2 HH 359-20 HC 2534/20 On Thursday 21 May 2020 the respondent issued a press statement informing media practitioners about the commencement of the accreditation programme for the year 2020. The statement, among other things, introduced additional categories for the accreditation of media practitioners. In the past the respondent issued only two types of accreditation cards. The one was for local journalists while the other was for foreign journalists. The statement by the respondent informed that owing to concerns of the industry and the fast developments in the digital media, it had decided to issue different accreditation cards for the six listed categories of media practitioners described as follows: “1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Local Journalists: Journalists working for mainstream media registered or licenced by the ZMC and the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) respectively; International Media: Foreign media personnel cleared by the Government through the Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services. Online Media: Media practitioners running online news channels; Content Producers: Media practitioners who produce various media products for online distribution; Photographers: Media practitioners in photography and videography; Productions: Media practitioners in the film sector.” Some members of the media fraternity expressed concern at the proposed new categories, including the concern that they could lead to discrimination of some journalists and media practitioners. In particular, one organization in the media industry, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) engaged the respondent about the new proposals. The engagement did not result in any consensus being reached between the respondent and MISA. However, the respondent issued a statement trying to allay the fears of the media profession. Applicant complains that the proposed accreditation, if not stopped, would interfere with media freedom. Applicant refers to attempts by another organization, MISA-Zimbabwe, to engage the respondent about the proposed accreditation and alleges that the engagement failed to produce results. Applicant further alleges that the respondent has introduced new accreditation categories which would result in violation of s 61 an s 62 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Applicant alleges that the proposed accreditation seeks to introduce four new categories without changing the legal framework. Mr Dhlakama for the respondent submitted that only two new categories are set to be introduced. Nothing turns on this dispute of fact, as the question remains whether the proposed new categories result in contravention of the cited provisions of the