An Analysis of the Legislative Protection for Journalists and Lawyers Under Zimbabwe’s Interception of Communications Act

Abstract

This paper provides a legal analysis that interrogates the Information Communication Act (ICA) in Zimbabwe. Its purpose is to examine the extent to which the ICA protects journalists and lawyers privileges, critical constituencies in any democratic state. The ICA, passed in 2007, has remained a heavily contested legislation in the country. On the one hand, it is understood to be security minded legislation, yet, other critics have argued that it interferes with the journalist’s source privilege, and lawyer–client confidentiality. In this paper, we are concerned about whether the Act provides adequate safeguards where the subject of surveillance is a practising journalist or lawyer. Thus we ask; to what extent does the ICA provides adequate legal safeguards to lawyers and journalists? Through a qualitative textual analysis of the law, the paper determines the constitutional implications of the main provisions of the Act on whether they reflect constitutional norms that safeguard the legal privileges accorded to the professions. We note that the ICA does not provide adequate safeguards for the protection of lawyers and journalists. We, therefore, argue that ICA is a weaponized legislation meant to emasculate these two communities of practice. As such, we call for the Act’s alignment with the current broadened constitutional provisions. South Africa’s Constitutional Court has invalidated unconstitutional provisions within its surveillance and interception laws, likewise identical provisions within its neighbouring state, Zimbabwe should follow the same. Both countries share common historical, political and economic ties.