Zimbabwe: STATE TRIAL OF JOURNALIST LIKELY TO HIT A BRICKWALL
The trial of the Guardian Zimbabwe correspondent Andrew Meldrum is likely to hit a brick wall as the state faces the dilemma of proving whether Meldrum published the story in Zimbabwe or not as the article in contention was downloaded from the internet. The defence in the case has amounted the trial to an attempt by the Zimbabwe government to inflict its repressive media laws on the rest of the world. The dilemma that the state finds itself in is based on the fact that the Guardian newspaper is unavailable in Zimbabwe, but the prosecution insists that its criminal courts have jurisdiction over editors and journalists abroad whenever their "falsehoods" are downloaded by intelligence officers who surf the net looking for "law breakers."
ALERT UPDATE
>
> 17 JUNE 2002
>
> STATE TRIAL OF JOURNALIST LIKELY TO HIT A BRICKWALL
>
> The trial of the Guardian Zimbabwe correspondent Andrew Meldrum is likely
to
> hit a brick wall as the state faces the dilemma of proving whether Meldrum
> published the story in Zimbabwe or not as the article in contention was
> downloaded from the internet. The defence in the case, has amounted the
> trial to an attempt by the Zimbabwe government to inflict its repressive
> media laws on the rest of the world
> Then dilemma that the state finds itself in is based on the fact that the
> Guardian newspaper is unavailable in Zimbabwe, but the prosecution insists
> that its criminal courts have jurisdiction over editors and journalists
> abroad whenever their "falsehoods" are downloaded by intelligence officers
> who surf the net looking for "law breakers."
> The prosecution contends that the crime is one of strict liability - i.e.
> that the journalist is guilty if the allegation reported turns out to be
> false, however credible or newsworthy it was at the time of publication.
> The magistrate in the Meldrum case, Godfrey Macheyo, must decide the
crucial
> question of where the website story is published in London, where it was
> uploaded on to the Guardian Unlimited web server, or in Harare, where
> Sergeant Blessmore Chishaka downloaded it last month.
> If the crime of false publication was committed in London, the Zimbabwe
> court should have no jurisdiction. But if committed on downloading in
> Zimbabwe, the court would have jurisdiction to punish not only Meldrum but
> also the editor of the Guardian and anyone else responsible for the
> uploading. Last week the prosecution, which likens the World Wide Web to
> television broadcasting, sought to demonstrate how Guardian Unlimited is
> published in Zimbabwe. The court moved to the business centre at the
> Sheraton Hotel where Sergeant Chishaka quickly accessed Guardian Unlimited
> and called up every article written by Andrew Meldrum - except the
offending
> piece.
> "Possibly it has been deleted," he concluded.
>
> The case resumes on Monday 17 June, with the prosecution relying on a copy
> of the web page downloaded last month. Beatrice Mtetwa, Meldrum's lawyer
> argued last week that the printout that was produced by the state is
> different from the one that was produced at the initial hearing of her
> client on May 2 and therefore did not constitute "admissible evidence" The
> prosecutor, Thabani Mpofu insisted that the document was admissible in
terms
> of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. Mtetwa countered by saying
that
> the document was produced on a site that is neither owned by Meldrum or
one
> he has control of. Mtetwa added that that if the court is to accept the
> document as evidence then the prosecution must demonstrate its originality
> by leading evidence which shows how the document was edited and fed on the
> website. Mpofu however argued that, what was the center of the trail was
> the story not websites and the Internet. The defence proposes to produce
> expert evidence to explain the difference between "push" technologies like
> broadcasting which transmit or direct information to particular areas and
> the "pull" technology of the world wide web, by which information reaches
> Zimbabwe only as a result of an electronic message sent from that
> jurisdiction which pulls the copy off the web server in London - the place
> where, as a matter of common sense, it is made available to the public.
The
> Meldrum case is the first to assert local criminal jurisdiction over
foreign
> web postings.
> MISA-Zimbabwe believes that the prosecution of Meldrum may prove an "own
> goal" for the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The
> government claims that its laws are of concern only to Zimbabwe and that
> they provide no warrant for the international community to interfere in
the
> countries internal affairs. But by giving these laws extraterritorial
> effect, asserting jurisdiction over web publishers wherever they may be
> located, Zimbabwe's laws are attacking freedom of speech abroad as well as
> at home. Even on the theory of national sovereignty, this would entitle
> other countries to take action against Zimbabwe to protect the freedom of
> speech of their own citizens.
> END