O n the surface media freedom and freedom of expression activists have reason to celebrate, especially in light of the declining number of media freedom violations being recorded in the 11 Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) countries that MISA monitors. In fact, MISA has since 2003 consistently recorded fewer violations in these countries, a trend that was recently also noted by Reporters Sans Frontiéres in its annual report for 2005. Before letting down their guard, however, media freedom activists should consider that perpetrators of media freedom violations are employing less conventional strategies to repress dissenting voices and, in so doing, closing the democratic space. Deeper analysis of the violations recorded in 2005 reveal that the tools of oppression are indeed changing. Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIO) strategy to own newspapers through shell companies or as silent shareholders, a scandal dubbed ‘Mediagate’, is a case in point. In the past, the SADC governments were the major violators of media freedoms. However, more recently our courts – the new tool – have become the leading oppressors of media freedoms and free expression rights. The year 2005 witnessed five major cases in Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe where judgements were passed – or are still pending – that hold dire consequences for media freedom, diversity and pluralism. On November 7 2005, the High Court of Lesotho awarded damages of 1.5 million maloti (approximately US$222 000) against the English-language weekly newspaper Public Eye. Similarly in Swaziland, The Times of Swaziland and The Nation magazine – both privately owned – bore the brunt of civil litigation cases in 2005. One involved the Deputy Prime Minister who was awarded E750 000 (about US$115 300) damages in a defamation suit against the newspaper over an article that associated him with a banned political party, the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress. While The Times has appealed this ruling, it is estimated that to date it is facing up to a total of E4 million (US$615 300) in similar civil suits. The Nation is being sued E5 million (approximately US$670 000) by a businessman who also serves as Indonesia’s consul in Swaziland over an article accusing him of corrupt procurement dealings with government. The case is still pending. Further south in South Africa, the Johannesburg High Court banned the publication of an article in the Mail & Guardian newspaper, which revealed a corruption scandal involving the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party. The corruption scandal, dubbed ‘Oilgate’, involves millions of rand channelled from the state via an oil company to the ANC to fund the party’s 2004 election campaign. MISA spoke out strongly against the judgement and referred to it as constitutionally questionable because it elevates a primary constitutional right, the right to privacy, above that of another primary constitutional right, that of media freedom. It is feared that the judgement may open the way for others seeking to prevent newspapers from publishing articles about their questionable or irregular conduct by enabling them obtain legal censorship of the media. Also in South Africa, a community paper, The Developer, is facing a ZAR100 000 (approximately US$16 818) defamation suit from businessman Eric Chauke. So This Is Democracy? 2005 -10- Media Institute of Southern Africa