The recent detention of Zimbabwean journalist Blessed Mhlanga by law enforcement, without due legal process, raises serious concerns. At a minimum, this can be viewed as an unlawful arrest, but at its worst, it could be described as a state-sanctioned abduction.
By definition, abduction involves forcibly or deceptively taking someone against their will—circumstances that appear to align with Mhlanga’s case. He was taken by force under dubious charges that do not seem to hold any legal merit. It is essential to recognize that a journalist conducting an interview is not liable for the opinions expressed by their interviewee.
Furthermore, Mhlanga is not an independent journalist nor the owner of the media house in question. As an employee acting within the scope of his duties, the principle of vicarious liability comes into play, meaning any alleged wrongdoing should be attributed to the organization, not the individual journalist. This raises an important question: are the media house’s executives or content approvers facing similar charges? If not, then the legal grounds for Mhlanga’s arrest appear highly questionable.
Additionally, arresting a journalist for an interviewee’s statements suggests a disregard for the rule of law. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle, and it does not logically follow that a journalist should be arrested simply because their guest made controversial remarks. Before considering whether Mhlanga bears any legal responsibility, a court must first determine whether the interviewee’s statements were even criminal in nature. If no such ruling has been made, then any proceedings against the journalist are premature and legally unsound.
The use of state power to detain Mhlanga under the guise of an arrest does not change the nature of the act—it remains an abduction. Labeling it as an “arrest” only serves to legitimize what is, in reality, an intimidation tactic against the press. Journalism is not a crime, and such actions amount to suppression of press freedom.
The state’s argument against granting Mhlanga bail further exposes the weaknesses in its case. Authorities claimed he could not be released because the equipment used in his work had not been seized, implying he might repeat the alleged offense. However, the equipment in question does not belong to him but to his employer. If preventing access to the equipment was truly the concern, restrictions could have been placed on the company instead.
Moreover, the claim that Mhlanga could interfere with witnesses who are his junior colleagues only reinforces the fact that he was acting in his professional capacity. If any liability exists, it would fall on the media house, not an individual employee.
This case appears to be a clear instance of targeted prosecution intended to instill fear in journalists. The arrest of Blessed Mhlanga sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom in Zimbabwe. State-facilitated abductions under the guise of law enforcement must be condemned.
Justice for Blessed Mhlanga! Press freedom is not a crime.
ALSO READ :Â Tungwarara Lauds Welfare Fund Launch Success; Veterans Prepare for Mnangagwa Engagement
Source-NewZimbabwe.com
For comments, Feedback and Opinions do get in touch with our editor on WhatsApp: +44 7949 297606 or Email: editor@thezimbabwetimes.co.zw.
