Zimbabwe: Police repression highlights media polarity

MEDIA MONITORING PROJECT ZIMBABWE
Weekly Media Update No. 21 of 2002
June 17th - June 23rd 2002

CONTENTS
1. Summary
2. Farm evictions

1. SUMMARY

Media coverage of the controversy surrounding government's attempt
to evict the White Cliff Farm settlers exposed government's failure to
invest its land reform programme with any coherent policy - and
highlighted the confusion and indecisiveness within government itself,
as viewers of ZTV's Newshour programme on Tuesday night (18/6)
would have heard for themselves.
Ironically though, some of this confusion seemed to rub off onto some
sections of the media, which only provided basic information about the
conflict, overlooking the need for a clear and coherent investigation into
its background.
As a result, media consumers remained no wiser, for example, about the
law under which the "war veterans" had settled at least 10 000 people at
White Cliff Farm (now Tongogara Park), the legal status of the farm, or
whether the Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act also
shielded squatters from eviction, especially because they had settled
there for residential purposes and not to farm.
Only The Sunday Mirror (23/6), fulfilling its role of providing more in-
depth coverage of the week's news, gave its readers some insight into
the background of the farm's ownership.
The eviction of commercial farmers was also in the news during the week
as the legal deadline (June 24th) to stop farming for some approached.
While the private Press, particularly The Zimbabwe Independent (21/6),
focused on the practical effects of this Land Act amendment, the state
media largely confined itself to reporting official statements saying there
would be no reprieve for the farmers.
The extraordinary irony that government was preventing farmers from
growing food when Zimbabwe was suffering the effects of a famine was
ignored by the government controlled media in favour of portraying
evicted farmers as dishonest.

In other news, the ongoing police repression of opposition MDC activity
under the Public Order and Security Act continues to highlight the
polarity of the media with the privately owned Press viewing the law and
the repression as a paranoid, unconstitutional government clampdown
on Zimbabweans' democratic rights to their freedom of expression,
assembly and association.
The government controlled media continued to reflect the official line,
reporting and indeed, justifying the upsurge in violent police activity
against perceived opponents in the context that government was
protecting the public from a planned "violent" MDC uprising against a
legitimate government.
Coverage of the violent arrests of MDC supporters outside the party's
Harare offices starkly illustrated this extreme between the private Press
and the government controlled media.
While The Herald (17/6) remained silent on the violent nature of the
police assault on the gathering, it made unsubstantiated claims that the
MDC supporters were arrested after they "went on the rampage in
Harare city center stealing from passers-by and disrupting traffic". To
reinforce this allegation, the paper quoted Chief Supt. Dorothy Kupara,
the story's only source, justifying the police action because "we suspect
that the MDC was preparing for a mass action. We also suspect that
there is a hidden agenda behind the meeting which we had prohibited."
ZTV's follow-up report of the incident (17/06, 8pm) reflected similar
journalistic abuse when newsreader Obriel Mpofu stated: "Police say
intelligence suggesting that the MDC and its supporters were planning
a violent campaign was vindicated yesterday when the MDC decided
to defy a police ban to hold a public gathering in the Harare
Gardens". Police spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena was quoted in the same
report as having said the MDC and other organizations have been
planning "a violent ouster of the government."
But neither he nor ZTV provided any evidence to support this claim.
In contrast, The Daily News (17/6) accessed comment from more than
three sources, took stock of the injuries inflicted by the police and
provided some background to the clash, as well as reporting a similar
police crackdown in Bulawayo on the same day where about 2000 MDC
supporters had also gathered to commemorate Soweto Day.

