Broadcasting Services Act Fact Sheet Seven: Limitations on programme content Introduction: The most problematic sections in the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) (2001) relate to the restrictions on the programme content of potential private broadcasters. The restrictions include local content quotas and the requirement that all broadcasters must make one hour available to the government “to explain its policies” to the people. Failure to adhere to any of these restrictions can lead to the suspension, or worse, cancellation of licenses. This section looks at some of these restrictions and argues that they are inherently unconstitutional as they give the government undue influence over what private broadcasters may wish to transmit. One hour per week to be set aside for the government: In terms of Section 11(5) of the BSA, all broadcasters are “obliged to make one hour cumulatively per week available, at its request, to the government to explain its policies”. This is clearly not justifiable in country that professes to be a democracy! Why should the government have greater rights in explaining its policies over, say, other opposition parties and interests groups such as labour unions, civil society organisations, etc.? The requirement that the one hour per week is cumulative implies that should the government not utilise its ‘rightful’ one hour per week for the next five weeks, an affected broadcaster will effectively be ‘owing’ the government a total of five hours of free broadcasting airtime! In addition, this requirement means that the government has a right to change the editorial content of any broadcaster. For instance, if one is operating a subscription satellite service which only broadcasts sports and movies, they will be forced to flight political news in the form of government broadcasts to accommodate the government’s requirements. This requirement constitutes an unreasonable interference with a broadcaster’s right to broadcast freely as well as the listener’s rights to tune into a station of their choice. It is, in effect, an infringement on citizens’ fundamental rights to seek, receive and impart information through the media of their choice, and thus falls foul of Section 20(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Section 20(2) of the Constitution only grants the government the right to interfere with individual’s right to free expression only if these rights are a threat against public safety, health, morality, or the economic interests of the state. Clearly, the proposed interference cannot be justifiable under any of these categories. Further, the Minister of Information is granted the power to “impose any programme standard, which in his [sic] opinion will provide appropriate community safeguards” (section 25). (This section gives the Minister wide and discretionary influence and is another abridgement of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Zimbabwean Constitution. Any restriction on freedom of expression must fall within the limitations outlined in the Constitution (Section 20(2)) or must be worded in such a clear and precise manner that individuals will be clear on how to conduct their actions. The section states that the Minister -1-