No one is above criticism, including the media which itself is in the business of criticism.

This week, there was an episode touching nearer home. Publishing firm Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) were ordered to pay Geoff Nyarota, the former editor of the Daily News, ANZ’s flagship, US$90 921 as damages for unlawful termination of employment.

The background to this is that in 2009, ANZ allegedly entered into an employment contract with Nyarota, who had located to the United States after being relieved of the editorship of the Daily News in 2001 or so, and paid for his relocation back to Zimbabwe in preparation for the relaunch of the Daily News. A few months into the deal, ANZ unilaterally terminated the contract. Nyarota then took legal action. Last August, an arbitrator found that although there was no written contract of employment between the parties, Nyarota had been effectively employed by ANZ and that the termination of employment was unlawful. In view of the fact that reinstatement was no longer tenable, the arbitrator in February this year ordered ANZ to pay Nyarota US$90 921.

In opposing the claim by Nyarota for damages, ANZ advanced the argument that he was only a consultant, not an employee; that there was no written agreement for his employment; and that he was not even given any title during the alleged period of employment. So, where does the word “consultant” from? ANZ said Nyarota did not devote all his time to the company. Nyarota countered that he did not get the company vehicle that he had been promised neither were there any ANZ offices in town.

The arbitrator quite rightly established that the truth of the matter lay much more in favour of Nyarota’s version of the events. If ANZ subsequently changed their mind about having Nyarota, they should have done the honest and decent thing by settling with him fairly and transparently instead of trying to wriggle out of a situation largely of their own creation by shifting goalposts. If they discovered afterwards that Nyarota would not fit into their vision, they should have told him so openly rather than deny altogether that he was ever their employee. Labour laws recognise this issue of incompatibility as grounds for parting ways, but at a cost, which ANZ was apparently trying to avoid.

If the private media behaves like that, what then is the difference between them and those in the system they daily accuse of inherent injustices while they treat their employees shabbily? In such situations, there arises a credibility gap. People begin to see the gap between what a media house professedly stands for and what it actually does. Whatever it says, begins to sound hollow and hypocritical. What moral high ground can such media claim? Yes, the media must be above reproach because it positions itself as the monitor and conscience of society. Even if legally Nyarota was not their employee, did they not feel morally obliged to recompense him after making him relocate all the way from the US?

Keep Reading

It’s possible political pressure was applied behind the scenes to have Nyarota removed from the picture or else, but still they were obliged to do the right thing instead of disowning him. As it is, the status of employees who were with ANZ when it was shut down in 2003 is still to be addressed. If or when the matter goes to court, it is hoped that truthfulness, as highly treasured in journalism, will prevail.

This takes me back to an earlier episode when ANZ faced its biggest legal problem so far. In 2002, journalists working for Zimbabwe’s privately-owned newspapers took a deliberate decision to apply for accreditation in terms of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Aippa) and thereafter challenge the draconian legislation and embark on a programme of protest. Abel Mutsakani, then president of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Zimbabwe, and Nyarota, in his capacity as then chairman of the Zimbabwe National Editors’ Forum, said it was more prudent in the circumstances for journalists to accredit and then continue to challenge the law in courts.

Said Nyarota: “The editors of the private newspapers obviously do not support the legislation. They have so far been the major targets of Aippa, after all. But we realise that if we do not register, then we are giving Jonathan Moyo (then Information minister and architect of Aippa) victory on a plate.” There is a person who always wanted to make sure all loose ends were tied suddenly being accused of lying about the nature of his contract with ANZ.

“Our pens are our voice and we must, at all costs, not lose that voice,” concluded Nyarota.

The Financial Gazette, the Zimbabwe Independent and The Standard duly registered under protest. But Nyarota was pushed out by ANZ, the Daily News was not registered and the journalists were advised by the company legal secretary not to be accredited, resulting in the closure of the paper and arrest and prosecution of the journalists (including this writer). Moyo duly obliged by seeing to the closure of the Daily News, resulting in the loss of livelihoods for hundreds of families and deprivation of an alternative, vibrant voice in the media for Zimbabweans when they most needed it.

ANZ then approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Aippa — a reverse process, if it may be called that. Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku rightly stated in his well-founded judgment — one of his best to date — that ANZ had approached the court with “dirty hands” by not registering in the first place, while at the same time instructing the extremely biased Media and Information Commission chairman Tafataona Mahoso, who was one of the respondents, to recuse himself or step down from the case. The court did not throw out the matter, but pointed out that ANZ was as much to blame — if not more — for its closure as Aippa. Even if they were 200% confident that they would win the case, they should have registered as a tactical or strategic move, but they didn’t have this Plan B to fall back on. Yes, some of these boardroom decisions are not in the best interests of the newsroom. It took all of eight years for the paper to be back on the streets.

Now, to suggest that Nyarota lied about his employment status is dirty play, to say the least. The media must walk the talk.

ctutani@newsday.co.zw
Previous article
The middle: How to overcome frustration and avoid burnout
Next article
It’s not sabotage but poor economics!