attracts a maximum sentence of 20 years, is unconstitutional. The defence team say the penalty of a 20 year sentence imposed by section 31 is so heavy and disproportionate to the offence that it infringes section 20 of the bill of rights. Section 20 of the constitution of Zimbabwe guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

Chagonda also filed a second application in which he wants the Supreme Court to determine whether two law officers from the Attorney General's Office, namely Michael Mugabe and Morgan Dube, cited as State witnesses, can act as both complainants and prosecutors at the same time in the case.

Chimakure and Kahiya are being charged for the publishing or communicating of falsehoods when they published a story in May revealing the names of law enforcement agents involved in last year's abductions of MDC and civic activists.

The story titled, Activist abductors named - CIO, police role in activists' abduction revealed, stated that notices of indictment for trial in the High Court served on some of the activists revealed that the activists were either in the custody of the CIO or police during the period they were reported missing.

The Media watchdog said in a statement: "The two journalists submitted that as journalists, the very nature of their job obliges them to write on a regular basis, a task which they cannot safely or efficiently execute if they live in constant fear of arrest for their writings. This is a hindrance to free expression and it therefore violates the Constitution, the journalists argue."