Dear Star FM
Firstly, I seek your indulgence in writing this letter of complaint to you as an open letter.
Rights: MIRIAM TOSE MAJOME
I would not have done so ordinarily, but the circumstances of the matter compel it.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is an official complaint made in terms of section 40 of the Broadcasting Services Act Chapter 12:06.
You may respond likewise if you wish to explain and acquit yourselves publicly, as you have a guaranteed right of reply, which I fully respect.
However, note that formal channels will still be followed in lodging this complaint, so please familiarise yourself with the relevant provisions.
The subject matter transpired out in the public, so there are no confidences that stand to be breached and, hence, no prejudice will befall any party least of all yourselves.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Opening the letter will hopefully educate and help victims, who may have been abused by yourselves and other broadcasters in a similar manner.
I refer more specifically to a woman referred to as “Prophetess”, whose dignity and rights you so flagrantly violated live on air.
My hope is that somehow this woman and others like her may know that there are remedies available to them if ever they are brutalised and demeaned at the hand of broadcasters.
Nobody, no matter their real or imagined crimes or sins, ever has to be treated with indignity.
Nobody ever has to suffer in shamed silence, but should take consolation in the knowledge that no matter the circumstances or their moral blameworthiness, they still have rights.
For the record, I do not personally know the woman victim of whom I am writing.
I am just an incensed sympathiser and radio listener and I know no other way of reaching out to her and others.
It is not for me to say whether the abuse you visited upon this woman on that fateful day was intentional or whether it was merely out of poor programming standards or poor personal judgment or sheer ignorance of the law.
The incident is briefly narrated as follows.
It has also been captured in an audio clip, which is currently viral on various social media platforms.
Sometime this year, during a live radio broadcast show, your presenter Davies Mugadza telephoned a woman, whom he referred to as Prophetess.
Openly deceitful, he purported to be a benefactor of sorts and told the woman that she had ostensibly won a holiday trip in some competition.
He then asked her whom she would take on the holiday trip.
She gave the name of a man and upon his further prompting, she said the man was the love of her life.
Soon, thereafter, the presenter revealed his identity and told her that she was live on Star FM and that the whole thing was just a ruse.
Given her response, thereafter, it became somewhat apparent to the listener that the woman might be a married woman and that the name she had given as her holiday companion was not her husband’s.
The live broadcast telephone call had been a trap intended to expose her alleged infidelity by shaming and humiliating her publicly on live radio.
Immediately on realising the entrapment, the woman panicked, and like a poor frightened trapped deer, tried in pitiful desperation to rescind the conversation.
However, it was too late and in vain, as the presenter crowed about victoriously and chiding her in indignant self-righteousness.
He chuckled mercilessly enjoying her misery and shame immensely and gleefully.
His joy was complete satisfied that he had “nailed” her live on air in front of the entire nation and indeed the world.
The radio programme’s mission was well and truly accomplished.
The cheating woman had been trapped, caught and exposed and thoroughly humiliated.
For him, it was just another successful and fun day at the office, but for the woman, it was obviously the beginning of the end of her life as she knew it.
Legal issues
I now venture to discuss the legalities of the matter.
I put it to you that your presenter’s conduct was abusive, illegal, malicious and most of all criminal.
He really ought to be arrested and criminal charges proffered against him and all other staffers and managers, who sanctioned the programme.
You are in breach of the Broadcasting Services Act under which you fall and subscribe to.
As a broadcaster, you are supposed to act within the bounds of responsible broadcasting at all times and adhere to the recommended code of conduct and ethics.
Such kind of gutter journalism is unbecoming of a national broadcaster, as it falls foul of the law and public decency.
You have no entitlement or right whatsoever to subject any human being to such degrading treatment and humiliation.
Even the woman’s husband would have had no such right to humiliate and degrade her even if he had caught her in flagrante delicto.
He would still be bound to act lawfully by using any one of the available legal remedies, such as divorce and adultery damages.
I will now address in detail the exact provisions in which Star FM is culpable and liable for civil and criminal sanctions arising out of your presenter’s misdemeanour.
In one fell swoop, he contravened sections 51, 53, 57(d) and 61(c) and (d) of the Constitution, as well as the Broadcasting Services Act Chapter 12:06 and the Post and Telecommunications Act Chapter 12:05.
Under section 51 of the Constitution, every human being is accorded the right to human dignity stating that; every person has an inherent dignity in their private and public life and the right to have that dignity respected and protected.
Your presenter failed or neglected to observe the inherent dignity of the woman by purposefully and maliciously exposing her to shame and ridicule.
There are no exceptions at all and this right applies to everyone including unfaithful wives.
Section 53 goes further to accord everyone the right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Section 57(d) provides that every person has the right to privacy and this includes the right not have private communications infringed.
This was certainly the case as the woman’s private communications were infringed through broadcasting them without her consent.
Section 61 is pertinent to your purposes as it accords you, as a broadcaster, freedom of expression and freedom of the media.
All media outlets are free to express themselves, as they may want and are licensed to.
However, section 61(5) c and d qualifies that freedom specifying that: Freedom of expression and freedom of the media exclude malicious injury to a person’s reputation or dignity and malicious or unwarranted breach of a person’s right to privacy.
The woman you telephoned and exposed had and has a right to privacy no matter her sins real, imagined or exaggerated.
Star FM and its employees, particularly Mugadza, no matter how self-righteous they may feel, are not Zimbabwe’s moral police force.
You, therefore, had no right to infringe this woman’s dignity and privacy no matter what you may have suspected her of doing.
No matter how entitled or justified people may deem themselves, it is expressly forbidden to infringe the communications of other people section 57(d).
Offences related to communications are found in Part XI of the Postal and Telecommunications Chapter 12:05.
They are to be read in conjunction with section 57(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of privacy to every person in this country.
In terms of the Act, it is a criminal offence to snoop in on peoples’ private telephone conversations.
Star FM had the gall of enjoining all its listeners into the crime it was committing, thereby, making accomplices of each and every listener tuned in.
Further, section 88(b) of the Telecommunications Act states that any person, who sends by telephone, any message that he knows to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to any other person is guilty of a criminal offence.
Your blameworthiness is compounded by the fact that your presenter is the one who telephoned her with the sole purpose of tricking her and invading her privacy merely to taunt her and cause her anguish.
So, spitefully, he tricked her into divulging the most intimate details about her private life and live on air for that matter.
Under section 88(c), people are forbidden from making a telephone call or series or combination of calls without reasonable cause for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety.
Crank calls, such as that particular call, fall under this category.
These types of nuisance calls are criminal offences and criminal offenders should be reported to the police.
Criminal charges can be laid against companies and organisations as much as against individuals.
The police will arrest the directors or managers involved in perpetrating or facilitating crimes.
I would have gone into the specific provisions of the Broadcasting Act, but for space constraints and my point has been made.
You are requested to forthwith desist from airing such shows as no good can come out of them.
Peoples’ personal lives are private and are not for public consumption.
You are urged to keep a tight control on programming standards and educate your staff about basic broadcasting laws and ethics.
At all times, radio presenters should act within lawful and socially appropriate parameters.
As public broadcasters, their ignorance, malice and criminal conduct are always on public display so they simply must behave well while on air.
I look forward to your response within the stipulated 14 days.
Miriam Tose Majome is a lawyer and a teacher. She can be contacted on [email protected]