2. FARM EVICTIONS

The Herald's enigmatic story, 'State Never Advocated Illegal
Resettlement, Says Chombo' (17/6) reminded readers of government's
intention to evict squatters from White Cliff Farm and was followed by
an equally uninformative ZTV announcement confirming this in its
evening bulletin.
The next day The Herald reported that a showdown was looming
between government and the "illegal settlers" and this too, was
dutifully followed up by ZBC (all stations 18/6, 8pm) quoting settlers (as
did The Herald) saying they would resist eviction.
ZTV's bulletin also quoted other settlers occupying farms in
Mashonaland Central and outside Bulawayo vowing not to move.
In the same bulletin, Agriculture Minister Joseph Made, Home Affairs
Minister John Nkomo, and Local Government Minister Ignatius Chombo
were all quoted as saying the evictions were necessary for an orderly
land reform programme and that those affected would be relocated to
other farms.
Their statements unintentionally suggested that the reforms had been
plagued by disorder until now. And this impression was corroborated at
the end of the same news bulletin (18/6) when newscaster Obriel Mpofu
suddenly announced that "we are receiving news of a late item" and
Information Minister Jonathan Moyo was on the phone to the newsdesk.
Mpofu appeared to have no idea what the minister wanted to say, but his
unscheduled "appearance" demonstrated the special access Moyo
enjoys at the national public broadcaster.
While Minister Chombo had been quoted in the bulletin (and The
Herald) as saying ".the law enforcement agencies will take
appropriate action" against those who remained at White Cliff, Moyo
announced that the government and the settlers had agreed to meet the
following day to find ".an amicable solution without any
confrontation."
It was not clear why Chombo or the other two Cabinet ministers were
apparently unaware of this sudden change in government's position and
the next morning's Herald (19/6) provided no explanation either, simply
reporting Moyo's statement and Chombo's comments too.
3FM and Radio Zimbabwe also reported Moyo's announcement that
morning (19/06, 6am).
After the meeting between government and the settlers, ZBC (ZTV,
19/06, 8pm and radio stations, 20/06, 6am and The Herald 20/6) quoted
Chombo announcing the government's policy U-turn stating that it had
postponed the evictions and formed a committee to investigate the
circumstances surrounding the allocation of stands at the farm, the
status of the property, and whether it had been acquired for resettlement,
a particularly bizarre admission of ignorance that was not investigated.
Chombo's announcement contrasted sharply with his earlier remarks
(ZTV, 18/06, 8pm) in which he said: "Their stay is causing a health
hazard to the residents of Harare. More so it is an illegal settlement, it
is unplanned and it has not been authorized."
The Herald (18/6) again led its electronic stable-mate with this story,
recording Chombo's comments and those of his permanent secretary
saying only government and the city of Harare were authorized to
allocate residential stands. The settlement was therefore illegal,
unplanned and should be disbanded, they argued.

