ZMC Face Backlash Over Lax Oversight & Weal Regulation

By Shingirai Vambe

Harare-The Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC), a constitutionally established body tasked with safeguarding press freedom and regulating the media industry, is facing mounting scrutiny over its handling of accreditation, regulatory oversight, and industry reform. Established under the Zimbabwe Media Commission Act [Chapter 10:35] and gazetted on 2 April 2021, the Commission was meant to entrench democratic values, protect the integrity of journalism, and ensure compliance with the country’s media laws.

Under the 2013 Constitution, ZMC’s existence is anchored in Sections 61, 248, and 249. Section 61 enshrines the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, while Sections 248 and 249 define the Commission’s establishment, composition, and core functions. In addition to these constitutional provisions, Section 4 of the ZMC Act grants the Commission further responsibilities — including monitoring compliance with laws regulating media services, enforcing international treaties on media rights, and collaborating with other constitutional bodies to uphold human rights and democracy.

Yet despite these clear legal mandates, there has been an erosion of public trust in the ZMC’s ability, and willingness, to uphold the dignity and standards of the profession it regulates.

Central to the criticism is the controversial issuance of press cards. Intended to be a professional license for bona fide journalists, these credentials have reportedly found their way into the hands of individuals with no ties to journalism, including political activists, partisan social media commentators, and alleged operatives. In one telling example, a press card was issued to an individual identified only as a “freelance journalist” with the label Varakashi, a term associated with a partisan online propaganda movement.

Such cases have fueled perceptions that accreditation is being used not as a gatekeeping measure for professional integrity, but as a political tool, undermining the credibility of the press corps and blurring the lines between independent journalism and partisan activism.

The situation reached another low point when state media recently reported the arrest of a so-called “freelance journalist” for robbery, a name unknown in any newsroom and with no published work to his credit. Among professional journalists, the outrage was palpable; if anyone can obtain a press card without verifiable credentials, what does accreditation even mean?

In a recent incident in Rusape, this publication came face-to-face with the abuse of media accreditation. A man clad in a press jacket was seen conducting personal business entirely unrelated to journalism. When questioned, he produced a 2025 accreditation card marked “Freelance” but could not name any media house or outlet he represented. He failed to present a single story or piece of work to demonstrate his involvement in the industry, merely stating that “our offices are in Borrowdale” without being able to pinpoint the location.

Compounding the crisis is the explosion of unregistered online publications. While some have emerged as legitimate, independent voices, others have been accused of peddling misinformation, engaging in political propaganda, or using their platforms for extortion. Industry veterans warn that the unchecked proliferation of such outlets threatens not only public trust in journalism but also the sustainability of established newsrooms.

Instead of decisive intervention, critics say, the Commission has appeared lethargic, failing to outline clear policies to integrate new digital media realities into its regulatory framework or protect the livelihoods of accredited practitioners struggling with dwindling advertising revenues.

Attempts to obtain answers from ZMC Chairperson, Prof Ruby Magosvongwe were unsuccessful. This publication sent the Commission a series of pointed questions, including:

1. How many new registrations of media houses and journalists have been conducted since 2018?

2. Has there been an increase or decrease in revenue collection for the Commission in recent years?

3. What plans exist to deal with unregistered online outlets that are operating outside ZMC’s rules?

4. How is the Commission safeguarding existing newsrooms and professional journalists from these unregulated players?

5. Given the current economic climate, are the accreditation and licensing fees set at a level that encourages compliance?

6. What role should all stakeholders, including the media itself, play in strengthening industry standards and protecting the profession?

7. How does ZMC justify issuing freelance accreditation to individuals with no journalistic experience or track record?

No response was received by the time of publication.

The ZMC was envisioned as a guardian of press freedom and an impartial regulator, a bulwark against state interference and a champion of journalistic ethics. But in the absence of transparency, robust enforcement, and a clear strategy for the digital era, it risks becoming another institution eroded by politicization and public disillusionment.

Media analysts warn that without urgent reforms, the Commission may find itself irrelevant in a rapidly changing media landscape where professional standards are already under siege. For many in the industry, restoring credibility will require more than press statements, it will demand a complete overhaul of accreditation processes, stronger enforcement against unregistered players, and a renewed commitment to the principles set out in the Constitution.

Until then, the gap between the law and reality will continue to widen, and with it, the public’s trust in both the media and the body meant to protect it.

About The Author