OPINION – Zimbabweans must never be forced to fund ZANU-PF propaganda through coerced ZBC licences

In a nation long plagued by restricted media freedoms and government dominance of public discourse, Zimbabwe’s newly enacted Broadcasting Services Amendment Act has once again stirred deep concerns about the erosion of constitutional rights.

Among its most controversial provisions is the legal requirement that motorists must obtain a Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) radio licence before they are allowed to purchase a vehicle licence from the Zimbabwe National Road Authority (ZINARA).

This policy effectively weaponizes access to public services, forcing citizens to financially support a public broadcaster that has repeatedly failed to meet its constitutional obligations of impartiality, fairness, and diversity of views.

This requirement is not just administratively inconvenient; it is constitutionally suspect.

• If you believe in Tendai Ruben Mbofana’s fight for justice in Zimbabwe, please consider supporting his work financially. Every contribution helps him keep going, independently and fearlessly. 

It coerces citizens into paying for a service—ZBC programming—that they may neither consume nor approve of.

More importantly, it compels financial support for a state-controlled institution that has, over the years, devolved into a propaganda arm of the ruling ZANU-PF party.

This undermines the fundamental rights enshrined in Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution, particularly freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and access to impartial information.

The Constitution, under Section 61, guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of expression and the freedom “to seek, receive and communicate ideas and other information.”

It further mandates that state-owned media provide “fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.”

Yet, ZBC has consistently violated these provisions.

Whether during elections or in day-to-day reporting, the broadcaster has shown a glaring bias in favor of the ruling establishment.

The opposition is often vilified, dissenting voices are silenced, and national crises are downplayed to maintain the illusion of government competence.

In such a context, compelling citizens to fund this institution through licence fees—under the threat of being denied vehicle registration—amounts to coerced ideological conformity and forced association.

It is especially tragic that ZBC’s descent into irrelevance and propaganda was not always its destiny.

For many of us who grew up in the 1980s and 90s, both ZBC radio and television were cherished parts of family life.

The programming was exceptional—entertaining, informative, and genuinely captivating.

Families gathered around the radio and television not out of obligation, but out of genuine enthusiasm.

Programs like The Nation and The Rendezvous were not just popular—they were platforms where ideas were freely exchanged and where critical voices were heard.

While there were already allegations of political bias, including ZBC’s silence during the Gukurahundi genocide, the broadcaster still allowed space for dissent and robust political engagement.

Prominent critics of government policy were not vilified or excluded; rather, they were invited to speak.

Figures such as Morgan Tsvangirai, then a fiery labour leader, academics like Shadrack Gutto, John Makumbe, and Ibbo Mandaza, and student leaders like Arthur Mutambara and Enock Chikweche (now known as Munyaradzi Gwisai), were regular features on national television.

These were voices that challenged the status quo—and they were heard.

Even respected journalists such as the late Bornwell Chakaodza were brought in as part of interviewing panels, grilling senior government officials without fear or favour.

There was a spirit of intellectual engagement, of principled debate, and of journalistic professionalism.

That spirit was systematically dismantled at the turn of the millennium, as ZANU-PF faced its first serious political threat since independence with the rise of a strong opposition.

The appointment of Professor Jonathan Moyo as Minister of Information marked a turning point. The state took a hard stance on media, and ZBC was swiftly turned into a full-fledged propaganda machine.

Government failures were no longer openly discussed.

Opposition voices were systematically purged from programming.

Dissent was suppressed.

The broadcaster’s reputation collapsed—and with it, its viewership and listenership.

Zimbabweans began tuning out in droves, turning instead to free-to-air satellite television and, eventually, DStv.

Even today, very few Zimbabweans watch or listen to ZBC unless they are left with no alternative.

And yet, the state insists they must fund it.

The broadcaster lost its audience not because Zimbabweans abandoned national identity or became unpatriotic, but because ZBC abandoned them first.

It alienated its listeners and viewers by trading diversity for dogma, credibility for control, and excellence for obedience.

Forcing citizens to pay for a service they no longer consume or trust only adds insult to injury.

If the government and ZBC genuinely want a return to the broadcaster’s former glory—and a voluntary, willing pool of licence payers—then they must begin by seriously restructuring programming.

That is where the restoration must start.

Zimbabweans have never resisted paying for quality; they simply resent being coerced into funding partisan propaganda.

Fix the programming, restore professionalism and fairness, and Zimbabweans will once again be proud to pay for ZBC services—voluntarily.

What makes this policy even more indefensible is that it adds to an already existing law that obliges owners of radio and television receivers to purchase a listener’s or viewer’s licence from ZBC.

This decades-old regulation, inherited from colonial broadcasting systems, is not only outdated in the digital age but also unjustifiable given the broadcaster’s partisan nature.

In today’s world, citizens access content through the internet, satellite, and mobile platforms—much of it freely and independently produced.

The rationale for tying licence fees to the physical possession of a radio or television is now obsolete.

It presumes that the mere ownership of such devices implies consumption of ZBC content, which is clearly no longer the case.

Citizens are not just being asked to fund public broadcasting—they are being forced to fund a very specific, ideologically aligned broadcaster that fails to reflect the diversity of the nation’s political and social landscape.

To make ownership of basic household devices conditional upon paying fees to a biased state broadcaster is, at its core, a form of punitive taxation disguised as a licensing scheme.

So, what can Zimbabweans do?

The Constitution provides several avenues for redress.

Affected citizens—whether motorists or ordinary viewers and listeners—can launch a constitutional challenge in the courts.