Once again, these comments contrasted starkly with the comments
Chombo made two days later when announcing the suspension of the
evictions, and especially with the comments of Joseph Made who
labeled as "sadists" all those who viewed the eviction of settlers from
undesignated farms as retrogressive (The Herald 21/6). The paper
quoted him as saying the "sadists, through their false trumpets were
bellowing wrong signals to the people about the evictions."
Nevertheless, such was the unquestioning attitude of the paper that it
failed to analyze such government policy contradictions.
Neither did The Daily News (19/6), which appeared content to record the
war veterans attacking Chombo rather than questioning their role in the
White Cliff Farm debacle.
As a result, the paper failed to follow up revelations by the war veterans
that Chombo was going "against what was agreed between us and
President Mugabe, who allowed the landless peasants to occupy the
land".
The next day (20/6) The Daily News caught up with the story on how the
war veterans had forced the minister to reverse his directive, an article
also carried by The Herald that day.
The Daily News story however, also noted government's selective
application of the Public Order and Security Act, which, in this case, it
did not use against the demonstrating White Cliff settlers, but which it
religiously uses against the MDC and others it perceives as opponents.
This contrasted sharply with The Herald story, which sought to sanitize
government's temporary capitulation to the war veterans' demands.
However, glaring in both papers' coverage was their failure to question
the lack of policy in government's "orderly" land reform programme.
The Daily News (21/6) atoned for its earlier lapse in concentration by
questioning the unbridled power of war veterans in its editorial War Vets,
ZANU PF's Frankenstein monster.
The paper noted that the "set-to between government and the so-called
war veterans over White Cliff settlement" was inevitable and a reproach
to Mugabe for "ceding so much of his constitutional authority" to an
"invisible government" full of "foul-mouthed and violent individuals"
whose "only claim to legitimacy could be that they can use violence to
achieve their selfish means".
As if to vindicate The Daily News comment, The Standard (23/6) ran a
story in which it reported the war veterans at White Cliff as declaring the
settlement a "no-go area" for "intruders". A militia force, said the paper,
was created to enforce this.
It quoted war vets secretary for security Mike Moyo telling hundreds of
settlers that the reason for the militia's formation was to fight the police
and those who wanted to destroy their homes. ". Anyone who resides
here and does not participate in this war will be chased away because
he is as good as the people we are fighting."
Besides its coverage of White Cliff Farm, the privately owned media also
reported on various other conflicts threatening Zimbabwe's agricultural
communities.
For example, The Zimbabwe Independent reported that at least 2 500
commercial farmers were likely to become redundant when government's
45-day deadline ordering them to stop farming expired.
Banket commercial farmer Duke de Cudroy aptly captured the implication
of the order: "Farmers are not sure about what to do next. If they
continue farming they risk being arrested and if they stop what will
happen to their crops?"
The Financial Gazette's 'Land reform to displace two million', also
reported on the likely effects of the farm seizures on farm workers and
their families, basing its story on a survey conducted by the Zimbabwe
Community Development Trust (ZCDT).
A related story by The Standard also recorded the General Agriculture
and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (Gapwuz) as saying most of
the farm workers already displaced were "wallowing in poverty".
The government-controlled Press ignored these developments,
preferring instead to carry public relations stories on the successes of
land reform or spin yarns about "greedy farmers" doling out bribes in a
bid to prolong their stay at designated farms.
The Business Herald (20/6), for example, carried an editorialized story
that made unsubstantiated claims of bribery by commercial farmers to
explain the failure by some beneficiaries of land reform to take up their
pieces of land.
In the same vein The Herald (21/6) also subjectively implied that farmers
who had been served with Section 8 orders had designed fake forms
"not gazetted by government but crafted by the Commercial Farmers'
Union" in an effort to persuade government to allow them to stay on
their farms and continue growing crops.
"The form has raised eyebrows among officials in the Attorney-
General's office as to its legal status," an unnamed Lands and
Agricultural official is quoted as saying by the paper.
However, this allegation conflicts with a Zimbabwe Independent story in
which some commercial farmers confirmed receiving vague government
letters granting them relief from the Section 8 orders.
The paper quoted one such recipient of the letter saying: "You can read
it 101 ways. I don't really know what it means but I can only say that it
is proof that I have applied to the (Agriculture) Ministry for
permission to continue farming."

ZBC (ZTV, 3FM, 21/06, 8pm and Radio Zimbabwe 22/06, 6am) continued
to pick up stories from The Herald over government's refusal to waive
farmers' eviction orders. In the ZTV bulletin retired brigadier Felix
Muchemwa was quoted demanding tough action against commercial
farmers: "We should not give these people even two days notice, three
days notice. That's irrelevant. Once we have made up our minds we
study a particular farm.and we just move in with our security forces,
take the land and finish." the former Health Minister said.
ZTV did at least ask what the implications such a move might have on
the rule of law. But Muchemwa said: "What is the law? We want our
land full stop. The law is irrelevant in this issue."
ZTV allowed this incitement and disregard for the law to go
unchallenged. His comments were rebroadcast on ZBC radio stations the
next morning (22/06, 6am). Radio Zimbabwe even went on to carry
Muchemwa's comments in its 8pm bulletin, nearly 24 hours after they
were made.
There was also confusion over who exactly had to stop farming by June
24th. SW Radio Africa (18/06) quoted a CFU official saying that according
to the law, anyone who has been served with a Section 8 order should
stop farming by June 24th.
But ZTV quoted Made (21/6, 8pm) saying that the 45-day deadline was
calculated from the day the farmer received the eviction order and that
commercial farmers received their orders on different days.
Both radio stations failed to seek definitive independent clarification on
this issue.