Commission (MIC). Such services also have to reapply for registration every two years, although registration can be withdrawn from them at any time. All journalists have to apply for individual licences (‘accreditation’) on an annual basis and are forbidden from practising as journalists on Zimbabwean soil without this licence. This includes freelance journalists and foreign correspondents – even on short visits. No Zimbabwean ‘mass media services’ may employ unaccredited journalists or operate without a certificate of registration under threat of closure and forfeiture by the state of all the assets of such media. These requirements amount to nothing else than a system of state licensing of the media. It is a repressive political instrument in terms of which the state decides through the MIC which papers will be allowed to publish and exist and who may practise as a journalist. MISA-Zimbabwe, MISA’s national chapter in Zimbabwe, was ordered in 2003 to register with the state appointed Media and Information Commission (MIC). MISA -Zimbabwe has responded by applying to the courts to rule whether it falls under the definition of a ‘mass media service’ as defined by the AIPPA. Any organisation in Zimbabwe that distributes information to anyone beyond their own membership, through any means of publication – including by email and the Internet - is defined as a ‘mass media service’. AIPPA therefore seeks to control not only the media that is commonly regarded as mass media, but also the media and information activities of any civil society organisations in the country. Newsletters and pamphlets from civic organisations to the general public also cannot be legally distributed unless a civil society organisation has been registered by the MIC as a ‘mass media service’. From these illustrations it is clear that the AIPPA substantively extends its reach beyond the media, and prohibits the normal information and communication tools of democratic debate and advocacy through civil society. Did things change in 2003? There appears to be a cautious note of optimism in Tanzania and in Swaziland that the future may hold better things, but in other countries like Zambia and Malawi, the situation remains much the same. Tanzania underwent, and appears set to continue with a programme of extensive media legal reforms. During 2003 broadcasting reforms were made and the government and media fraternity are cooperating in terms of legal research to reform other media laws as well. Some of the broadcasting reforms made so far, including the promulgation of the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority Act, which provides for the establishment of the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Consumer Consultative Council (TCRA), is a step in the right direction. Contrary to the African Charter on Broadcasting, the government will still continue to licence broadcasters, but has created a consultative body drawn from the media industry and civil society to advise it. The government appoints the body from nominations made by the business and civil society sector. After five long years, and a year of great political turmoil in 2002 characterised by serious clashes between the judiciary and the state on issues of the rule of law, a draft Constitution was finally produced for Swaziland last year. Some new magazines and a privately owned televis ion channel have also been created, and although these do not focus on political issues, at least they create more diversity and, importantly, jobs. The draft Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press for all its citizens, except those who “consent” to be “hindered” in the enjoyment of this freedom (an extremely strange provision). It is not clear whether general clauses of limitations are included in the draft constitution, which could be invoked to unreasonably curb freedom of expression and other human rights. MISA Annual Report (April 2003 – March 2004) 8