The Sunday Mail
There is an advertisement that is frequently aired on all four of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation’s radio stations. The commercial urges radio and television owners/possessors in Zimbabwe to buy a listener’s licence for these gadgets and warns that it is an offence to own or possess a radio or television set without the licence.
From a historical perspective, one could not purchase a television set or radio without first producing a listener’s licence. That was the law in force at that time and it was enforced.
Although the law is still the same from back then, however in reality today, things are no longer quite alike. The authorities seem to no longer care whether one is a holder of a listener’s licence upon acquiring a television set or radio. Purchasing a television set or a radio is now as easy as buying a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes. There are no longer any prior formalities required.
ZBC inspectors demand to see radio licences from motorists
The attitude by the authorities is now to allow anyone to acquire a radio/television set and then follow up that person for him to pay for the licence. What is distressing is the manner in which the follow-ups are conducted.
Motorists are the biggest victims in that almost on a daily basis, they come across police check points that are also manned by ZBC licence inspectors who demand that the licence fees be paid on the spot.
In the old days, the ZBC was justified or entitled to demand the listener’s licence fees because it held a monopoly in broadcasting in Zimbabwe.
If a business entity wished to advertise its products or services on air, it had no choice except to approach one of the stations in the ZBC stable. The advertiser was limited to the then Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3 or Radio 4.
This is unlike what obtains today where, apart from the mentioned stations which are now known by other names being Spot FM, Radio Zimbabwe, Power FM and National FM respectively, we also now have ZiFM and Star FM.
In addition, there are now what are called community radio stations that are based in the country’s provinces but they do not broadcast nationally. In short, listeners and advertisers are now spoilt for choice.
Also, in the gone-by days, there was no internet, no cellular phones, laptops, Ipads, solar lamps that are coupled with a radio and who knows what else, all of which now enable the possessor to tune into any radio station in and outside the country.
Logically speaking, therefore, if the law requires that the possessor of a listening device, the receiver, ought to have a listener’s licence then I bet that the great majority of Zimbabweans from those in the upper echelons of society to the sandwich boys are running foul of the law in that they have all these listening devices and yet they do not hold the requisite listener’s licences if we are to go by what the law says.
I seek to scrutinise the law applicable to the listener’s licences with a view to examining whether the demand by the ZBC for the listener’s licence fees is still justifiable after the air waves were “opened up”.
Put differently, the question is whether it is still tenable for ZBC to continue to collect listener’s licence fees when there are other broadcasters because as I understand it, after collecting the fees, ZBC does not then share them with the other broadcasters.
This is odd and inexplicable because it is true that not everyone tunes into ZBC’s stations in the same way that not all of us tune into the so-called independent radio stations.
In fact, the Broadcasting Services Act in Section 38c says: “Licence fees referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 38b, less such amounts as may be payable for the services of the agents of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 38b, shall be paid into the general funds of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation for the use of the corporation.”
The matter might have assumed a different colour altogether if the licence fees were being collected by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe in its capacity as the chief superintendent of the broadcasting services sector in Zimbabwe rather than a player in the industry.
This is scandalous and mischievous to say the very least, no wonder some in our country have sought through the courts, for the redress of this point.
The other question that must find an answer is if the law as it is laid down is still serving its purpose in view of how the world has evolved in these last 20 or so years.
It seems to me that our law relating to this matter has remained stuck in the past to the extent that it is now difficult to comprehend in light of the developments in technology and how that has impacted on the world at large.
I, therefore, contend that the law relating to the licencing of owners or possessors of radios and television sets is now out of tune with the present day needs of the people it is supposed to serve.
It is now archaic and antiquated. In this respect, I cannot but quote the words of the former Chief Justice Antony Gubbay while addressing a similar situation in the case of Zimnat Insurance Company Limited v Chawanda 1990 (2) ZLR 143 where he said: “. . . Law in a developing country cannot afford to remain static. It must undoubtedly be stable, for otherwise reliance upon it would be rendered impossible. But at the same time, if the law is to be a living force, it must be dynamic and accommodating to change.
“It must adapt itself to fluid economic and social norms and values and to the altering views of justice. If it fails to respond to these needs and is not based on human necessities and experience of actual affairs of men rather than on philosophical notions, it will one day be cast off by the people because it will cease to serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the law must constantly be on the move, vigilant and flexible to current economic and social conditions.”
Another angle from which to look at this issue is to wonder if by insisting on licencing all persons who own or possess a a radio, TV, cellular phone and the like, is the law not impinging on the people’s right to receive information unhindered, which itself would be a breach of our Constitution?
For example, if the President wishes to make an important announcement to Zimbabweans via a broadcast service, it means it is only those with the listener’s licences who will legally be entitled to receive such information.
In my view, such a situation is both illogical and untenable. It is time that the law in question is retired and in its place, one that is in congruent with the realities of our times put.
Tichawana Nyahuma is a legal practitioner who writes in his personal capacity. Feedback: [email protected]
