Event Summary
On 28 October 2025, a Harare court has denied journalist Faith Zaba’s application of alteration of bail conditions, to enable her access to her passport to travel for international media leadership events, raising alarm over judicial overreach and shrinking freedom of expression, assembly and association. The ruling, delivered by Magistrate Tapiwa Kuhudzai, prevents Zaba—editor of the Zimbabwe Independent—from attending the Women in News Guild Gathering and Asia Media Leaders’ Summit in Singapore, where she was invited as one of 19 global women leaders. The State opposed her request, citing flight risk concerns, and the magistrate ruled that permitting travel was “not in the interest of justice.” Rights advocates argue this decision infringes on Zaba’s constitutional rights to freedom of movement and professional development, signaling judicial complicity in restricting civic space. The ruling undermines Zimbabwe’s commitment to gender equality and media freedom, creating a chilling effect on journalists’ participation in global platforms. As noted by Amnesty International, Zaba’s case highlights a pressing need for reform in Zimbabwe’s legislative landscape to safeguard freedom of expression. This comes amid a growing list of activists, journalists, and dissenting voices under siege in Zimbabwe, reinforcing fears of an increasingly hostile environment for civil society. Laws such as the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and the Cyber and Data Protection Act [Chapter 12:07] have been increasingly weaponised against journalists, framing critical reporting as criminal activity.
Zaba’s legal ordeal began on 1 July 2025, when she was charged with “undermining or insulting the authority of the President” after publishing a satirical column titled When We Become a Mafia State on 27 June. Authorities claimed her commentary fostered hostility toward President Mnangagwa’s administration. The case drew condemnation from the Committee to Protect Journalists, which warned it reflects state fragility and misuse of resources to silence dissent. This court ruling deepens the erosion of an enabling environment for civil society, reinforcing patterns of judicial overreach and state intolerance of critical voices.