ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 REGULATIONS VIS-À-VIS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE SADC REGION the responses and to counter disinformation.140 international human rights law and standards and repeal laws that criminalise sedition, insult and publication of false news. Going forward, such criminal sanctions should not be the norm.141 They should only remain in place to the extent that they are applicable to the crisis or emergency situation. In a time of crisis, the media play a crucial role and should be viewed as part of the solution not adversaries. As such, journalists and all other media practitioners should be granted access to information on COVID-19. Freedom of movement should be permitted for frontline media practitioners including access to decision makers, quarantine centres, healthcare centres and to health professionals and; emergency powers should not hinder the operations of the media but instead should promote media freedom. To address the scourge of disinformation, a multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted and supported by the government.142Such approaches increases chances of crafting appropriate and long-term responses but also enhance the understanding of disinformation and its impact in a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The media should give ample airtime to health experts and government officials to articulate credible information to the public regarding the pandemic; the investigative role of the media should be protected and guaranteed; citizens should be encouraged to debate, scrutinize and critique government responses to the pandemic; and media scrutiny of the government’s positions and decisions should not be misconstrued as disinformation neither should the crisis be used to supress, punish or restrict media operation. The adequacy of the measures by the government should be freely debated. The measures that have been adopted by SADC governments give them discretion to decide on what amounts as truth and that which is false information. There are chances that legitimate speech that raise legitimate concerns especially by whistle-blowers could be censored or suppressed. Thus, it is important to establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure that freedom of expression is not unnecessarily limited during the pandemic Any approaches or actions to tackle misinformation or disinformation or publication and dissemination of false information should be should be made with clarity and in a rights respecting manner that follows due process. 143Such approaches should centre on transparency The fact that there is a public emergency is not enough justification to limit public debate because it upon this public debate that democracy thrives.Criminal restrictions of content should be justifiable and compatible with 140 ‘Information Sharing & Countering Disinformation’ https://en.unesco.org/covid19/communicationinformationresponse. See also Cross-Regional Statement on “Infodemic” in the Context of COVID-19 https://unny.mission.gov.au/files/unny/120620%20CrossRegional%20Statement%20on%20Infodemic%20in%20the%20Context%20of%20COVID-19.pdf (accessed 22 June 2020). 141 ‘Keeping our eyes on the ball: Human rights in the time of COVID-19’ https://ifex.org/keeping-our-eyes-on-the-ball-human- rightsin-the-time-of-covid-19/ (accessed 10 June 2020). 142 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda adopted in Vienna, on 3 March 2017 https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/8/302796.pdf (accessed 22 June 2020). 143 ‘Coronavirus: ARTICLE 19 briefing on tackling misinformation’ 6 March 2020 https://www.article19.org/resources/coronavirus-new-article-19-briefing-on-tackling-misinformation/ (accessed 10 June 2020). https://zimbabwe.misa.org 29