=LPEDEZH under this law for allegedly criminally defaming some individuals they report on. The failure by the statutory ZMC to take the lead in protecting media freedom vindicates views that swelled during its formation that the body was a charade meant to dupe the world into believing that the state had relinquished its stranglehold on media activity in the country. Its meekness was exposed when the Minister of Media, Information and Publicity stated that he would work with the Commission to close some sections of the media that continue to denigrate president Mugabe. There was no comment from the ZMC, let alone a statement disowning the minister’s brazen attempts to project the commission as a subordinate body of the ministry. Another ominous threat to media freedom in Zimbabwe came in the form of a High Court ruling on 24 October 2012 ruled that newspapers could now be sued for damages for financial loss incurred by members of the public as a result of publishing stories misrepresenting the situation in the country. In the past, people could only sue newspapers for defamation. But the High Court ruled that an indigenous investment company, Vakakora Capital (Pvt) Limited, could sue two private newspapers — NewsDay and the Daily News — for articles they published in May 2011 saying there was political violence in the country. Vakakora Capital argued that it lost US$250 million after the stories scared away foreign investors who had shown 6R7KLVLV'HPRFUDF\" interest in working with the company. This development could result in a plethora of suits that could bankrupt media companies and stifle media freedom and freedom of expression. Thus the media environment remained and is likely to remain constricted ahead of the 2013 elections through the continued existence and selective application of the laws in question. $UUHVWVWKUHDWVKDUDVVPHQWRI MRXUQDOLVWV The formation of the inclusive government in 2009 has somehow resulted in the decline of cases involving the arrests, harassment and threats against journalists especially those working for the independent media. This is commendable given that in 2009, MISA-Zimbabwe issued more than 80 alerts on media violation cases which then dropped to a total of 27 in 2010 while a total of 28 were issued in 2011. At the time of writing this report, MISAZimbabwe had issued 28 alerts pertaining to media freedom violations. While in the past several journalists and media workers were either arrested or charged under AIPPA and POSA, criminal defamation is becoming the weapon of choice against media freedom and freedom of expression in terms of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. Zimbabwe is a signatory or state party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights