"Plainly, embraced and underscoring the essential nature of freedom of expression, are
statements, opinions and beliefs regarded by the majority as being wrong or false. As the revered
HOLMES J so wisely observed in United States v Schwimmer 279 US 644 (1929) at 654, the fact
that the particular content of a person's speech might "excite popular prejudice" is no reason to
deny it protection for "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for
attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought-not free thought of that we hate."
Mere content, no matter how offensive, cannot be determinative of whether a statement qualifies
for the constitutional protection afforded to freedom of expression."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN8] 2000 Vol. 1 Z.L.R page 552 at 558
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT STATE'S ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS
62. The Respondent State on its part submits that the Complainants have failed to establish a
violation of Article 9 of the Charter, adding that it is misleading to suggest that the MIC is
susceptible to political manipulation and control. According to the Respondent State, the
operations of the MIC are controlled and managed by a Board which consists of no fewer than
five members and more than seven members of whom at least three shall be nominated by an
association of journalists and an association of media houses. The Respondent State submits that
the Complainants' suggestion that the registration process is prejudicial to them is baseless as
there are other independent journalists who have been registered even though their work is critical
of the government.
63. It is incorrect, the Respondent State argues, to suggest that Section 80 of the AIPPA
unreasonably restricts the right to freedom of expression and dissemination of information.
According to the Respondent State, Section 80 restricts not all falsehoods, but only those that are
willfully published and that are likely to injure the public interest. In the opinion of the
Respondent State, such restrictions are reasonably necessary and cannot be held to be excessively
invasive of the enjoyment of the guaranteed right.
64. On the allegation that the AIPPA seeks to regulate the media, the Respondent State submits
that the Constitutional Court has already held that accreditation of journalists and the licensing of
electronic media is constitutional as long as the requirements for such accreditation and licensing
are not onerous.[FN9] The Respondent State also made reference to the Provisions of Article 19
of the ICCPR and Article 9 of the African Charter to the effect that the right is subject to
regulation by law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN9] The State in this regard makes references to the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe
(Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of State for Information and Publicity and 2 others SC-111-04,
Association of Independent Journalists and Others v The Minister of State for Information and
Publicity and 2 Others SC-136-02, and Capital Radio (Pvt) Ltd v Broadcasting Authority of
Zimbabwe and Others SC-128-02.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------65. In response to the Complainants' submission that journalists should not be regulated by statute
but should be self-regulating, the Respondent State submits that this amounts to no regulation,
and goes beyond what is permissible, adding that regulation of the media including licensing of