By Staff Reporter
HARARE — Legal expert Fadzayi Mahere and media advocate Mlondolozi Ndlovu have challenged local government permanent secretary Tafadzwa Muguti’s proposed ban on filming traditional courts, saying the restrictions conflict with existing laws.
Muguti said mobile phones should be banned from chiefs’ courts because recording proceedings could compromise confidentiality and discourage people from attending hearings.
He also revealed plans to amend the Traditional Leaders Act to introduce disciplinary structures within the National Chiefs’ Council.
“We should not be allowing cellphones to the chiefs’ courts. These cases are ruled in confidentiality.
“The moment you start filming these issues people no longer want to attend the traditional courts,” Muguti said.
“Why are we now recording trying to be celebrities, with the fixation that there is particular chief who is good with customary rulings and speaks vulgar during his proceedings.
“Because of that we now are actively facilitating the amendments for the Traditional Leaders Act. There is one fundamental aspect missing in the Traditional Leaders Act that is the issue of the National Disciplinary structures.
“Currently the structures of the national Disciplinary are sitting outside the National Chiefs’ Council that should not be the case,” he added.
However, Mahere said Muguti had no constitutional or statutory authority to control chiefs in the exercise of their duties.
“In terms of section 282(3) of the Constitution, traditional leaders are not subject to the control of any person or authority, including that of Mr Muguti.
“The permanent secretary has no power under the Constitution or the under the Traditional Leaders Act [Cap 29:17] to discipline chiefs.
“The attempt by the permanent secretary to “discipline”, bully or superintend over the work of chiefs is unconstitutional and unlawful,” said Mahere.
She also cited section 20 of the Customary Law and Local Courts Act Chapter 7:05, arguing that the law gives presiding chiefs discretion over the conduct of proceedings and expressly provides under subsection (3) that all cases are heard in open court.
Mahere added: “In any event, the offense he latches onto does not exist at law.”
“The procedure in local courts is governed by section 20 of the Customary Law and Local Courts Act [Cap 7:05].
“This section gives a chief wide discretion to conduct proceedings in the manner they deem best suited to do substantial justice between the parties.
“Section 20(3) of the same law expressly provides that all cases are heard in open court,” Mahere said.
Ndlovu, who chairs Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Harare advocacy committee, said the legality of the proposed restrictions depended on existing legislation rather than Muguti’s public pronouncements.
“First of all these proceedings are governed by law, it is not Muguti’s prerogative to ban these as he often does.
“What matters is the position of the law espoused under the Customary Law and Local Courts Act rather than a mere pronouncement,” Ndlovu said.
He said filming traditional court proceedings could help preserve cultural practices, promote understanding of Zimbabwe’s diverse traditions and strengthen national cohesion.
“Filming traditional leaders’ court proceedings promotes media coverage that brings communities together and celebrates our diverse ethnic cultures, values and traditions, thereby contributing to national cohesion.
“The onus is now on the Zimbabwe Media Commission to engage Muguti over this media infringement, which is both illegal and detrimental to our societal values as a nation.
“This purported ban on the filming of chiefs’ court sessions is ill conceived and will erode the preservation of our culture and heritage as a nation,” Ndlovu said.