Such a challenge would be well-founded on the basis of Sections 61 and 62 (freedom of expression and access to information), Section 68 (administrative justice), and Section 71 (protection of property).

Strategic litigation spearheaded by civil society organizations or human rights lawyers could test the legality of these provisions and force the government to justify whether such coercion is “reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society,” as required under Section 86 of the Constitution.

However, it is important to note that the Constitutional Court has previously upheld the legality of compulsory ZBC licence fees.

In a 2016 ruling, the court dismissed a challenge brought by Bernard Wekare and Musangano Lodge, who had argued that paying for ZBC services was unconstitutional, particularly in light of the broadcaster’s poor content quality and lack of editorial independence.

The court ruled that the licence fees were a lawful tax imposed by Parliament, and that the misuse or perceived bias of ZBC programming was not sufficient grounds to invalidate the statute.

This judgment underscores the difficulty of challenging the licensing regime solely on the broadcaster’s performance or content quality.

Nonetheless, this ruling does not completely shut the door on future legal challenges—especially if they target new coercive measures, such as the linkage of licence fees to access to unrelated public services like ZINARA vehicle registration.

A fresh constitutional application could focus on the disproportionate nature of such enforcement mechanisms, and whether they violate citizens’ freedom of choice, administrative justice, and property rights in ways that were not contemplated in the earlier case.

Strategic litigation, if grounded in these broader constitutional principles, may still succeed in restoring fairness and voluntarism in public media funding.

It is also within the rights of Zimbabwean citizens to approach the courts to compel ZBC to fulfill its constitutional obligations in its programming.

Section 61 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and access to information, while clearly mandating that all state-owned media must be impartial, provide fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions, and serve the public interest.

When ZBC operates as a partisan mouthpiece for the ruling ZANU-PF party—failing to cover opposition parties fairly or to reflect the diversity of Zimbabwean voices—it violates these foundational principles.

In fact, in the 2016 Constitutional Court case Majome v ZBC & Others, the court affirmed that aggrieved citizens are entitled to take legal action to enforce ZBC’s constitutional duties.

This means that viewers, political parties, or civic groups can petition the courts for a declaratory order or a mandamus compelling ZBC to reform its content and practices in line with the Constitution.

Such litigation could be a powerful tool for restoring public trust in the national broadcaster and re-establishing its role as a platform for inclusive, balanced, and professional public discourse.

In the interim, citizens may also explore legal forms of non-compliance.

Just as some have chosen to disconnect from ZBC entirely—removing antennas or opting exclusively for internet-based streaming services—motorists could challenge the radio licence requirement by requesting exemptions or lobbying ZINARA through organized platforms such as transport associations and consumer rights groups.

Public campaigns and petitions can also exert pressure, especially if amplified by the courts, and the media.

International comparisons offer valuable lessons.

In South Africa, for example, the public broadcaster SABC also requires licence fees, but it is under increasing pressure to reform, especially after widespread public criticism of bias and mismanagement.

In 2023, the South African government proposed scrapping traditional TV licences altogether in favor of a household tax to reflect modern content consumption habits.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the BBC licence fee is hotly debated and carefully scrutinized, with robust mechanisms to ensure editorial independence and fair representation.

Crucially, these countries allow for a more open and transparent discussion about public broadcasting, and their public media entities are legally required to demonstrate impartiality and accountability.

In Germany, public broadcasting is funded through a household fee, but the system is managed independently of government interference, and content reflects a wide range of political and social perspectives.

Citizens are not coerced into ideological alignment, and there is strong judicial oversight to ensure that public broadcasting remains a tool for inclusion, not exclusion.

In conclusion, the Broadcasting Services Amendment Act, and the longstanding requirement for listener and viewer licence fees, represent an affront to Zimbabwe’s constitutional promise of freedom, fairness, and equality.

They reinforce a broadcasting model that is not only outdated but also undemocratic.

It is time for citizens, civil society, and legal practitioners to push back—through the courts, through public advocacy, and through informed resistance.

The people of Zimbabwe deserve a public broadcaster that earns their trust and reflects their voices—not one they are forced to fund under threat of exclusion.

The Constitution demands no less.

At the same time, responsibility rests squarely with the government and ZBC to initiate genuine reforms that align with constitutional standards and democratic expectations.

The government must repeal or amend any laws and policies that compel citizens to pay for ZBC licences as a condition for accessing unrelated public services such as vehicle registration.

Any funding model for public broadcasting must be transparent, fair, and not coercive.

The state must also respect the independence of media regulators and ensure that appointments to such bodies are made in an open, merit-based, and non-partisan manner.

ZBC, for its part, must reinvent itself into a truly public broadcaster.

That means institutionalizing editorial independence, training journalists in ethical and balanced reporting, and opening up its platforms to all political voices and civil society perspectives.

It must break free from its legacy of partisan loyalty and embrace its constitutional mandate to inform, educate, and entertain without bias.

Public trust is earned, not extracted.

If ZBC wants to survive and thrive in a competitive, digital information landscape, it must offer compelling, credible, and inclusive content that citizens actually choose to support—rather than being forced to fund under duress.

Reforming ZBC and the laws that support its dominance is not just about broadcasting.

It is about restoring dignity to the citizen, reinforcing constitutionalism, and building a democratic Zimbabwe where state institutions exist to serve the people—not the ruling elite.

That is the media Zimbabwe needs.

That is the country Zimbabweans deserve.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/