Zimpapers Logo

Sikhumbuzo Moyo, [email protected]

LAST week there was a two-day media sensitisation workshop on Gukurahundi hearings reporting as the country moves towards the start of a programme for it to face its dark past.

Witnesses and victims will give testimonies during public hearings to be superintended by chiefs from Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South provinces. The hearings are expected to be rolled out early next month and will take almost a year.

The workshop held in Bulawayo was organised by the Office of the President and Cabinet in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs as well as the Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services.  Its major objective as spelt out by Information Ministry permanent secretary, Mr Nick Mangwana, was to confront the positives that the media can do towards the success of the emotive exercise.

Mr Mangwana implored the media to help the nation resolve the crisis which happened between 1982 and 1987 instead of being instigators of inflammatory news items that can derail the whole process.

He said the media has a critical role to play when a resolution or conflict of the past is being tackled.

“Yes, we know you have a double-edged sword, to either inflame it or help resolve it,” Mr Mangwana told members of various media houses that had been invited including chiefs from the two provinces.

The process of engagement started in 2019 when President Mnangagwa said there was a need for people to freely speak and confront the dark past of the nation and soon after that, the wheels of engagement kicked off.

For the media, what does freely speaking and confronting the dark past mean? Does it mean throwing away responsible reporting in the name of saying what they deem the truth, regardless of the effects of that truth?

Journalists must not ditch their professionalism and become propagandists in covering the Gukurahundi hearings, a position which was highlighted by Mr Mangwana.

 “We are not here to recruit you to be couriers of propaganda, no, so those who thought that they have been called by the Government and the chiefs so that they can be conveyors of propaganda, must just forget it. We are not taking away your editorial independence as the media but asking you to walk with us in a responsible manner,” said Mr Mangwana.

During the workshop, it was clear that the matter needs to be handled maturely so that as the media covers the hearings, before, during and even after, the reportage doesn’t help stoke emotions but instead becomes part of the mechanism towards full healing.

A debate ensued when the vice president of the Chiefs Council and workshop moderator Senator Chief Fortune Charumbira said journalists and security agents will not be allowed to attend submissions.

Chief Charumbira’s argument was that some of the submissions meant to protect the dignity of some of the victims as well as to make sure the submissions are presented without any fear. Those who were against this felt it was contrary to President Mnangagwa’s call to freely speak about the issue.

One journalist suggested that consent must be sought first from the witness or victim before publishing the story. The question will be, is it only about the concerned witness or victim? What if writing about the submissions as narrated by the consenting victim will bring terrible memories to some who may have suffered the same fate?

As alluded to by veteran Rwandan journalist and director of Radio Salus, Paul Mbaraga, journalists should weigh the impact of their publications on society in times of conflict, where truth becomes the first casualty. Mbaraga was one of the experts who spoke on the effects and role of the media in the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s.

Margret Jjuuko, an associate professor at the University of Rwanda’s School of Journalism and Communication said the role of media in the genocide was significant. She said the trend to publish stories without thinking of their impact is still valid.

“Many journalists have shifted to a point where they want to publish stories that sell, looking at how much they will get out of the story without minding more about who is affected or who is not affected. That is why you find many of them sensationalise issues instead of reporting for the good.”

She said in conflict times, it was necessary to apply the social responsibility principle while deciding and broadcasting stories.

“The words selected should not deteriorate the situation or put more fire in the conflict,” she added.

How the reporter frames the conflict can influence the audience in favor of one party, or one solution over another; it can intensify the conflict, or cool it down.

Hearings or public submissions may not be conflict as such but it’s as a result of the 1980s conflict, whose scars, physical or emotional, are still haunting some people and this needs handling in a very delicate manner as any carelessness, unnecessary excitement in reporting about the matter may plunge the country into chaos.

The nation is still reeling from the scars of Gukurahundi and its need for closure is more than needed now than ever, never mind the 1987 Unity Accord which ended the military operations in the affected regions.

Writing in his weekly column in The Sunday Mail, Zanu-PF secretary general Dr Obert Mpofu said old mistakes can be corrected by confronting such issues with an open mind and pure intentions, adding that history should not be a burden that prevents people from moving forward and developing a nation.

“Sins and mistakes of old must always be confronted as this is a critical ingredient  of nation-building. For years Zimbabwe has limped on with the Gukurahundi issue acting like a grain of sand inside one’s shoe. For a very long time it had become very difficult if not impossible to talk about this issue with clarity,” noted Dr Mpofu.

Care and caution needs to be embraced by the media as it helps the nation confront its dark past. This reportage must not be carried out by any person who sits in the newsroom and writes stories. Media houses must ensure capacitation of its foot soldiers through conflict reporting capacitation workshops.

Attention needs to be taken by news editors on personnel that will be deployed to the hearings. Do they understand the subject, the local language, and culture among other delicate, key issues that may invoke emotions in the communities in particular and witnesses or victims in general?

With the advent of online news outlets, most of whom thrive on sensationalisation of stories, without consideration of the grave effects of such towards a nation’s peace, there is a real danger of waywardness in covering the hearings. Some will be doing it for their own selfish gains and at the instigation of their foreign handlers who never want to see closure of the Gukurahundi issue.

Some media outlets regard the unsolved matter as their only source of survival and relevance because putting the matter to bed will also extinguish oxygen from them; they won’t have any content to please their masters.

The Gukurahundi issue however needs to bring the whole Zimbabwean media industry together due to its emotive and delicate nature.

It is about the country, not individual newsrooms.